So, One Device for One Email Account. I Don't Know about Madame, but One Device can have 2 Email Accounts. One Device can be used for a Thousand Email Accounts.

So, Convenience Convenience? When Classified Emails needed to Be Received and Sent, what Underling or Lings, had to Be Near Her, 24/7 365 for FOUR WHOLE YEARS, to Hand Madame, their Device, to Accomplish Classified Communications.

What if Underling or Lings, dropped their Device-used for Classified Comm with Madame-into the toilet, and said Communique, now, could not be delivered, at this Moment. Or Handbag, Briefcase, or Other, was Stolen? Or Underling or Lings could Trip and Fall on their device and render 'it' useless for this Classified Comm. Many Scenarios can be Realized.

Convenience? To Have Underling or Lings, 24/7 365 for FOUR YEARS, Constantly Available to Hand Madame, their Device for Classified Comm?

Or, was A Secure Phone, always used during this 24/7 365 Period of Four Years to Receive and Send Classified Comm? Again, Convenience?

I'd Severely Dislike having to be available 24/7 365 for FOUR YEARS, so Madame, would have A Device To Use for Classified Comm. It Would Be Inconvenient, to Say The Least.

'Is' A Secure Phone Always Conveniently Available for use, 24/7 365 for FOUR YEARS?

Minions and Wonks say Question of Emails has been Answered.

Has The Above, Questions of Classified Comms been answered?

Nope.

And, what 'bout Dat Famous 3AM Call, so Ad Nauseamly beat into Public's Head during '08 Campaign? WAKE THE UNDERLING!, No Problemo. 'It's' Only Classified, 'it' can wait till I've Had My Coffee.

Yep

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Hi, Mr. Stone Head on remote Easter Island.

Did we perhaps meet before?

Some time ago, I was able to learn that running a home on everything from 50 or 60 Hz, or maybe 220 through 240 volts did not matter too much.

If it runs on 120 volts instead, things may perhaps short circuit, because they were built another place than where they are being used.

You know, Ms. Famous does not use AOL or Yahoo! Messenger when it comes to telling about her wardrobe or a possible change there. If I happen to be an eskimo, perhaps a purchase of a rifle for hunting gave me the knowledge that Ms. Famous perhaps is having a mobile phone coming with SMS.

Like yourself, I am not supposed to be calling anyone, despite days coming and going.

Because technology is sometimes meant to be used, it also needs to be administered or handled properly.

Meaning that it needs to be maintained.

At least being able to surf the web with what I have makes me able to read what you are saying.

Anything more, perhaps? Or does it becomes only a waste of yet another day?

Bummer!

Can anyone say whitewater?

---

Yes, apparently because I was either dumb or had a bad day.

Apparently I had set the voice cancellation option in my sound player.

Therefore, rather make a search on Predator rather than Robocop.

Here it is for you (great one).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqdGV4dbUeQ

Anyway, is it about a poor performance, or is it about a time gone by?

Meaning journalistics and correspondence (non-US).

Hi, there - have a break, will you.

Apparently you are not needed anymore.

Talking of political convenience, I am surprised no one has bought this up:

Obama denounces Republican letter on Iran nuclear talks

Is it because the letter is such an act of insanity that there isn't much to say?

Can some of you Republican Obama haters explain to me why you think its ok to throw your country under the bus just to get one over a President you don't like? Or do you think maybe the Republicans really did lose the plot a bit here?

I would love to hear the justification for this...because I simply cannot get my head around it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Talking of political convenience, I am surprised no one has bought this up:

Obama denounces Republican letter on Iran nuclear talks

Is it because the letter is such an act of insanity that there isn't much to say?

Can some of you Republican Obama haters explain to me why you think its ok to throw your country under the bus just to get one over a President you don't like? Or do you think maybe the Republicans really did lose the plot a bit here?

I would love to hear the justification for this...because I simply cannot get my head around it.

Same as The Democrats have done to Republican Presidents.

So?

You are claiming tit for tat? That's the excuse?

How mature. The rest of the world feels so safe with all these "adults" in charge.

EDIT: I can't find any examples of anyone trying to directly undermine a President and sabotage a negotiation this way.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Talking of political convenience, I am surprised no one has bought this up:

Obama denounces Republican letter on Iran nuclear talks

Is it because the letter is such an act of insanity that there isn't much to say?

Can some of you Republican Obama haters explain to me why you think its ok to throw your country under the bus just to get one over a President you don't like? Or do you think maybe the Republicans really did lose the plot a bit here?

