National Geographic magazine

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
Darryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Re: National Geographic magazine

Post by Darryl »

moonshadow wrote: My point is, we are not the enemy of most of the Trump supporters around here, they know that, and they know who their enemy is. They're tired of seeing "MADE IN CHINA" on virtually everything they buy, they're tired of reading the paper every day and seeing "____________ COAL CORP TO SHUT DOWN ANOTHER MINE", they're tired of dealing with health insurance snafu's, they're tired of the greed and corruption that comes out of Washington (and Richmond). They're tired of democrats AND republicans, and frankly, they realize that Trump is really neither, and THAT'S why he got elected!

...They just leave me alone, and the best compliments I received were in TRUMP COUNTRY USA, and the most offensive remarks and laughs I've gotten were in areas where democrats typically win elections... just sayin...

...Trump, but like it or not...Give him a shot, and by all means... lets hold him accountable!

I do sincerely wish him all the best because I want my country fixed just as bad as everyone else.
Well said.

Indeed. My initial response was "anyone but Hillary" which involved her (in)famous "what difference does it make?" Then there was Bernie...I didn't care for most of what Obama did but these folks offered nothing different...more of the same if we were lucky, exponentially more if we were unlucky. Then I switched to "anyTHING but Hillary." The Democrats were sounding more and more like the Borg: "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

I might even have taken 'Seven of Nine' - less a few implants - if the platform had sounded good. But....

Meanwhile the Republicans appeared to have been co-opted, blackmailed, neutered or otherwise rendered ineffective. NONE of their proposed candidates seemed to have "it" - whatever "it" is. Then Trump appeared.

Well, I've been a registered Democrat all my life...JFK might have been a good King, RFK might have been acceptable...but the only other person who seemed to have the whole package was Reagan.

I've also said for a number of years now that I believe what we need is to elect a President who is NOT running, who DOES NOT want the job (but is honorable enough to give it his or her best shot if pushed into it) and pretty much has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Inauguration.

A military officer, O-5 or higher, might be perfect because they should have learned by that point that they need to rely on good Chiefs and/or Sergeants to keep things running, as well as how to take their advice while making it appear you were thinking along the same lines yourself and still giving credit where credit is due.

Don't know if Ross Perot would have worked any better or not, but he couldn't get "it" going.

But let us remember that here in the US we do have a thing called 'separation of power' and not only sit back and watch, but if we disagree with our elected representatives to make our opinions known, vociferously and unendingly, if necessary. A squeaky wheel often gets the grease. But "we the people" can no longer be apathetic, nor can we afford to vote a free ride for everyone and kick the bill down the timeline to our kids, well...your kids.

Pick and choose. Carefully. DEMAND simple news reporting from our media with OP/ED pieces clearly labeled as such and not spun in such a way as to make it appear to be 'news.' Set term limits, no more 'career politicians.' No more Congressional health plan or retirement plan. (Let them get Obamacare and Social Security like the rest of us and if they are wise, invest in private retirement plans.)

PBS numbers were 58% of the voters turned out, Trump got about the same as Romney in 2012 and Hillary got less than Obama in 2012.

So. Voter apathy.

One would hope that in four years we might see higher turnout and involvement....but....nah, never happen.... :roll:
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: National Geographic magazine

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Moonshadow,

I really hate it when you comment on my posts without reading them carefully. I made it as clear as one possibly could that I was talking about "an element of Trump's supporters." The main point I was making that Trump's election was seen by the bigots, that yes have always been there, as legitimizing their point of view (hate crimes in Oregon increased by a factor of 9) and that the odds were that we would get swept up in it.

I think we all gave Trump as much, if not more, of a chance as he was willing to make use of. As soon as he was elected he appeared on "60 Minutes" and told the world most of what he said during the campaign was strictly what he believed it would take to get elected not necessarily things he believed or would even attempt to accomplish. Before you say that's what all politicians say, consider this, most Presidents fulfill 70+% of their campaign promises, usually within their first year. Pres. Clinton's percentage was something like 80%.

