Thanks David.

And like Sanders, Donald Trump has stolen the key ideas from Carly Fiorina - for example the entire unraveling of the Iran Nuclear Deal and its extension to Sanctions.

And so the question to Ms. Harmony (sorry, not directed to you) whether she would vote for Fiorina an incredibly intelligent person; if she was the only woman candidate in 2024.

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is also fine.

As usual Ms. Harmony, you make a sweeping statement that makes further argument fruitless so allow me to put up a hypothetical situation.

Let's say in 2024 elections the Republicans nominate this lady and assume that the Democrat nominee is a man.


Carly Fiona is a soft spoken, highly respected lady but is through and through a Conservative that makes Trump look like a school boy carrying his back pack of books.

Would you vote for her - if she were the only woman candidate?

And Gentlemen, the reason I enjoy posting pictures of these ladies is because it's rare to find such women of unusual caliber - excluding our few Mingle ladies of course.

I was responding to a sweeping statement that democrats would have hated a female.

And no, I don't vote for genders, I vote for candidates. I would vote for her IF I thought she was the best candidate, and I would not if I did not.

Other black candidates ran before Obama. He was the first one I voted for because I thought he was the best candidate.

Other females ran besides Hilary in my lifetime, and she is the first I voted for because I thought SHE was the best candidate.

The best candidates, for me,

1, have experience working within the THREE branches of Government to understand the authority and limitations of their position and branch and a demonstrable understanding and knowledge of the constitution

2, have experience working in the non profit or public sector showing actual interest in helping people and/or military leadership that shows understanding of the duties of a CIC

3, and a character of maturity, respectability, diplomacy and integrity so they represent us well when interacting on the global stage with other leaders.

Democrats have so far put a female and a minority candidate up for their presidential nominations, so again, I question why there would be any concern as to gender or race in how democrats align with candidates?

While those characteristics form the basis for a candidate you would support they form the basis for me of a candidate I would not consider supporting. There lies the difference between a democrat progressive and a fiscal conservative or libertarian.

What is 'progressive' about wanting to fill a position with someone that has experience, knowledge, integrity and respectability?

Are those negatives for 'fiscal conservatives'?

No, they are not negatives but your definition of what they mean is. Experience: operating and managing a very large national or international enterprise. Knowledge: both formal education and real life education. Integrity: being who you say you are. Respectability: earned by the things you have accomplished in life and how you treat other people.

In my opinion, most politicians fall far short in many of those areas. I know there are people who would make an excellent President but they are too intelligent to even consider getting into the political quagmire!

Ms. Harmony's Rules:

1. Experience working within the THREE branches of Government

2. Experience working in non-profit or public sector / military leadership

3. Character

The best candidates, for me,

1, have experience working within the THREE branches of Government to understand the authority and limitations of their position and branch and a demonstrable understanding and knowledge of the constitution

People can serve in the federal government as elected officials and still not understand constitutional limitations.

Just curious David,

Can Trump take Pelosi to Court for not forwarding the Article of Impeachment to Senate

Or is the Speaker of the House outside the jurisdiction of Court and Constitution?

No, they are not negatives but your definition of what they mean is. Experience: operating and managing a very large national or international enterprise. Knowledge: both formal education and real life education. Integrity: being who you say you are. Respectability: earned by the things you have accomplished in life and how you treat other people.

In my opinion, most politicians fall far short in many of those areas. I know there are people who would make an excellent President but they are too intelligent to even consider getting into the political quagmire!

From a learning and entertainment point of view
I think words we use are like concealed weapons – concealed agendas - but there's no reason to blow our fuses as I'm not a stakeholder in US politics.
Just an entertainer!!

There is a concealed agenda is...
What happens in US today impacts India tomorrow.

Another reason, we Indians have already experienced 70 years of socialism. While this gives a good start for a poor country, - like the famous GI Bill - it also puts the brakes on accelerated progress. It left us with an accelerated growth in population that drove demand and concealed large scale corruption

So I am around to learn how to blow the brains of corruption

This elaborate explanation is also for one trigger happy lady who otherwise is a light in Mingle, ha, ha
--xx

Referring to Ms. Harmony's well structured Rules - for best candidates:


I will respond to Rule # 1 for now

A. Government does not create businesses and jobs unless it is a socialist government where every business is nationalized.

B. In Socialist government owned business - it gives a great start to build talent

C. Govt. owned business over time become non-competitive.

In India, public sector industries have been swept away by competition from within and overseas: airlines, telephones, hi-tech manufacturing, power plants, etc.

Only the railways, post offices, nuclear power plant and a few defense companies remain. All other products are imported or have large import components.

Clearly, Bureaucrats are good starters - within a given frame - but they are not change managers. They resist giant leaps in innovation and have a horror for change.

Example, they cannot decide whether man should land on Mars or not.

Caution: If candidates from the three branches of government is all that matters then how is it different from Communist Russia?

In Russia and China all government higher ups are Communist card holders. I have met Chinese higher ups who run projects in India and they stamp their signatures with Secretary xy, CPC

--xx

Skip point 2 - and cover it in 3

--xx

# 3 Character - a world view (not behavior - or slip of tongue profanity)

Bill Clinton A great man - he slipped and destroyed all of us who are in our mature years as a respectable tier in our societies - without a tweet or profanity. All over the world !!! Personally, I don't shake hands with young women because forever I'm examining my intent. Talk of equality - when a younger woman smiles - I'm reminded of Bill and turn into a worm!!

If the US Constitution does not provide any clause for loose morality while in Office as grounds for impeachment - they should have referred to character in 10 Commandments - because of In God we Trust.

He also destroyed a life - Monica's

Bush - After 9 / 11 - he invaded the wrong country - and blamed it on a branch of govt.

Obama - impeccable character? - for a great politician, Yes. But not the kind expected from American President. He allowed Syria to destroy itself - by 'concealed US support to Syrian majority fighting military rule'. There was enough space for Russians to enter - then ISIS - then the mass exodus to Europe. Or maybe, Merkel wanted Muslims to boost up aging population. He was Europe's man.

Hillary Clinton - over exposed herself as Secretary with her million miles flying. No foreign head could revert to respecting her even if she were elevated to Presidency.

Trump: Four years of relentless barrage from the Media and the Democrats - anybody else would have folded. Trump resorted to Tweets, building a body of humor and resistance for his voters. This is how the world understands the man.

That this President has character is amplified by the fact that he forewarns the oppositions and external enemies of consequences. The choice is theirs!

Result on the Ground: While inside the US there is turmoil – the world no longer fears terror attacks as it used to. Great solidarity among almost all nations on this one issue. Reason: Donald Trump's threats

Carly Fiorina: Great motivational speaker for young - To me she sounds like HR. She says she graduated in Medieval History and psychology which may explain her rise in Corporate sector. This sounds like she drives by looking at the rear view mirror. Frankly, she scares me.

So back to the question: 'Why is the US President being impeached?'

The answer is simple.

One has to understand Jeff Bezos his Amazon and why he took over Washington Post.
He not only funded but was chief fund raiser for Hillary. (already a thread in M2)
He and his friends lost in multi-millions - a billion or more

Forget the election campaign and Fake News
Jeff Bezos friends wanted their money back.

So he rang the bell for impeachment - hours after election result was announcement.

It was Jeff who made it an honorable challenge to 'hound the new US President'
- In the History of the World - this had never happened before !!!!!!
The term Impeachment was raised before he was sworn in!!!1
It was like filing for divorce before the day of marriage !!
It was like my rejection - before I could ask her out for a date!

UK's Guardian followed next.
CNN competing for UK market share - took it as a crusade with Mueller Report
Rest of media followed - Indian media is affiliated to UK Times.

Media amplified and spread the hate

There were even rumors within the Republican that Trump will fold

Initially the social media went against - Trump
Trump rallied with his tweets.
Reuters stood their neutral ground
Al Jazeera then Fox News took the vacant space
Slowly the war on the net turned around.


And this thread could go on till 2024 unless ...

People can serve in the federal government as elected officials and still not understand constitutional limitations.