HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » KPN » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

KPN

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:18 PM
Number of posts: 5,864

Journal Archives

Many American Revolutionaries were much younger than you might think

when they declared independence from Britain

How old were the American Revolutionaries when the colonies declared independence from Britain in 1776?

Some of America's Founding Father's were shockingly young when the colonies declared independence from Britain in 1776. Some were older, like Thomas Jefferson who was 33, John Hancock who was 39, or Benjamin Franklin who was 70. Others were shockingly young — even teenagers. James Monroe, for example, was 18 and Alexander Hamilton was 21.

All Things Liberty compiled a list of the ages of famous people at the start of the American Revolution.

[link:http://www.businessinsider.com/youngest-actors-in-american-revolution-fourth-of-july-independence-2018-6#nathan-hale-21-16|

Experience or youth? In normal times, I'd go with experience. These aren't normal times.

It's time to back our youth.

I would ignore it if I didn't think it was harmful.

I have 3 adult kids who were Bernie supporters. Only one of them voted despite my non-stop arm-twisting ( fortunately we are all in deeply blue Oregon). They express concerns that I am unable to dismiss. They are not racist, they are not stupid, one of the two who didn’t vote is gay, they all have college degrees, they all work hard and honestly to support themselves. I am proud of who they are and what they stand for. Frankly, anyone who criticizes them is criticizing me — and off base. I could go on. Suffice it to say blaming people like my adult kids — which is exactly what they are doing in effect — is self-defeating. It angers me ... especially coming from what I consider my own.

OMG -- switched to Faux News during commercial

and watched Neil Cavuto ask Herman Cain if it had been a liberal entertainer, would ABC have acted so quickly? Can't believe I'm seeing that crap!

Mr 999 answered "Probably not." But to his credit he did say "but that" racist statement would have taken anyone down at some point.

Job losses from automation or trade pacts? Will we learn from this?

A simple request: please don't turn this into something it is not by making this about supporting our fake pResident.

The Epic Mistake about Manufacturing that's Cost Americans Millions of Jobs

America’s manufacturing sector is in far worse shape than the media, politicians, and even most academics realize. Manufacturers’ embrace of automation was supposedly a good thing. Sure, some factory workers lost their jobs. But increased productivity boosted living standards, and as manufacturing work vanished, new jobs in construction and other services took its place. This was more of a shift than a loss, explained Bradford DeLong, economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.


Thanks to a painstaking analysis by a handful of economists, it’s become clear that the data that underpin the dominant narrative—or more precisely, the way most economists interpreted the data—were way off-base. Foreign competition, not automation, was behind the stunning loss in factory jobs. And that means America’s manufacturing sector is in far worse shape than the media, politicians, and even most academics realize.


In the four decades between 1960 and 2000, US manufacturing employment was basically stable, averaging around 17.5 million jobs. Even during the 1980s and 1990s, as Korea and other smaller Asian nations joined the ranks of Germany and Japan to threaten the dominance of US factories, the absolute number of manufacturing workers stayed mostly flat.


Between 2000 and 2010, manufacturing employment plummeted by more than a third. Nearly 6 million American factory workers lost their jobs. The drop was unprecedented—worse than any decade in US manufacturing history. Even during the Great Depression, factory jobs shrunk by only 31%, according to a Information Technology & Innovation Foundation report. ... How, then, do you reconcile the epic employment slump of the 2000s with the steady rise in output? The obvious conclusion is that factories needed fewer people than they did in the past because robots are now doing more and more of the producing. That’s tough for factory workers, but US manufacturing is doing fine. That rests on the basic assumption that the manufacturing output data reflect the actual volume of stuff produced by US factories. It’s a reasonable assumption to make. Unfortunately, it’s not an accurate one.


Two decades of ill-founded policymaking radically restructured the US economy, and reshuffled the social order too. The America that resulted is more unequal and more polarized than it’s been in decades, if not nearly a century. ... In effect, US policymakers put diplomacy before industrial development at home, offering the massive American consumer market as a carrot to encourage other countries to open up their economies to multinational investment. Then, thanks to the popular narrative that automation was responsible for job losses in manufacturing, American leaders tended to dismiss the threat of foreign competition to a thriving manufacturing industry and minimize its importance to the overall health of the US economy.


[link:https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-thats-cost-americans-millions-of-jobs/ar-AAwGZsq?li=BBnbfcN|

These Kids Will Bring Them Down ... Eventually.

Parkland student rips Trump over NRA speech: 'He's a professional liar'


On Saturday, , a survivor of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting slammed President Trump for speaking at the National Rifle Association ... Cameron Kasky, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, made the comments in an appearance on CNN's "New Day."

"He's a professional liar who will say anything to appease whatever crowd he's at," Kasky said. "If he's in front of families he might say something in support of common-sense gun reform, but then when he's at the NRA he'll say something to get a big cheer."


[link:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/parkland-student-rips-trump-over-nra-speech-hes-a-professional-liar/ar-AAwMHnX?li=BBnb7Kz|

Question submitted by KPN

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

For the first time in my 66 year life

I genuinely feel how I react to this election is really important. Enough said. How about you?

Hillary won me over tonight.

I have to admit that I've never been a Hillary admirer. What would you expect? I'm an angry old white guy. But I'm also reasonable (at least according to me -- luckily my wife and daughter think so too -- lucky me!), so I'm a devout Bernie supporter. Bernie rocks! So I' m pretty darned surprised. I didn't think I had it in me to feel GOOD about Hillary. But she won me over. This was the first time she has ever struck me as genuine -- perhaps that is why. So ... that'S it ! I have nothing more to say. That's enough. Although as always, I reserve the right to change my mind ... but most likely not my vote.