You can tell your friends and neighbors for me that insurance snafus and hassles were around LONG before anyone had even heard of Barack Obama and that thanks to fracking, the prices of natural gas and oil make coal an uneconomical source of energy. Even if that weren't the case, automation and mechanization are steadily reducing the number of coal jobs anyway.

I feel for them but if Fox News weren't so expert at editing statements down to sound bites they would have heard Hilary Clinton say that her answer to the unemployment crisis in coal country wasn't to make false promises to bring back obsolete coal jobs but to provide more training and other assistance to help those people that the coal companies cast aside to find jobs that will last in industries that have a future by creating the future.

Our world has changed so quickly that only a few people have successfully kept up and if they were honest with themselves they'd realize they were more lucky than smart.

When I graduated from high school, a fellow without a high school education could still get a good job. They knew people like themselves, but older who were hard-working, ambitious and willing to make the most of the opportunities their company offered them, who had advanced to and were holding family wage jobs. But as other nations, with the help and protection of the USA advanced and free trade expanded, two things fed off of one another, a global economy emerged and automation not only eliminated jobs, it eliminated the middle-skilled jobs that provided the route up from low-level skills to high-wage jobs.

Look at the modern manufacturing factory. There are a good number of people feeding stock and pulling finished parts out of the machines. They don't get paid much. There are also a handful of very highly skilled and very highly paid people who program the machines that bend, cut and mill the materials. And there's nothing in between. Recently, Wal-Mart brought a significant portion of the orders for a particular product back into the US causing their domestic supplier to double their production. The US shop added 7 employees because as soon as they saw the increased order they were able to improve the efficiency of their production process enough to only need that many more workers displacing hundreds of Chinese.

I saw in a recent issue of The Economist that this is a global trend, manufacturing employment is going down while production is going up.

If these developments were occurring in the '60's, the unions representing the workers in a particular industry would have gotten the businesses to share the increased wealth with the remaining employees and gotten some assistance for the displaced employees. The AFL-CIO would have gotten Congress to provide ALL displaced workers some meaningful assistance to find other jobs and bridge the gap while they were finding new jobs. You might ask, "How is it fair that the poor, downtrodden company owners bear those burdens?" And I would reply, "Just who do you think provided the brawn and much of the brains that built those companies?"

However, in the '80's, Ronald Reagan succeeded in his all-out war against unions. The hypocrisy of his denunciations and efforts was that he had been President of the Screen Actors' Guild (union) when it served his purposes. When he didn't feel he personally needed his union any longer he turned into their Critic-in-Chief.

But I digress, Trump, along with false hopes, fostered a climate of hate and bigotry. I've said more on this forum than too many of you are willing to listen to as to how I think we can combat that. Perhaps my proposed response IS misguided. Fine, but how do you propose we address the new climate we're in?
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: National Geographic magazine

Post by oldsalt1 »

Yes Hillary said she wanted to retrain the miners. But to what she had no jobs to offer.

How should we address the new climate we are in. How about at least a Wait and see attitude. Give him a chance There are many of us who felt the same when Obama was elected. Don't go into the Birther issue
that was a very small minority. The rest of us sucked it up and gave him a chance.

If you watched the concert last night You had to be moved when Lee Greenwood was singing Proud To Be An American.

Its a new start lets enjoy who we are and Give the Man a chance
Darryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Re: National Geographic magazine

Post by Darryl »

FWIW

In the Louisville KY-IN Metropolitan area for the American Community Survey by the US Census, stated in 2017 median dollars:
Education........................................Annual Earnings ($).....Compared to National Average
Some High School...............................32,000....................96%
High School......................................38,000
Associate Degree................................47,000...................94%
Bacc Degree.....................................53,000....................85%
Masters...........................................67,000
Doctorate........................................85,000
Post Reply