It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But - going after Hilary and HER evil doings. The same applies for our Merkel. The same evil working against everything they were sworn into. And Germany is always at the US side. So everything I say about Americans and Clinton applies for us as well. The NATO is Germany as much as the US.
About the health issues - I don't believe, this is fake and IF so, it will see the light of the day. We just wait.
..and what sanchairs says is true as well. I watched the latest Purge film and it is so close to reality, too scary. Trump is running a campaign on hate & violence and the good ol' boys are buying into it, Clinton is running a campaign to appeal to her financial backers not the people. Whoever wins will service the needs of the banks and the people who backed their campaigns. The democratic process in the US is a joke...
As so often, you have the choice between two evils, one more dangerous the the other. We will find out, who is who. Same here, I haven't voted in ages. Its another way to vote, I know, vbut I could never bring myself to vote for any of these clowns here.
Hillary is aware of where she stands in the polls in the battleground states. The ads has been bought and she can be selective on her appearances/ Let Trump thrash about in the kiddie's end of the pool, she continues to lap him.
@Sanchairs, @Germanlady: You are correct. The democratic process in the US is indeed a media driven joke. People vote, yes, but most (on both sides) are ill informed. There is normally no substantive discussion or debate on the issues and character traditionally matters more. The real winners traditionally have been the money men, including the media, and they essentially know the result ahead of time and drive it to its expected conclusion.
Trump and Sanders are wild cards. Black Swan events. Unexpected. Despite this, the media and their corporate backers found a way to profit from it as well. Sanders could not be manipulated / controlled which is why he was a real threat. Trump definitely can be, but he hasn't put his cards on the table yet. If he starts to play ball with those who matter (not the congressman and senators who are about to lose their power and influence, but rather, their backers) then he's got this election in the bag and they will turn on Hillary.
Regarding the media: The post convention Trump slump was a ratings play. The comeback in the next month (and it's coming, make no mistake) will also be a ratings play. The debates will be a ratings play. Then the final stretch will be ratings play. All the while those who have the inside track will profit from it.
Trump's cards are that he has passion on his side, he is speaking about issues that few politicians touch on and in direct ways, and he is a natural provocateur - which is a ratings magnet and a people draw. He has to balance that with establishment placation. If he does, game over - but the media will keep us on edge until election day.
I don't see a Clinton dynasty happening. The Bush one is too fresh in everyone's minds.
I wasn't quibbling with your grammar, I was disputing the content of what you said. Yes, Trump is waging a campaign based on racial & religious intolerance. Clinton is not. So: campaign, singular. Not plural.
Neither campaign is running against the Federal Reserve (unless you're rooting for Trump to just pull the entire American system down, which he hasn't promised to do yet) so I don't see why that particular issue is in your postings.
And for the several of you who have taken to calling the American system a joke: where's your punchline? I ain't laughing yet. At least the anti-Trump forces have managed to eke a few laughs out of this dismal situation...
As before, apologies if you feel I'll altered your intent by deleting the stuff I'm not bothering to respond to. Just trying to keep this clear....
@Germanlady: "She said, you don't understand what I said; I said No-No-No, you're wrong."
If Trump is elected, NATO won't be the US anymore. As far as he's concerned, you can have it all yourself.
As above, if this election is a joke, I ain't laughing yet. When do you get to the funny stuff? Even @FLeiter can do that...
Once again, a choice between the lesser of two evils? Well, maybe this election isn't so different after all! Vote for Cthulu, why choose the lesser evil? --But seriously, I've been urging folks who can't stomach either Hillary or Trump to vote for Libertarian or Green Party candidates. How else are we ever going to break the hold the 2 party system has on the American political process?
RE: Hillary's health -- I knew we could agree on something!
Once again, I ain't laughing. Here's a straight line for you: If this election is pre-determined then why are you spending so much time here?
And you're not paying attention to the Republican narrative: a Hillary Presidency would just be a continuation of Obama's Presidency. (Can't say I think that would be a bad thing, really, but I'm not one of the racist yahoos the Republicans have been counting on for the past few decades.)
If you ask, WHAT it is, all of us can do to change things - try to see behind those curtains, QUESTION everything you see and hear by media in word or speech and INFORM yourself . (You can find what I talk about in the net)
...and yes, this is true, too, for reports about her health. Could be fake after all. We NEVER know, what bs they give us and truth and honesty is not on the plate, that's for sure.
This election, as I mentioned, is different. There is an 'outsider' in the mix. One who is pushing a populist narrative. It's a popular one. The question is, does he want to win or is he only trying to be an agitator for branding purposes? Will he appease the powers? Accommodate them? This is the larger question. We don't have the answer yet, and we will know over the next 80 odd days (depending on how the narrative is spun) which way he is leaning.