I would love to hear the justification for this...because I simply cannot get my head around it.

Same as The Democrats have done to Republican Presidents.

So?

You are claiming tit for tat? That's the excuse?

How mature. The rest of the world feels so safe with all these "adults" in charge.

Oh come on. Silly, silly, silly outrage.

This is how it works.

The Democrat Secretary of State did the same as Senator.

If the Republicans are...

Then Kerry should also be... And therefore should have never been made Secretary of State by Obama.

Correct?

Or, to put it another way:

If it is OK for Obama's man, then it is OK for... Of course.

Sorry you don't understand.

Can you cite an example where a democrat has directly interfered to derail a republican's delicate negotiation, that if if does fail could result in a war?

The stakes are pretty high here. Was it worth getting one over Obama while making America look weak and at war with itself?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I would love to hear the justification for this...because I simply cannot get my head around it.

https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm
Advice and Consent or can we find an issue?

---

I would love to hear the justification for this...because I simply cannot get my head around it.

https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm
Advice and Consent or can we find an issue?

So it is an internal issue and should remain that way.

---

Reality Internet Personality

'I am Not A Criminal' versus CONvEnience of The Elitist. 18 and 1/2 minutes of Missing Recording versus Millions of 'Deleted' 'Yoga' References. 'It's' GOoD to have a 'PrivatE' 'Server'.

Madame Yoga for PrEz in '16.

'Stretch 'it', Stretch 'it' REal GOoD.

YEp

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Talking of political convenience, I am surprised no one has bought this up:

Obama denounces Republican letter on Iran nuclear talks

Is it because the letter is such an act of insanity that there isn't much to say?

Can some of you Republican Obama haters explain to me why you think its ok to throw your country under the bus just to get one over a President you don't like? Or do you think maybe the Republicans really did lose the plot a bit here?

I would love to hear the justification for this...because I simply cannot get my head around it.

I am not a Republican, but here goes:

Maybe because the letter from the Republicans in the Senate was correct.

From the article you linked:

The document, signed by all but seven of the Republican Senate majority, suggests that the Iranian leadership does not understand America’s constitutional complexities and warns that any agreement signed with the Obama administration could be overturned “with the stroke of a pen” by the president’s successor.

That much is true. Completely.

Any sort of 'executive agreement' that Obama (and his underlings) could negotiate would not be binding. Not binding on the Congress or the Judiciary. Not even binding on the President, not even on the *current* President.

For an international agreement to be binding, it must be a treaty. In the USA, treaties are not valid, even IF the President signs it, unless and until the US Senate ratifies it. In The USA, ultimate authority in foreign policy does NOT rest with the President, but with the Senate.

It is not the Republicans that are throwing the country under the bus, but Obama himself.

In 2008 Obama was elected President alongside a House and Senate controlled by Obama's party (the Democrats). Other than the disaster of the ACA, he didn't get much done.

Dissatisfied with the results, the Will of the People, expressed at the ballot box, gave the Republicans control of the House in the 2010 Election.

In 2012, Obama was re-elected President, with a Republican House and a Democrat Senate. The Will of the People, expressed at the ballot box, was for the status quo.

Dissatisfied with the results, the Will of the People, expressed at the ballot box, gave the Republicans control of the Senate as well in the 2014 Election.

Obama then decides, rather than having to work WITH the Republican Legislative branch, and compromise to get some few important laws passed that everyone might be able to live with, that he (Obama) was going to make laws himself by Executive Order and totally bypass Congress -- an unconstitutional process if ever there was one. This idea of his (Obama's) is currently winding its way through the courts, but will be unlikely to finish at the US Supreme Court by the time that Obama leaves office in early 2017.

Rather than keeping the people that will eventually have to APPROVE the negotiation informed and maybe asking them for some input as to which way to go, he has totally shut them out.

Obama is all bu++hurt because he can't get everything he wants legislatively passed because the Republicans control Congress. But then Obama couldn't get everything he wanted passed when the Democrats controlled Congress (2009-2010).

Nope, sorry. It is not the Republicans throwing the country under the bus, it is Obama. Even some of his fellow Democrats are looking at him funny.

Mind you, the Republicans are not usually much, if any, better. But in this one specific case, they are right, and Obama isn't.

The USA, no the entire WORLD, needs for Obama to get over his bu++hurt tantrum, and to start working WITH the Congress that the People Elected at the ballot box.

