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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!

---

...

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.

The official qualifications for U.S. President is that you must be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old.

Being a felon is not a disqualification BTW.

---

When is the next election going to be held?

Elections for U.S. President are always the Tuesday after the first Monday of November every fourth year.

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.

Generally in the U.S., the Democrats are ideologically left-leaning, making them liberal. By contrast, the Republicans, actually called the Grand Ol' Party or G.O.P. are ideologically conservative or right-leaning.

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

In the U.S., all* are held accountable to the law.


*Except those with friends in high places, large amounts of money, or otherwise aren't beholden to U.S. law.

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?

The official qualifications for U.S. President is that you must be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old. There's no reason to believe if Hillary were Attorney General rather than Secretary of State wouldn't still be eligible for President.

Surely the person at the top ensures that their administration is secure? Doesn't the buck stop at the top?

Wait a minute...

...oops, Obama is a Democrat so say no more :-)

When is the next election going to be held?

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.

If Hillary Clinton tells me what to do, or others for the matter, the case probably will not be closed or finished before something is happening.

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

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?

These are some of the questions I am asking myself a day before the start of the next weekend.

The elephant in this room.

How can the Sec. of State do State business on her private email server and not have classified material sent/received and or stored on that server?

Please explain how any employee could be so stupid and put their job in jeopardy by sending classified material to
hillary@hillaryclinton.com

and not
hillary.clinton@secure.state.gov

One address is an automatic espionage conviction.

Now sending the attendance report or the office supplies request ...

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?!!!

---

So party politics got that dirty then.

That is the clean part.

---

So again, is Clinton being held to a higher standard than her male counterparts?

Of course not.

Nothing worse is said about her, as is said about Trump, and other male politicians.

Difference...

21st century technology, internet, and social media. Where the political establishments, national media, capitalists , et al. Do not, as in the past. Control the information the people have.

Dangerous Donald understands. Hillary better understand quickly.

---

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton

The elephant in this room.

How can the Sec. of State do State business on her private email server and not have classified material sent/received and or stored on that server?

If anybody can explain this I might concede.

Wikileaks is threatening a dump that should blow all this out of the water.

---

...

So party politics got that dirty then.

Or one Fast and Furious was enough.

---

...

So party politics got that dirty then.

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

Request for funding was denied by republicans.

---

Sorry, you lost me on that one.

I prefer this: -

"Where does Clinton play into this? Well, aside from being the Secretary of State — an important cabinet position — she later took responsibility for the security at the compound, or rather, a lack thereof. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts," Clinton said, in an interview with CNN. "The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs, and make a considered decision.""

"Essentially, the claim is that the administration did not heed proper security warnings before the attack, which lead to military support coming in too late. This was aided by the recovery of Stevens' personal journal after the assault by CNN, which the broadcasting network reported that he wrote he was concerned about security in Libya in the months prior to the attack."

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