2016 Postmortem

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)

102. Yes, seeing that I read in English. What other interpretation was I to glean from

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:45 PM

Oct 2015

"She offered an honest and organized summary of our options and

her positions. Fact is, people in general are living far longer and some are staying healthier far longer. IMO, delaying the age when we start drawing SS for another 20-35 years and more, for those who are perfectly able to work, is an option that should be considered along with all the others. Including shaking down the billionaire class until it no longer exists."

I have to ask what else could you conceivably being attempting to express?

If you meant something entirely else then consider recalibration of your writing to be a clearer representation of your intent for others to digest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Say It Ain't So, Hillary Clinton - You're Open to the Idea of Raising the Retirement Age? [View all] portlander23 Oct 2015 OP

Shouldn't even be looking at it JackInGreen Oct 2015 #1

So her not being in favor of raising it means she's in favor of raising it? JaneyVee Oct 2015 #2

The Bernie fans are in panic mode workinclasszero Oct 2015 #4

Thank you giftedgirl77 Oct 2015 #5

I would consider it. But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable jeff47 Oct 2015 #27

Sanders supporters are panicking... BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #40

You have to look at the words she used ... JoePhilly Oct 2015 #77

LOL still_one Oct 2015 #101

Reading comprehension fail... Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #3

Post removed Post removed Oct 2015 #6

So, if she finds a way that fulfills her requirements, azmom Oct 2015 #7

And if it fullfilled those requirements, Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #9

Really? So why even bring it up? Just say no. azmom Oct 2015 #12

Because some people deal in nuance. Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #18

If nothing could ever meet those requirements, why pretend something could? jeff47 Oct 2015 #57

Once again, nuance. Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #67

Because it shows that she investigated it and dismissed it as not viable. What could possibly be seaglass Oct 2015 #22

If it's not viable, why does she say she would consider it? (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #48

To screw with the GOP. JoePhilly Oct 2015 #87

why? azmom Oct 2015 #91

Because they clearly love the pain. JoePhilly Oct 2015 #92

If she came out firmly against it, azmom Oct 2015 #96

Good job not bolding the sentence where she says she'd consider it. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #29

... BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #45

Good job failing reading comprehension. Nt Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #68

She's said she'd consider it, but hasn't found a proposal she likes yet. jeff47 Oct 2015 #70

Consider it IF it meets certain criteria. Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #71

Is this somehow unclear to you? dsc Oct 2015 #8

She should just take a position portlander23 Oct 2015 #10

Again what is dancing around about this dsc Oct 2015 #14

Honestly, just like TPP, as of today.... azmom Oct 2015 #15

Read the rest of her convoluted sentence please Armstead Oct 2015 #21

Is this somehow unclear to you? jeff47 Oct 2015 #30

Oy vey BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #49

No, cherry picking is pretending she only expressed opposition. jeff47 Oct 2015 #53

What happens if congress passes a bill that raises it and does something else that she wants LiberalArkie Oct 2015 #37

She offered an honest and organized summary of our options and Hortensis Oct 2015 #11

20 or 35 years? You have got to azmom Oct 2015 #13

65+20=85. 65+35=100. Lots of people are now and more will be living that long. Hortensis Oct 2015 #64

She won't be doing any shaking doen of the billionaire class Armstead Oct 2015 #19

You just came out in favor of raising the retirement age to 102. jeff47 Oct 2015 #31

Is this how you usually interpret what you read, Jeff47? Hortensis Oct 2015 #97

Forgot what's in your own post? jeff47 Oct 2015 #98

Umhm. There is more than one way to interpret that, isn't there? Hortensis Oct 2015 #100

87 - 102 to start drawing? Batshit crazy. The current age is 67. TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #69

Is this how you usually interpret the written word, Kentuckian? Hortensis Oct 2015 #99

Yes, seeing that I read in English. What other interpretation was I to glean from TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #102

We need to get rid of the cap and lower the retirement age. WDIM Oct 2015 #16

The math on that doesn't work mythology Oct 2015 #23

Actually, you can. jeff47 Oct 2015 #32

Any income over $117,000 isnt taxed for SSI WDIM Oct 2015 #66

Sure you can, if wages go up (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #105

