Best political & governmental books according to redditors
We found 4,286 Reddit comments discussing the best political & governmental books. We ranked the 1,701 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
11. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism
20 mentions
He's the guy that wrote This (warning: amazon link, open in private browsing so it doesn't effect recommendations) book about how democrats are the real nazis. So you know this guy is grounded in reality.
Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY
Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
The real news:
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
Look at the following graphs:
IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/
"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
Important history:
http://williamblum.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4
>What the actual fuck is wrong with politicians.
You're slowly becoming aware of how corrupt and fucked up the world really is... You're not seeing what's going on behind the scenes... they fear the net and hence want to lock everything down.
The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g
Snowden on terrorism/spying.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/sep/25/edward-snowden-treaty-glenn-greenwald-mass-surveillance-terrorism-video
Democracy Inc.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
Intereference in other states when the corporations dont get their way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/
"Military spending doesn’t redistribute wealth, it’s not democratizing, it doesn’t create popular constituencies or encourage people to get involved in decision-making. It’s just a straight gift to the corporate manager, period."
...
"They understood that social spending could play the same stimulative role, but it is not a direct subsidy to the corporate sector, it has democratizing effects, and it is redistributive. Military spending has none of these defects."
link
Same way they made the word “Liberal” a pejorative term.
This book by George Lakoff outlines just how Republicans have hijacked the political discourse in this country and explains how to undo the bunk framing and take it back to reality. Quick and fascinating read. Check it out.
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
I think the issue here is that there's no protection for cities and high density populations within our current system. For example in 2012 in Pennsylvania Democrats won 51% of the vote for Congressional house seats but lost as seat in Congress. To me that's what busted. The representation in each state is skewed to represent smaller, often whiter, communities.
Lets take this example for instance:
Say a state has 5 congressional Districts:
District 1 voted 55-45 Dem
District 2 voted 60-40 Republican
District 3 voted 52-48 Dem
District 4 Voted 53-47 Republican
District 5 voted 65-35 Dem
Now after a landmark wave like 2010 the Republicans redraw the lines of the district
District 1 redrawn to be 58-42 Republican
District 2 wasn't redrawn Remained 60-40 Republican
District 3 was redrawn became 59-41 Republican
District 4 was redrawn became 59-41 Republican
District 5 was redrawn became 80-20 Democrat
Visually speaking Wapo had a great piece on it. Also the grab the book Ratf**ked
Someone's basically already done that.
He sold a book entitled "why socialism works" and every page just reads "it doesn't". Check out the triggered customer reviews.
It's The History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal
​
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
I just got done finishing Clinton Cash. That book completely rips right into this and explains it so well. The Clintons and their charity is complete scum. If some of you are looking for a good read, give it a shot.
This article shouldn't have focused on just North Carolina; they make it sound like this was just something the GOP members of one state did, when it is not.
This was a systematic attack planned and executed across the nation. The GOP looked at every state in the country, determined which seats they could easily flip to gain control of the bodies that make the congressional maps, and then funded the republican candidates there.
This was a concerted effort named Project Redmap, and they used every dirty trick in the book. Attack ads, lies, slander, plotting out districts so that they concentrate minorities or democrats or whatever else they could do.
Get a copy of Ratf**ked. It covers it all, in much greater detail.
The GOP made their plans to take over the country, and they executed it perfectly. They have control of the country now, and it's only going to tighten.
The only way to fix it is a massive wave election for democrats in 2018, which will take a concentrated effort just like the Republicans put forth, and that's not going to happen. You see, they planned for that too, and have been working to keep it from happening.
The Guardian reports it as a Gore Vidal book on the Security State.
Probably this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
Here's the link to the book if anyone is interested.
I see you have never owned the libs by selling a book on Amazon called "Why Socialism Works" that actually only has the words "It doesn't" on every page
From an economics perspective:
From a social perspective:
From a moral perspective:
There's many more than just these, and there's a lot of underlying philosophy that modern conservationism is based on. I'd also categorize these books as a basis for "intellectual conservatism" as opposed to say "cultural conservatism". Something to note is that little of the conservative mindset is focused on policy and politics, per se. There is instead a strong emphasis on personal action and collective culture, the value of morals, and a focus on introspection. So while these books will perhaps help you understand a conservative perspective better, they will not likely provide a good basis for engaging in political debate. For that maybe you want a book by Ben Shapiro or something.
I'm not quite done with it yet, but I was listening to Clinton Cash over the weekend. In addition to this, they raise the question of why all of these foreign entities need to funnel money through the Clinton Foundation at all rather than simply donating the money to local charities.
