When is the next election going to be held?

US Presidential elections are held once every 4 years. This one is in early November 2016. Next one is in early November 2020, assuming we are still here.

As I previously said, the question becomes to me as a non U.S. citizen whether a liberal is always the same as a Democrat.

Uhh.. No, not always, if one is using the terms in their present-day USA meanings. There have been some rather Conservative Democrats, and some rather Liberal Republicans.

Is a Democrat, or liberal supposed to be more accountable when it comes to the law?

Likely neither Liberals nor Conservatives (currently for the most part but not exclusively Democrats and Republicans in that order) tend to pay much attention to the Rule of Law any more. Both are equally eviscerated when caught with dirty hands when the other party is in power. And both are equally likely to get mere slaps on the wrist when their own party is in power.

If Hillary Clinton had been the Attorney General rather than the Secretary of State, would she still be allowed or have the opportunity of running for President?

Sure, anyone can run for President regardless of previous political office (or lack thereof -- Trump) as long as either they meet all of the Constitutional requirements... or at least enough people in the USA don't give a rat's @$$ about the qualifications (Obama).

Isn't US Politics an entertaining Circus? :P

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

by the way can you tell me why a gateway/router at the state department even was configured to allow a classified system to send e-mail to a non-classified system?
A question a lawyer would ask at a trial and the answer might prove just to embarrassing. Like post manning they didn't close the gate?!!!

Yep, the elephant is getting bigger.

Too big to fail.

And we are not going to admit to the world that our government's security is in shambles. Har!!

---

...

My "issues" with Hilary reside in my fears that she might end up a "hawkish" president and that she might be a president who is more of a fiscal conservative than I would want her to be.

^
|
|
|

This.

Jill Stein, on the other hand, appears to be non-hawkish and not a pro-corporatist neo-liberal. None of that has anything to do with gender. On the other hand, Jill is, to my knowledge, still not on the ballot in all 50 states. Furthermore, info is coming out about her views on vaccination and "wi-fi radiation" that could be non-evidence based and detrimental to gaining support. None of this has anything to do with gender.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Sure, anyone can run for President regardless of previous political office (or lack thereof -- Trump) as long as either they meet all of the Constitutional requirements... or at least enough people in the USA don't give a rat's @$$ about the qualifications (Obama).

C'mon now! I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Obama meets all the Constitutional requirements. Please don't tell me you're a Birther, MK?

Sure, anyone can run for President regardless of previous political office (or lack thereof -- Trump) as long as either they meet all of the Constitutional requirements... or at least enough people in the USA don't give a rat's @$$ about the qualifications (Obama).

C'mon now! I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Obama meets all the Constitutional requirements. Please don't tell me you're a Birther, MK?

Not really a 'birther'... However, I would prefer to see it be a requirement for ALL candidates to provide public proof they are eligible as part of the filing process.

I had questions about Obama's qualifications, as I did Cruz's if you remember... but when Obama finally released his birth certificate... Ok... Cool... End of the questions about it, in my opinion.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Oh, it was perhaps early in the day for most of us here.

Thanks MajorKong, for making it clear when the elections actually happens.

If it is supposed to be a Circus, is such a thing not also about possibly rivalry, or at least intricacies.

It could be about something else as well, but I would choose not to be mentioning that, because this is not the problem or issue right now.

I hate to say this, but in recent days Donald Trump has come out looking a bit disappointing when it comes to myself.

There may be some people around thinking that he even could be a racist, but if so, he does not deserve the possible title.

Also, if Hillary Clinton always choose to weigh the poor against the rich, or those things that are unfair versus those that are fair, there may eventually become a point where such a thing is no more.

For this to be happening, not only words are needed, but also acts which show that some things might be possible.

As a curious fact coming up in my mind, a President is not too often busy dealing with those things related to the business of Legislation.

For the Judicial matters, he may even not be the decision maker when it comes to a couple of things.

Still he or she is supposed to be in charge by means of the ability of issuing an executive order, which needs an authorization.

Is such an authority possible only because a vote or decision could be passed by two thirds (or 2/3) majority in the U.S. Congress?

Or is a President rather supposed to be listening to the members of the U.S. Senate or the Judicial Branch instead?

Being not familiar with all aspects of the U.S. Justice System, neither the Police or even the FBI are in charge of everything when it comes to given responsibilities.

Also there is supposed to be or should be a difference between an attorney, or at least the Attorney General and the appointed members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice and such a difference should be reflected by the different responsibilities given for each position.

Guess politics soon becomes dirty of sorts.

The same thing is not supposed to be said when it comes to the Justice System.

My "issues" with Hilary reside in my fears that she might end up a "hawkish" president and that she might be a president who is more of a fiscal conservative than I would want her to be.

^
|
|
|

This.