I Will Be Prez. I Will Be P Prez. I I will ah, be, ah pp Prez. I WILL BE PREZ!

Madame Yoga WILL BE THE NEXT M F in PREZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Madame Yoga, Oh Madame Yoga, you've Stretched your Cred to the Max. Oh Madame Yoga, Madame Yogo, we cannot Bend to your will anymore. Madame, Oh Madame, America has been taken to the Mat. Breathe in, Breathe out Madame Yoga and open the Server Room Door. Let the Bits flow out Madame Madame Yoga. Let US see The Truth of where you are Truly At.

Hell, Madame Yoga, you might Cry Again, as in '08, and We, The People, May Again, be moved in Your Direction.

Nope.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

It is beginning to look like all the front runners for both parties will be sharing some quality time in a communal living situation by the time the election rolls around. But hey, that is the result of party politics.

---

Its to bad the Supreme Court could'nt expedite the ruling on Obama using executive orders.
The executive branch needs a big splap down. And we the people need to slap down the jerks we elect to Congress and the Senate.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Since the next president of the USA will likely be a Democrat
any deal that the Obama administration makes with Iran will last.
Republicans really should stop acting like children, or old men with IMS.

Irritable Male Syndrome.

Republicans stop acting like children? You are implying that the Republicans should 'work with' Obama...

Why?

Congress should 'work with' the President... LOL

I don't think you understand the power structure in the U.S. Federal Government.


The President is not exactly a very powerful position in the U.S. Federal Government. Let us look at the situation.

What are the powers of the President?

The President can veto legislation. Congress can override a Presidential veto.

The President nominates people to fill various non-elected positions in the US Federal Government. Presidential Nominations REQUIRE confirmation by the US Senate.

The President directs the rest of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government to come up with Regulations to Implement Laws. Congress can, if it wishes, override and throw out these Regulations and tell the President to do it again.

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the US Military. Only Congress can, under the Constitution, Declare War, and ANY other use of the US Military REQUIRES Congressional approval if it last more than 90 days under the War Powers Act, and Congress can tell the President to stop it before then if they don't like what he is doing with the military.

The President can negotiate Treaties with other Nations. The US Senate MUST ratify these Treaties BEFORE they go into effect. A Presidential signature on a Treaty means jack diddley squat. Sure, the President can negotiate 'executive agreements'. But these are not binding, and can be overridden at will by Congress or even the President (same one or a future one).

The President submits a budget recommendation to Congress every year. Congress is, however, free to ignore (and almost always does) the President's recommendation and come up with their own.

Oh, here is one that the President can't be directly told NO on, though the President shouldn't abuse it else the President might face consequences. Presidential Pardons. The President can give convicted (or even just accused, think Ford's pardon of Nixon) criminals a 'get out of jail free' card. Usually, Presidents only publicly exercise this power on their last day in office, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps the most Powerful 'power' the President has (and only over the last 90 years or so) is to 'address the nation' on at first radio, then television once it became widespread, and make their case directly to the People, assuming of course that the President can actually get the radio/television stations and networks to cover his speech. Overuse this and the People might start putting the President on their ignore list. "Oh man... it is that clown in Washington DC again... where is the off switch?"

Think about it. The Congress is directly elected by the People. The President isn't (the President is elected by the State governments).

The President can even be THROWN OUT of office by the Congress if the President irritates Congress enough. Impeachment by the House, Trial by the Senate.

Nope, the President of the US is NOT a very powerful position. Dang near EVERYTHING the President does they have to ask "pretty please with sugar on it".

Shoot... Even the VICE-President has more power, since the VP, as presiding officer of the US Senate, can cast a vote on legislation before the Senate if the Senator's votes are tied. 50 votes FOR, 50 votes AGAINST, the VP gets to decide... IF they are actually in attendance that day and haven't turned the Senate over that day to the President Pro Tem of the Senate (which is what usually happens). The VP casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate on a bill *is* rare, but does happen occasionally, once in a blue moon.

Well then, who DOES have the power in the US Federal Government?

1. Speaker of the House. Controls what legislation comes up for a vote in the House. This is most important, since all Tax Legislation MUST originate in the House.

2. Majority Leader in the Senate. A VERY close second. Controls what Legislation comes up for a vote in the Senate, though perhaps not as tightly as the Speaker of the House.

3. The US Supreme Court. The 9 (currently) members of US Supreme Court collectively can throw out legislation passed by Congress and either signed into law by the President, or had a Presidential veto overridden by Congress.