This is Trump's election to lose with the people. He is the one on the air. He has the passion. The change narrative. The anti-war narrative (except for ISIS). The anti-trade narrative. The anti-crime narrative. He also has the charisma (who is talking about Hillary these days?). He is losing the social narrative however. He was always going to lose that. 'The Donald' (his caricature which he uses for maximum media effect) was always perceived that way, and he plays into it.
This is Hillary's election to lose with the powers that be. She has the MIC on her side. She has the corporates on her side (she's pro-TPP despite what she's saying). She's losing the change narrative however, and that's a powerful one to lose. She's also terribly uncharismatic and doesn't appear able to connect with anyone outside of her faithful. The powers are worried about that. This is why all the heavy hitters are coming out in force coalescing around her. Will it be enough? I don't know. Ultimately, nobody at the top wants a president who can't capture the people's attention. One who is painted as an insider and who fits that narrative to a 'T'. Who will be her bogey man if she beats Trump? Putin?
At the end of the day, all Trump has to do is show he can 'play ball' with the elite. If he can, he will win and they will let him continue with his populist rant, even when in power. He still hasn't done that. This is what is unnerving everyone. He's still playing 'The Art of the Deal' with the folks that really run the show.
I'm not entirely sure that it's just a Republican narrative that her tenure would be an extension of Obama's. She's been pretty clear in her campaign about wanting to continue what he's done in office and build on it, so there is at least a decent foundation upon which the Republicans can build that case.
The problem that I think that the sane wing of the Republican party has with Obama has been the increase in the national debt and a seeming indifference towards putting in real work to pare that down. And, to be fair to Obama, it's not all his doing. A good portion of the blame lies with his predecessor as well, as it's a problem that both sides have done their fair share of contributing towards.
Still, I don't think that nearly enough has been done and it's about time for someone to start to pull back in the other direction. It'll probably have to be a Republican, in my view, simply because the Democratic philosophy generally lends itself to more spending due to the things that they want to do in terms of policy (such as a good portion of what Sanders was proposing).
The problem is that the Republican leadership can't get that argument to take a foothold where actual substantive debate can be had because there's a segment of the population that aligns themselves with the Republicans, now led by the man with the best words, that can't contain their racism and bigotry, and they draw the attention away from what could be a substantive debate. If both sides could work from a position where the other side is not the devil, then progress could be made. The problem lies in the extremists on both sides, with more focus on the extremists on the right in this current climate, because they force the attention to be put on their disgusting prejudices rather than on where it should be, which would be as part of a substantive debate between responsible members of both parties.
Now tell me please what you expect from a Trump-presidency then? Tell me if Putin will become the big one-and-only supporter of democracy and how he will do that?
You only ask for change, yet you can not see past that 'curtain of change'.
What kind of reason is that? The US is bankrupt since a long time ago. Seems like a few presidents have been unqualified before.
I wrote, what I see as the only way for a change and that is INFORM YOURSELF beyond that curtain. Its possible. What is so hard to understand about that, Gustav? But you have to do it yourself, because getting it from the mouth of others doesn't do the trick. I believe, the one important truth these days is, that there IS NO truth given to us on the silver plate and hence, we have to question everything. THAT is the way.
Again, a lot of observations. Maybe true observations. But, again as we all know now from @BondJames, he lacks a vision, he lacks an ethical narrative, he doesn't go into the details of Trump's hollow 'solutions', he keeps failing to mention how he would like to see democracies improved then.
@BondJames is a loyal Trump supporter, Paul Manafort-style, who has the verbally gifted vocabulary of such people, but who in essence stay pretty hollow on message when it comes to real solutions to the biggest problems our nations experience. @BondJames is quite the supporter of 'change' messages without the solutions, and when one addresses that to him he becomes angry.
As opposed to @BondJames though, I want to address Trump's so called 'Trumponomics', his economical plans and solutions on how to 'Make America Great Again'.
His promises are a kind of ill-thought through-cross between classical supply side economics and tax cutting Reaganomics. Trump proposes a new 10% (!!!) rate for repatriated profits, which he hopes will both raise significant amounts of revenue and boost investment.
But this is where Trump's plans started to look dangerous. Similar policies have been tried in the past, with virtually no effect on tax revenues, jobs or investment.
What is more, American companies are already sitting on vast piles of cash held in the US, but still they are not investing. This would powerfully suggest that failure to invest has very little to do with tax policy......and Trump's proposed reform of lowering taxes.
The so-called “Laffer Curve” (Is there anyone in this topic who...actually addresses this curve?) says that there is an optimum rate of tax which maximises revenues. Trump’s proposals almost certainly stray a country mile beyond it.
Trump's vague and extravagant economic plans are in many ways quite dangerous. Not so long ago, he claimed that he could eliminate the national debt – yes, the national debt, not just the deficit, which is coming back into balance anyway – within two terms.
