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
The problem is, when one side insists on presenting "alternative facts" (that is, convenient fabrications) as if they were true, then that side is more likely to be consistently wrong. In which case, they need to be held accountable...even if that does lead them to feel that the media is biased against them. As the old saying goes, "Everybody's entitled to their own opinion...but nobody's entitled to their own facts."
The election coverage was inaccurate on several levels. That's why so many of you were shocked (one in particular almost lost it with a near breakdown on the old thread - it was pathetic to read) on election night.
Regarding 'alternative facts': Spicer called out the ABC reporter (can't remember his name) on Monday and reiterated again (with explanation) what he said about it being the most watched inauguration (which I believe it was, once all media are included - of course it would be given all the digital access available globally these days). He asked the reporter whether he disagreed - no answer from the reporter (he should have agreed if he was informed and was being fair). Spicer also acknowledged that the transit numbers that he got on Saturday were inaccurate and explained where it came from.
I've been around long enough and read enough over the years to know when something is being spun. I used to be a financial auditor, so part of it comes with training. I try to get my information from as many sources as possible to strip out bias, but ultimately, if I can't explain my position/view, then I don't hold one.
bondjames & Timmer can explain this one away that their beloved Leader has just passed, this isn't overseas this is domestic, so relieved I'm not an American, your human rights record is going right down the toilet.
The pictures used to show the difference were from different times of the day. The picture from 2009 was taken at the end of the event when the number was at its highest. The picture from this year was from the start of the event when the number was at its lowest.
That is how you put a spin on it, and exaggerate the difference.
The current administration is noted for being brash, and aggressive, it’s a style that won the election, and to be sure some people don’t like an ‘in your face’ confrontational leader. Politics is a very “dirty” business. Debate coordinators slipping the questions to a candidate before the debate to help them prepare prior to the start of the debate, isn’t exactly impartial neutrality. Words like “Progressive” or “Democratic” or “Conservative” or “Socialist” or “Communist” don’t really reflect the political action, or the actual effects those actions on the populations under those government policies.
As long as the United States has a Supreme Court, and a Congress no President will be a dictator, though there is no doubt that some or perhaps all would like to have that kind of personal power.
Give me more guff on this and I'll sic Higgins on you (Thunderpussy will get that).
The three Muslim-majority countries where Trump has business interests.
The ban at present is targeted at those countries which were identified in a Feb 2016 (note: before Mr. Trump was elected) law which identified them as 'countries of concern' when it comes to granting visa applications. The recently issued Executive Order doesn't in fact mention these 7 countries. Rather, it refers to the existing section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) where these particular countries are specifically mentioned.
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/
I read the full text of the ban. It gives Homeland Security a limited time to determine if these (and other) countries provide sufficient information to allow so called 'extreme vetting' of applicants for visas. Basically, it is believed that they don't currently meet the minimum information standards. They must, or the ban won't be lifted.
In addition, the four month refugee ban allows the State Department to review the application & screening procedure. In order for refugees to be admitted on the basis of 'religious persecution', they must show that they are from a 'minority religion' in the country in question. Syrians are banned indefinitely due to inadequate vetting procedures in that war torn country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0
Finally, the executive order asks State, Homeland, National Intelligence and the FBI to develop and implement new stringent immigration procedures, which will include conducting interviews with applicants. Questions will be designed to determine if a candidate bears hostile attitudes towards the US, including bigotry or hatred towards people based on gender or sexual orientation. Other questions will attempt to determine if they have Wahhabi or Salafist (this is the so called 'radical Islamic') inclinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
The Hyde Amendment currently bans federal funding for abortion in the US. It makes exceptions for women who become pregnant through rape or incest, or whose lives would be endangered by the pregnancy — but not for women who have any other maternal health issues or fetal abnormalities. It has been passed as a budget rider every year since 1976 (i.e. there has been no federal funding for abortions except in the above exceptional instances). The Republican action a few days back (via HR7) codifies this as permanent law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
https://aclj.org/pro-life/us-house-passes-no-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion-act-in-bipartisan-vote
My personal views on abortion are noted in a post on the previous page. I will not repeat them here.
Regarding Inauguration crowd sizes: I think it's clear to all reasonable people that the 'in person' crowd was not as large this year as it was 8 years ago. However, it's rarely mentioned that the security screening mechanisms in place this year were far more stringent, and there were threats of protests etc. Ultimately, this probably was the most watched Inauguration, once 'in person' and all other 'media' are included.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/15/509721596/security-will-be-massive-at-trumps-inauguration
staff.I hope they get bonus for working on weekend.
I read today in the National Post btw, that the Churchill bust has been restored to the White House.
How To Ruin Foreign Relations In One Week
I'm sure it will be a bestseller. 8-|
Bottom line is that both sides are as dishonest as they accuse the other side of being.