My God! Can she ever say anything straightforward??!? Armstead Oct 2015 #17

K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #20

She is engaging in double talk Robbins Oct 2015 #24

Helpful hint mythology Oct 2015 #25

"I would consider it" means she's opposed? jeff47 Oct 2015 #33

In order to criticize her, BlueCaliDem Oct 2015 #52

So being against it is now being for it. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #26

She said "I would consider it". That isn't being against it. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #35

It's like you can't read a full article. It isn't that long. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #42

Yes, it isn't that long. It's so odd you can't find this part jeff47 Oct 2015 #44

Do you realize that a comma does not signify that the next word is the start of a new sentence? seaglass Oct 2015 #47

And those platitudes does not change that she would consider it. jeff47 Oct 2015 #51

It does not change that your post was deceptive. I have no idea who Hillary is not including in seaglass Oct 2015 #62

Well, it wouldn't include me. jeff47 Oct 2015 #65

I have a desk job too and am closing in on early retirement. I include myself in the seaglass Oct 2015 #73

Because the program has to be based on something more than "I wanna". jeff47 Oct 2015 #74

Considering that she said she would not favor raising the retirement age I think this conversation seaglass Oct 2015 #75

No, she said she hasn't seen a proposal she likes. You quoted it in reply 47. jeff47 Oct 2015 #76

We fundamentally disagree that she wants to raise the retirement age. I suppose we could speculate, seaglass Oct 2015 #82

Not at all. I'm just not going to let a lie sit unchallenged. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #83

lol. have fun. n/t seaglass Oct 2015 #84

I published the full context from the article portlander23 Oct 2015 #39

It ain't so, Portlander. "I would not favor raising the retirement age." Nitram Oct 2015 #28

"I would consider it" means she's opposed? (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #34

Meaning she will always listen to proposals. Nitram Oct 2015 #36

So she's waiting for a proposal to raise the retirement age. jeff47 Oct 2015 #41

OK, I give. You've made up your mind. Nitram Oct 2015 #46

I'm not putting words in her mouth. jeff47 Oct 2015 #55

The problem is that you still trust her. n/t Dawgs Oct 2015 #59

So laying out why she is against raising the age actually shows she is open to raising the age? Godhumor Oct 2015 #38

It does when she says she will consider raising the retirement age in the same paragraph. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #43

This mealymouthed answer on SS should be unacceptable from a Dem nominee for President. Broward Oct 2015 #50

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #54

Yeah, that sums up many posters here. Sad but true. Broward Oct 2015 #56

Oh why not Faux pas Oct 2015 #58

A few tidbits from DU past wilsonbooks Oct 2015 #60

Yeah her record on this is spotty portlander23 Oct 2015 #63

The difference I see here is that Hillary says it like upaloopa Oct 2015 #61

But we want easily digestible sound bites! Dr Hobbitstein Oct 2015 #72

Looks like the author of that article is a liar, plain and simple. JoePhilly Oct 2015 #78

Really? portlander23 Oct 2015 #80

He wrote a sensationalist piece and you fell for it hook line and sinker! riversedge Oct 2015 #85

I said he was VISUALLY impaired ... and yet you read MENTALLY impaired. JoePhilly Oct 2015 #89

Let's put this in perspective... brooklynite Oct 2015 #79

You should delete Your OP. It is a misleading article headline that contradicts the actually riversedge Oct 2015 #81

Really? portlander23 Oct 2015 #86

I read the entire story and took in the context. Enough said. riversedge Oct 2015 #94

He should leave it up ... JoePhilly Oct 2015 #90

Well, now that is a good way t0 think about this stupid OP, thanks. riversedge Oct 2015 #93

little bit here, little bit there, Hillary is a third way libertarian and why the rich love her so. Todays_Illusion Oct 2015 #88

Libertarians don't support endless wars jfern Oct 2015 #103

There is evidence that you are wrong since most of the current office holding Republicans are Todays_Illusion Oct 2015 #104

So she's open to creating different classes of SS recipients based on their occupations CharlotteVale Oct 2015 #95

Don't fall for her bs SmittynMo Nov 2015 #106