No, the President of the US is in no way any higher than 4 on this list, and quite likely lower.

Who should be working with who here?

Sorry, it is the President (no matter who they are or what party) who should be working with Congress (no matter what party), NOT the other way around.

Obama, you may be 'CEO' of the USA, but Congress is the 'Board of Directors', and the People are the 'shareholders'. Stop your self-important puffery, and get with the program.

Think about it. Under the initial 'Articles of Confederation', there WAS no 'President' or even an Executive Branch. When Madison and others were drafting the Constitution to fix a few problems (most notably lack of authority to collect taxes), they added the position of President. The nations of Europe, it seems, were used to dealing with a singular person of power, not a legislative body. You know, Kings, Princes, STRONG politicians, the like. The position of President was created with the appearance of, but not the substance of, power. Power in the USA resided then, and still resides in the Legislative Branch (Congress).

A more appropriate Presidential Uniform than a Suit and Tie would be a 'Ronald McDonald clown costume', because that is how MOST US Citizens see the President, and it seems much of Europe does as well.

Think about it, the last three people elected President...

Bill Clinton... Couldn't keep his pants zipped... Kept missing or messing up Presidential Decisions because he was too busy makeing a mess on a certain intern's blue dress or doing unspeakable things to cigars in the Oval Office. And it didn't start when he became president. 'Troopergate'... Clinton, while Governor of Arkansas, had the Arkansas State Troopers out trolling for uhh.. women of loose moral character to bring him.

Bush the Younger... Had the reputation of being... well shall we say 'somewhat less than a genius'.

Barrak Obama... "Please, please, can I be a dictator... I wanna be a dictator when I grow up... Please, Can I???"

And THAT is just the last three. At least all the Presidents since 1900 have been similar. Probably the 2 most successful Presidents during my lifetime have been Tricky "I am NOT a Crook" Dick Nixon, and Ronnie Raygun. The first turned out to be a crook of the largest magnitude and had to resign in total disgrace, and the second was a fooking movie actor. 'Bedtime for Bonzo', indeed.

Many (perhaps most) of us in the USA see the President as high comedy no matter who the President is or what Party they belong to... Political theatre at its finest. Much of the time, it seems that many if not most foreigners have similar views. But then... one of you has to go and try to take the President seriously. Heh...

Is the letter to Iran from 47 Republican senators correct about Congress' role in nuclear deal?

The think that sticks out in this whole thing is not whether the Republicans could or can do this, but that they are so uncaring about the long term consequences for American relations with other countries.

They would rather "get one over Obama" than realise that there are going to be long term consequences for American because of the way they have undermined their own President in the eyes of the rest of the world.

I am assuming that the Republicans think that at some point they will have a President. However, they have set about devaluing that seat in the long term.

To an outsider it is such an act of crass stupidity that I simply cannot fathom why they would do it.

From the article: "The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off, Peake said -- something that is hardly a sure thing."

So now the Republicans have tried to sabotage a deal that its allies are also invested in. So what happens in the future when there is a Republican President and they suddenly want to work with these countries? Have they made it easier or harder for America in the long run?

These aren't small players on the world stage who are going to pissed at them. This is not Nicaragua. (which by they way, wasn't a similar situation at all).

America just took their dirty laundry out and washed it in public. Its a dumb move. Really dumb.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Dear Canadian and Others of The Vrold:

From Our Sec of State Own Gob Hole: Agreement with I R A N IS NOT Legally Binding. DOES NOT have Capacity for Enforcement. There IS NO Diplomatic Relations with I R A N.

So, In Other Words, JUNK JUNK JUNK, from PeacePrizin'Hustlin'Hussein and Secretary Stoneface.

The Vrold 'sees' The IDIOTCY of this 'Deal'.

Republicans are Dead Right 'bout their 'Complaints'.

Let's Hope Israel WILL NOT be Dead to Rights with this 'Agreement'.

Remember, 'DELETE' those YOGA emails. Ifn Not, you will be CAUGHT, Dead To Rights.

Yep

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The think that sticks out in this whole thing is not whether the Republicans could or can do this, but that they are so uncaring about the long term consequences for American relations with other countries.

Nothing matters in politics except the next election. That is what is so filthy and dirty about democracy and party politics.

---

Clyde why don't you try a new tact and suggest what you would do? Any idiot can ask questions it takes a bit of thought to come up with a constructive idea.

---