As I recall they are called facts and alternative facts by the current folks living in the White House.
:))
I have a feeling he is mainly posting to serve his own ego, so for him to admit anything is very unlikely. Must be so nice to be the only one who really understands what is going on. Not like us who are blinded by biased media...
You two clowns are big men aren't you. Talking about @bondjames in the third person.
A couple of little bully babies reinforcing each others "bravery"
Somehow I think @bondjames sees the world a little differently than you two drama clowns.
I know its terrible that everyone doesn't march to your oh so enlightened world view.
Differing opinions are such a bitch, especially when one is so sure of one's own utter superiority. Sigh
@dimi I do believe there is a bedwetters thread where issall & jobo can stroke each other and mock other members.
If this thread is going to be a second bedwettting thread, maybe we can just close it because we only really need the one don't we?
Clearly it drives them batty that @bondjames won't give them the time of day, but why would he?
They dish hyperbole and even make assumptions that @bondjames must suddenly think he's all wrong. Must be! What else. I jobo- mensa member showed him alright.
High school much? Sandbox maybe.
@issial, I realize is just losing his poop but
@jobo , and I do mean this in the nicest, kindest, gentlest, warmest, friendliest, sensitive way, is just an idiot.
I've flagged both posts on grounds of baiting and bullying another member. I could go on, but that's enough reason there I think.
Yes Miss Universe, I agree, they really are a couple of wanks.
Edit: some inane smilies for added juvenile effect :)) 8-} :O)
President Trump issued a statement on the Executive Orders today, which I'm including below. It pretty much confirms what I thought was the case after I read the full text of the Order last night. This is temporary, and is to be in effect until vetting procedures and information provision is upgraded. It will not be lifted until such new security provisions are in place:
Here is a link to some discussion about whether the Obama Administration had a similar policy in place at one time. The Bush Administration certainly did after 9/11:
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/
I agree with @Gustav_Graves that the Order was poorly implemented, particularly with respect to folks with green cards and dual citizenship. However, I don't believe it contravenes Geneva Conventions, nor do I believe it is unconstitutional. Homeland Security was in fact involved in drafting this order, as far as I'm aware. At least, General Kelly was consulted.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation
There are challenges underway, and we'll see how it plays out.
It should be quite obvious to anyone why they aren't on any list. Obvious also why, despite their county's implicit involvement in the 9/11 attacks and funding global jihadism, both Democrats and Republicans stay mum. You'll certainly find bipartisan cooperation on that one, including their name being blanked out in the 9/11 Commission Report.
I have already explained where that list of 7 countries comes from. It is a list of high threat countries as identified by Congress & the Obama Administration. Reince Priebus indicated that more countries could be added to the list including Saudi Arabia. Don't bet on it.
I understand that you see him as a possible global Equalizer, but he's another fuc*ing puppet. He has to be sought out to be pulled back to work because he escapes to watch TV & tweet... he will blow his cork soon, and none of us (including the GOPussygrabbers) wants to see it happen. Pence is a bonefide as*hole, but he's not nitroglycerin. I do not welcome his Presidency but I do expect it soon. It will be a quantum of solace after Trump, and a straight up fight for Democracy vs. this Nazi bulls*it.
Or, am I too hopeful here......?
:-?
The only way to change the direction of ingrained bureaucracies (Nato, IMF, Government in general) is via disruption. This change is necessary in my view, and it is inevitable given America's current fiscal position, declining relative global position as world hegemon, and increasing social costs as baby boomers age.
Bottom line: He may be a puppet (perhaps they all are or become so), but he is still far more interesting in my view than the alternative that was put forward by the Democrats last year, or the presumptive Republican (i.e. Bush, who I've always believed was initially 'ordained' by the 'Davos lot' to win in the customary 8 year passing of the baton between parties). Cruz and Trump were the surprise disruptors, just like Sanders was on the left.
Much of this is theatre anyway. The President's antics are a distraction to keep the masses preoccupied with their little bickering and twittering. The press are willingly complicit in keeping the farce that is American domestic politics alive while the real business takes place.
I don't have an opinion either way on VP Pence. He's a bit too conservative for my tastes, but seems decent enough.
:))
I made a mistake in visiting this thread.
I had exactly the same thought when I heard the news. Why not Saudi Arabia when it's proven they're the main monetary support of yihaddism? Well, you made it clear: just business as usual.
And I'm not talking about the USA alone, here, I'm talking about all the countries that suffer this 21st century menace.
And I think this will be my one and only intervention in this post: I'm a leftist, critical of the progressive "americanization" of the European left (too many self-righteous SJWs instead of actual fighting for the rights of the workers and the cultural minorities), so I admit I'm very biased and, besides, I would need a bigger input on American culture to have a neutral opinion.