I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.

ES you had no choice, the rest of your post I totally agree with.

---

... Or some other people here making a reference to a possible decease or malfunction.

There you are. At least this or such a thing is your problem, not mine.

But is that then supposed to be related to the subject of Politics?

Sigh, if you are left handed, you could still be dealing with the subject or subjects above.

Blame history or other events for such a thing happening or being a possibility, not necessarily that of being mentally or physically handicapped.

Sigh!

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

This is why seti makes me sad.

I post a video that shows how her honesty and capability has been questioned from since she barely graduated school. She has been an activist an involved in politics from before she met her husband. Time and time again from before she even had the chance to do anything..anything at all her trustworthiness was questioned and challenged.

As she progresses through her career she is judged again and again and again and evidence is constructed and exaggerated to prove that she is not trustworthy. She is judged on harsher terms than her male peers who have done far worse with far less outcry. There is a huge double standard here, and watching you all twist and turn so you don't see it makes me sad.

The sad terrible thing is that I totally recognise this behaviour. I've been a woman all my life and know exactly what she is up against.
Women constantly have their judgement questioned in a way that men never do unless they actively do something crazy (see Trump). The fact that there is even a contest between her and Trump says it all.

So I say again. Are you absolutely sure that you aren't subconsciously judging her on stereotypical assumptions of how women and men are supposed to behave? Because is really, really looks like it to me.

Simply claiming that you judge men and women the same doesn't cut it because clearly, obviously, undoubtedly you are not.

*goes away to bang head against a brick wall*

---

Reality Internet Personality

Perhaps my bad, but is it not supposed to be a difference between a political agenda and possible events that could be happening?

Always the choice or selection between the hawks and the doves if you will, but I previously gave a +1 when it comes to President Nixon.

The problem is that the fine I could recieve for making a possible crime is not because some Republican politician wants to change the world.

If so, for either the good or better, or the better for the worse.

I have not checked this out, but it is part of our history.

It should not have happened.

Abraham and Eve, to be more precise.

Sigh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLFqeXm_5X4&list=RDMMSVkq8IEO4tc&index=5

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.

WinterKnight...

That is the quandary of this election.

Neither should be President of The United States.

---

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

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

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.

The true answer is:

Most women, men, blacks, whites, Asians, gays, straights, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and whatever group people are assigned to. Are not inferior and/or ...ists.

Haven't we had enough of Jews are... Blacks are... Men are... Gays are..., et al?

---

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

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

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.

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.

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.

---

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

NO!

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr XO - L L & P _\\//
USS Vre'kasht NCC-33187
Winders 10 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

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

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

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!

---

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.

Our problem:

These numbers, in predicting the election, may have been valid over the past few election cycles.

This one?

---

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

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

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.

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.

Hillary must address job losses, underemployment, stopped looking for work, etc.

Or as a Clinton Operative once said "It's the economy, stupid!

BTW: The recent polls regarding 'Swing States' look good, on the surface.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/swing-states

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

Who will the 'Undersiders' eventually vote for?

---

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

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

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.

DoooZ MadameDaFelonYoga, look Like Disss?

Nuff Said.

BIG BIG BIG Don fO Prez

Da Yapper

---

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!

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.

---