Jill Stein, on the other hand, appears to be non-hawkish and not a pro-corporatist neo-liberal. None of that has anything to do with gender. On the other hand, Jill is, to my knowledge, still not on the ballot in all 50 states. Furthermore, info is coming out about her views on vaccination and "wi-fi radiation" that could be non-evidence based and detrimental to gaining support. None of this has anything to do with gender.

Bernie has pulled Hillary to the left, however those fears could be founded.

I have huge concerns about Jill Stein's pseudo-science agenda. Any candidate who is anti-science is a no-no as far as I am concerned.

---

Reality Internet Personality

So as Secretary of State, did she address the Ambassador's concerns?

Request for funding was denied by republicans.

I've seen the Michael Bay movie. I know exactly what went down! There were some guys with big guns who did some manly big gun stuff and saved the day for the US of A.

Its a Michael Bay movie, so it must be true.

---

Reality Internet Personality

by the way can you tell me why a gateway/router at the state department even was configured to allow a classified system to send e-mail to a non-classified system?
A question a lawyer would ask at a trial and the answer might prove just to embarrassing. Like post manning they didn't close the gate?!!!

Yep, the elephant is getting bigger.

Yes, since shrub was in charge then, the elephant is the correct animal.

---

I have huge concerns about Jill Stein's pseudo-science agenda. Any candidate who is anti-science is a no-no as far as I am concerned.

Indeed!

DoooZ MadameDaFelonYoga, look Like Disss?

Nuff Said.

BIG BIG BIG Don fO Prez

Da Yapper

---

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

Bernie has pulled Hillary to the left, however those fears could be founded.

McAuliffe: Clinton would flip-flop on TPP

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe caused Hillary Clinton a political headache Tuesday night when he said he expects her to reverse her position on a major free trade deal.

Gov. McAuliffe (D).

Anyone want to place bets one of the first things Hillary does is something social, to reduce discriminiation? Perhaps all well and good, but nowhere near addressing our biggest concerns.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

However, as closer examination reveals. Hillary never has more than 45% of the vote.

Well that's more than enough for her to win, since the beginning of the 20th Century the highest number of actual voters has never topped 66%.

And Trump has never reached that high.

Hillary never has more than 45% of the vote.

Bill got in with 43% of the vote.

I am unable to teach the unworthy,
the uninspired, or the unwilling!

---

Watch Hillary Clinton Endure 40 Years Of Sexism In Under 3 Minutes


So next time you say "I just don't trust her" ask yourself where that question really comes from.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

NO!

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/hillary-clinton-attacks-donald-trump-journalism/index.html

Clinton admits she may have 'short circuited' answers on email controversy

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton on Friday doubled down on recent misleading statements about her use of a private email server at the State Department, even as she acknowledged that she "may have short-circuited" her answers about it.

Video with link.

---

Where is Hillary Clinton storing her credentials or references?

You know, it is not a bad thing standing up in favor or on behalf of the poor and hungry, but should there be any difference between a cat and a dog?

A dog is supposed to be barking and it could bite as well.

Isn't a cat the same as the typical or usual "Meow" (make your own guess of it), or at worst scratching up your things using its toes?

Or maybe it is all about having a sharp tongue instead.

"Listen in to what I say using my voice and my words will likely be heard as well".

I am not a U.S. citizen myself, but I happen to know that there is a difference between the usual Legislation, the Judiciary and the Executive power being in the hands of a President.

Not all the matters being dealt with by a President needs an Executive order, but a President is not supposed to be issuing parking tickets either.

My best guess is that Hillary Clinton is doing things quite well, but unless conflicts or wars becomes an issue, one part of such a life could be paperwork, the other part having fun in a party or celebration.

I am wondering - who are the most prone or likely to make or create conflicts or differences of opinion only because there is an assumed difference or inequality between people because of such thing like income or race?

Is it not the old story around?

The poor wants to be richer and sometimes they wish for such a thing by means of laws to be created and the process of Legislation as the basic principle for such things to be carried out.

And here I am missing the point when it comes to the precise meaning of things, or at least words.

Getting back at it.

Except for that, here again I would be a little more softer and think of such a thing being possible by means of Legislation and not necessarily an Executive Order.

The judge or attorney most of the time take the laws for granted, while there could be other people around who are wishing for a change.

If a major war should break out, are you supposed to protect the poor, or the nation?

Are moral values supposed to be one thing and law and order yet another thing?

Meaning, is it possible to value certain things only because they are being permitted or allowed by means of laws or jurisdiction?

Most likely the laws and jurisdictions for these laws are not going to change very much in any way, only the way we think we could be able to do a couple of things.

Or better yet, leaving aside gender, the question should be: - Is she trustworthy enough to lead?

NO!

Is Trump trustworthy enough to lead, when he has foreign policy advisers like Carter Page.