So what is the alternative to holding my nose and voting Hillary?

Two years ago I attended a debate among candidates for my District's Congressional seat. A Republican, a pretty progressive Democrat, and a Green Party candidate. I was so impressed with the Green Party candidate that I approached him to ask him why he wasn't trying to work and run within the Democratic Party. He was about my age. He looked at me for a second (I suppose now that he was framing his response as opposed to offending me by saying something like "are you naive?" and said because the Party would never support him as a candidate for Congress. He then proceeded to explain how he'd been active as a precinct member for many years before finally realizing that the Party was moving right not left and was never going to change as long as money drove the system. He basically said what Bernie says: the system is corrupt -- and to be successful within the Party system, you have to be a "team player" and "play ball". He said it was obvious to him that the Democratic Party was in bed with corporations and money, controlled by what he called Republican lights, and was no longer committed to truly progressive principles. So he left and joined the Green Party.

This primary season has, as I said, been a real eye opener. The Party is clearly corrupt as is our government. They have been purchased and are controlled by "money". Bernie's campaign has done a wonderful job at making this abundantly clear to anyone who has been paying attention.

So you asked, what is the alternative? I ask: do you truly care about your country? I am convinced that holding my nose and voting simply enables the status quo. What is the status quo? Well, it's really not very good. Sure, we make progress on social issues, to a degree, but we continue to trend to the right on economic and electoral issues. The Democratic Party simply is not committed to making the kind of fundamental changes that we so desperately need today. "Slowing" the flow to the right is not fixing the problem; and I'm frankly not convinced that Hillary would even slow the flow to the right when it comes to key economic issues. (I won't even bring up the problems of imperialism here.)

The alternative for me is to support real change. I will either be voting for Jill Stein (Green Party) after doing some more research, or writing Bernie in this fall.

Am I concerned about Trump? Yes, but my adult children have given me broader perspective on that and the SCOTUS issue. Actually, they have convinced me by example that voting for Hillary is the wrong thing to do. You see, one of them, my second child is gay. Another, my daughter, the youngest is a female. They are quite adamant that "equal rights" will be meaningless in 20 years if we don't break down the corporate hold on America's governance to actually fix our most important problems now today: global warming, a divided world, and income inequality. So social issues that affect them personally in significant way are moot as they see it if we don't make the significant changes today. My third child, the oldest, is a bit more radical. He just says we gotta break the system to fix it; a Trump presidency would do that.

- - - -
I understand that some here will take exception to and tell me how short sighted and self-absorbed this is. But I see it as exactly the opposite. So please respect my views and opinions and I will respect yours.

Why Bernie Sanders Is Our Best Chance to Beat Donald Trump

And why Berners shouldn't let themselves get discouraged by the Clinton machine's mind games!

- - - - snip - - - -
Hand-wringing over party unity misses the point. No one cares about your precious parties.
As Hillary Clinton joylessly stumbles her way to the Democratic nomination, calls have increased for Bernie Sanders to either drop out of the race altogether or, at least, to stop fighting so darn hard. We’re told that Bernie should drop out for the good of the party. Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can make her general election “pivot” (which presumably means she can be free of the burden of pretending to be a liberal). … Hogwash. ... Bernie Sanders is our best chance to beat Donald Trump and to prove to the young voters backing him that the Democratic party actually stands for something.

Error in thinking #1: Sanders supporters care about the existing system.
... These young voters are expected to back down for the sake of a party they tell pollsters they don’t identify with, in the service of nominating a presidential candidate who promises to maintain a system that has conspired to screw them at every turn.

Error in thinking #2: Uniting around Clinton is the best shot to beat Trump.
The very same people who condescendingly exhort Sanders followers to “do the math” on the nomination process seem to have left their own calculators at home when it comes to figuring out who can actually win this fall. … According to the math, Sanders is a much better bet for November, which makes sense when you think about it. Consider, for example, that he has cleaned Clinton’s clock with independents.
Here’s a reality check folks: Independents win elections. They like Bernie and they hate Hillary. That’s to say nothing of the fact that a majority of voters find Clinton untrustworthy, a reality I’m confident will not be helped by her general election “pivot” to yet another version of the real HRC.

Error in thinking #3: Winning is the only goal that matters.
Let’s pretend Hillary Clinton is a winner. Is this really what the Democratic party has been reduced to? Not fighting for the poor? Not standing up for the working people of this country? Not fighting with every breath to push the money and corruption out of a system that only works for a glossy few?
Of course, we know that for much of the party establishment the answer is yes. Bill Clinton provided a master class in how to sacrifice your principles to the gods of electoral success. A tactic, by the way, that may have found some success at the presidential level, but which has led the Democratic party to historic, crushing defeats in most of the country. For reference, just examine the largest number of state legislatures in our nation’s history in Republican hands or the way inequality has soared unchecked as Democrats decided that winning national elections mattered more than fighting for the middle class or the working class or the poor.
So to the Bern-baby-Bern crowd I say, keep fighting. Your fight is worthy. Your cause is just. Your passionate existence irritates the Democratic powers that be because you remind them of all that they are supposed to stand for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-ball/why-bernie-sanders-is-our_b_10064830.html
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »