When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

I tend to run ahead of the herd, I notice new things that are going on far before most people for the most part, and I tend to have a deeper richer understanding than most of old things things that are going on. That ain't bragging, that is reality. For instance I was talking about Washington being broken over 5 years ago on A2K, Set for instance went on and on about how I am clueless. In fact I was right. Again.

Smart people learn at some point in their lives who to listen to. I shan't be expecting this from you.

Aug 2010



Aug 2010


http://able2know.org/topic/146051-3

You're not bragging, you're delusional. All I've seen is a lot of unwarranted paranoia about feminism and stuff that's just plain wrong.

If you were pointing out things/trends before they happened I'd credit you for it. I've not seen any evidence of that whatsoever.

That's not me being nasty, that's just saying it as I see it.

Are you joking? The Feminists have a several decades record of rarely making a mistake, but their claims that the University is is a hot bed of rape has run against fierce resistance. They compounded the problem by using the federal government power to force universities to set up parallel justice systems with the sole purpose of punishing men after striping them of rights that the justice systems affords, which so far as the feminists are concern are not important and need to go away because not "enough" men are being punished. Now we see as a result conservative women, who were pushed out of feminism during the 90's by the liberals, openly challenging the liberals for the first time in a long time and demanding the right to use the feminism label as well. The Conservatives are doing it because the liberals, having made the massive blunder on the so called rape crisis at the university, have been weakened and are ripe for attack.

None of this surprises people who have been paying attention to reality. But you Izzy only know your preconceived ideas, you judge everything off of that, your brain is closed to new ideas, new reality. This often results in you being sure that you know what is going on, but in fact you have no idea. That is the case here.

A Trojan Horse In Clinton’s Pledge To “Enhance” Social Security?
https://ourfuture.org/20151015/a-trojan-horse-in-clintons-pledge-to-enhance-social-security

Lynn Stuart Parramore wrote in 2012 that she understood why “well-intentioned liberals” end up embracing Social Security policies that would treat the “vulnerable” differently from everyone else. But she warned that these schemes are “a sneak attack on vital programs meant to weaken and eventually destroy them” and “a highly effective political strategy for getting liberals and progressives to act against their own values and interests.”

Chief among her arguments are the point that Social Security benefits are not “handouts to the needy.” They are “benefits that people pay for as they work. They are also smart social insurance programs that spread risk across society in order to protect everyone at rates no private insurance scheme, with its much smaller risk pool, could touch.”

Like your insurance policy, when you file a claim the size of the check you receive is not based on your income or net worth; it’s based on the amount of coverage you purchased. Car insurance companies that paid less in claims to Mercedes owners, presumably because they are wealthier than owners of a working-class Chevy Cruze, would lose high-end customers – and eventually would collapse.

There are real threats to Social Security that Clinton could have called out in Tuesday’s debate.

There are reports this week that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants cuts in Social Security and entitlement programs in exchange for support for increasing the debt ceiling next month. The fact that there will not be a cost-of-living increase for Social Security recipients underscores a fundamental flaw in how benefits are calculated: the particular spending patterns for seniors, particularly in health care, aren’t captured in the index used for adjusting Social Security payments. Finally, as this petition from Social Security Works warns, if Congress does not act soon, the Medicare Part B premium and deductible are expected to increase significantly for older adults and people with disabilities in 2016, and Social Security recipients won’t have the extra dollars to cover those costs.

This Just In From the, "I'm Not Surprised Department."
Bush, Clinton are Wall Street's favorites, donations show
Reuters By Emily Flitter
5 hours ago

By Emily Flitter
Related Stories

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jeb Bush is leading the U.S. presidential campaign by at least one measure: financial support from Wall Street.

The former Florida governor who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination received more financial backing than any competitor - Democrat or Republican - from employees of the major Wall Street banks between July and the end of September, campaign filings released on Thursday show.

Employees from Bank of America , Citigroup , Credit Suisse , Goldman Sachs , HSBC , JPMorgan Chase , Morgan Stanley and UBS gave Bush a combined $107,000. He also received the maximum-allowed $2,700 from billionaire hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman.

The sums are miniscule compared to Bush's total haul for the quarter of $13.4 million. But his popularity among financiers is starkly different from his standing in the multitude of national polls.

Bush, seen as a moderate in the crowded Republican field where 14 candidates are competing for the nomination, trails Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, three candidates who have never held elected office, in every major poll.

The second most popular candidate on Wall Street according to giving patterns is Democratic front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She took in nearly $84,000 from employees of the same banks.


http://news.yahoo.com/bush-clinton-wall-streets-favorites-donations-show-063758748--sector.html

You and reality aren't even on nodding terms. You're frightened about your loss of privilege, that certain behaviour you displayed in the past is no longer acceptable. Your nonsense about the Tea Party is just wishful thinking. They're another sad bunch upset about the change in society, a racist backlash to the election of a black president. And despite being funded by a bunch of multimillionaires who see them as a good way to keep on paying very little taxes, they're a spent force. Like UKIP they're mostly made up of old people viewing the past through rose tinted spectacles while the changing demographic means Americans are getting browner not lighter.

Your hubris is your downfall, you're so sure of your own precognition that you don't check facts and end up looking daft. Your comments on the election results in Scotland are a case in point. You were so sure that the left had been "creamed" in Scotland that you were puzzled about not finding any sources that confirmed that was the case. Not once did you think of doing a bit of research on the SNP to find out what sort of party they were. It wouldn't have taken much of an effort to google their home or wiki page, but you didn't because it never dawned on you that your prejudices might actually be wrong.

You do this all the time, which is why it's so easy to argue against you. So many of your comments can be dismissed as paranoid nonsense or just plain wrong (like in Scotland.)

Don't assume you're always right, do some proper research and then you won't end up looking quite so stupid.

Anything on the money from the unions that Democrats rake in? Considerably more than 84,000.

Why shouldn't the unions support the Dems when the Republicans do everything in their power to shut any and all unions down?

The amount of money received is what I am talking about. The reasons they support Democrats are obvious.

The unions give the Democrats a lot of money, and...?

You got it, that is what I said. The "and" is you reading crap into it.

No, idiot - the "and" is asking what your goddamn point is. Stating that the unions contribute heavily to democrats is like stating the tea party is full of racists. So, what Mr Obvious?!

Say something new.

On par with being called a masochist these days.....whatever......

The word is meaningless now.

And dont forget they are more common people oriented than wall street or industry or business men generally.

**** you, have you ever been in a union? I was for about 5 years. I cry every time I see Norma Rae or Matewan but regardless every bit of hate that unions get is well earned.

I was for over 30 years. But when I joined, I had to. Also they were run by organized crime then, not asshole progressives and Communists.

Hey stupid asshole. I was in a union while your moma was changing your dippers. And not just one but several and they protected me from assholes like you more than once. Youve got to be the kind that would fire someone for just disagreeing with you. Ive known many assholes like you in my life. But I guess my 55 years of belonging to a union dosent compare with your 5 years. I'll bet you started in the union and transfered to a company job. Most union transfers to company develop a hatred for unions because they stop you from being a tyrant.

Let me guess. The one Moe, Curly, and Larry were in "Morons 101"