Obviously, many people think this problem has to be tackled yes. Same with me. But there is not a snowball’s chance in Hades of him paying off the US’s $19 trillion of debt within eight years. Perhaps he means he’s going to default, for that’s the only way he’ll eliminate it?? Sounds all nice for those people who don't educate themselves, but one question that Trumpites should ask is this: "What happens...uhhh....if you do that Donald?". Well, what about a global crisis, which draws many comparisons with the 1930's?
And lastly, according to the respected Tax Policy Centre think tank, Trump’s tax plans would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over the first decade, ignoring any effect on growth or extra interest costs. People like @BondJames don't address that. They crawl around that with almost slimy vocabulary.
Unless accompanied by very large spending cuts – infact Trump in his bid to be all things to all men has promised to keep existing social programmes intact and like Clinton, spend a lot more on infrastructure – they would add around 80% of GDP to the national debt over the next twenty years. 80% !!! When Clinton's economic plans are attacked for being a sham, then 'Trumponomics' are nothing short of bigger sham and complete insane bullshit. Lots of easy talk that reassures the 'simple minds', but no solutions.
I wasn't finished with my post yet. If people want to discuss real contents, real solutions, and some realistic truths, then some people in here should admit their true beliefs a bit more and back it up with some better arguments.
I spent quite a bit of time in investigating Trump's economical agenda for if he becomes president. You might call them attacks, but I call them reminders to everyone in here who keep attacking without addressing some solutions, plans and ideas certain presidential candidates have. So I don't think I'm that much in attack mode, I merely confront people with what they support.
And @Creasy47? In all honesty, @BondJames will ignore me, so no harm will be done. He's not a villain or a bad person. But he is immensely flawed with his arguments. They touch feelings, they are empathic to those who suffer, but they never address real solutions or don't give some insight in the complexity of all this. I find that a bit dangerous.
All year, every year. All day & all of the night.
Yet you can at times also warn others. Instead of staying silent on how the discussion progresses. There's never a remark from you or any other moderator about that.
A message like this for instance:
"Please guys, try to focus a bit more on the contents, the issues, the solutions...and have nice discussion about that".
You moderators are in part responsible for what's happening in here too. Just like me. And I tried to make things more positive with a voting poll, which was so bluntly closed. It could have forced certain people in here to think about the issues, instead of attacking:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/16439/the-big-us-elections-poll-voting-closes-november-7th-6-00-pm-gmt#latest
I apoligize for some of my words. But I posted more than just that sentence.
Second, feel free to scan my comments via my profile, where I step in to get things back on track in numerous threads; hell, I stepped in on the 'SP vs. the field' thread the other day for almost the exact same reason, which was a situation that had nothing to do with you, so I'm not sure why you feel that I'm singling you out.
Third, since this thread has gone on for 100+ pages, and certain members aren't "here to think about the issues, instead of attacking" (as you say), then do you truly believe a POLL, of all things, would've corrected that issue? I doubt it.
Fourth, I don't take part in this thread, so I'm not viewing every word of every sentence of every post from every member, but I do manage to see a good bit; feel free to direct me to some personal attacks I've overlooked, and I'll gladly step in to resolve things. However, unless I've missed it, I haven't seen any in a few pages, aside from you going out of your way to send a few personal comments to @bondjames, even though he's already agreed to ignore you and move on; thus, why you feel the need to get personal at all is beyond me.
Finally, please don't disrespect the moderating team as a whole; we do a lot of work to keep things as tidy and welcoming as possible. The reason this discussion is taking place has nothing to do with the moderating team whatsoever, so no need to point fingers and say we're running it off the rails because...why? People don't reply to your posts the way you want them to? I can't help that.
Well, first of all, don't say that this is all my mistake. If a moderator says to me that my posts are....
.....then don't brush it off like a 'joke'. It's offensive too. So how do you expect me to respect certain moderators, if I feel that quite a few moderators would rather see me leave this forum forever? Tell me please.
You know I have asked you several times to step in and resolve this......but so far I never received a reply, nor a 'sorry' from that particular moderator. For all the criticism we have off Hillary Clinton......well, that's a bit Clinton-esque thing to do no?
And it's not only that, when moderators close topics that's fine. But sometimes, I think moderators close topics too bluntly, leaving out empathy for the hard work some posters in here are doing.
I have mentioned all this several times, but nothing changes from my perspective. It's like the pot calling the kettle black really.
No, in here
Pretty much any time a thread is closed, it's because it's either unnecessary or a duplicate, and that thread in question is always linked to an already existing one, where your work could be posted. Thus, if you're still upset about your poll being closed, why not post it here? There isn't a more fitting place for a presidential poll than a presidential thread, wouldn't you say?
Totally agree here, getting them to admit their mistake is like trying to draw water from a stone.
Barack Obama: Added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush by the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
FY 2015 - $327 billion
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase in the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.
Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase in the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.