I'm only on chapter 7 or 8 so far, but they also discuss how much the Clintons' income for speeches increased during Hillary's tenure as SoS and how she used a special rule that had previously been used to employ experts like scientists to allow operatives to work for the State Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously.
It's pretty disgusting. It's as nakedly corrupt as you could possibly want without a full-throated admission of guilt. This is the Clintons' stock in trade. I cannot fathom how all of the liberals who bitched about the war crimes of the Bush administration and the foul influence of money in politics (typically vis a vis the Koch brothers) can possibly support this woman. If I had to dream up a character that embodied corruption I would never be able to supply you with a sketch more on the nose than Hillary Clinton.
I think Scott Adams is right. The only thing potentially stopping Trump is the "crazy racist" charge. If he can neutralize that, he wins in a landslide. There's simply no reason to support Hillary Clinton on the merits and a mountain of objective reasons to oppose her every holding any public office ever again.
He wrote a 'book' as well, this is a scary man....
Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks: A Short Essay from a Pro Se Litigant who is Challenging the Utah Brothel Bans https://www.amazon.com/dp/1520441509/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_Uz2lzb95W508N
We need to get the Marxist propaganda pushers out of our media and education system.
Free speech is good, propaganda of murderous ideology is not ok.
No, there isn't. The stated strategy of the house Republicans from the day Obama was elected was to not compromise and try to thwart the new administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
No amount of wineing and dining was going to get the House Republicans to deal.
Look at the book "Its even worse than it looks" by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Goes thru in detail how every negotiation was blown up by the younger house leaders for political gain, not for the good of the country.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
No. The situation right now is something of a repeat of the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, yet for a lot of people paying attention to politics now they never lived through the Nixon scandals. This, along with a series of long-term trends, combine to make a 'new normal' that I don't think a lot of people understand.
I'm not sure how far back to go with this but I'll start with the ultra partisanship that exploded around Obama's time in office. Mann and Ornstein had been warning for years that political extremism was starting to harm good governance, and we saw quite a bit of evidence in that with the no holds barred, scorched earth policy of Newt Gingrich's new GOP in the '90s, which forswear any compromise. This by itself was not really an issue until the American electorate turned more and more partisan over the 2000s, and most especially during the Tea Party movement under Obama. The displacement of traditionally conservative or otherwise 'moderate' Republicans by Tea Partiers happened in a wave that unseated, most ironically, Eric Cantor...yet Cantor, Ryan, and Marco Rubio themselves emboldened the Tea Party out of the realization that this clearly partisan movement could get them votes. So Cantor then losing to a Tea Partier (David Brat) for being a 'RINO' probably should have been the first warning sign that things were getting out of control (Anybody listening to conservative AM radio around tea party time knows what I'm talking about).
Despite what excuses people may make for the government shutdown during Obama's term and certain obstructionist efforts, they still had a deleterious effect on Congressmen and Senators solely because they proved that a partisan position for the sake of appearing extreme could actually enhance one's standing with the electorate. The GOP waves during the Obama administration and into state-level elections was largely the result of simply radicalizing the base against Obama and the Democrats. In turn, Democrats turned more partisan as well. This would itself not have been an issue until Trump was elected, and has thoroughly ruined political discourse in the country by completely dividing Americans into 'loyalists' versus 'The Enemy.' The issue is getting exacerbated, not cured, mostly because the system has changed to favor extremist pandering and none of the political compromise that is actually necessary for good governance or confidence in political institutions. Consider the divide in media consumption based on one's political preference. Probably the most striking part of America society and its politics is how absolutely delusional each side is about one another. There's little to no understanding about how the other end feels. Coming out of a Democrat administration, the right-wing forces that propelled Trump (Breitbart, internet personalities, Bannon, Yiannopoulos) were especially bad (YET EFFECTIVE, can't deny that) about portraying a cartoonish idea about 'the Left' and perpetuating cultural grievances/race-baiting. The polarization has gotten so bad that the most radical, poisonous elements of the right-wing spectrum are not being sufficiently recognized by those who just consider themselves Trump supporters or typical Republicans. To illustrate this, consider the tragedy at Charlottesville, where the endless feedback loop of cultural grievance and moral relativism led to a murderer's mother not even being aware her son was in a white supremacist organization versus a regular Trump rally. The more extreme organizations are always seeking normalization, and there's pretty good evidence they're going to get somewhere under this administration if things don't change soon.
The shoe could well be on the other foot come next election. But this is the new normal. It's less likely Trump's man-child antics disappear and get replaced by someone more presidential, and more likely someone savvy to 'the game' like Senator Tom Cotton will step in to replace him. The Trump administration is a whole new level of incompetence compared to past administrations, but this itself is not really noteworthy if it wasn't coupled with the extreme polarization of the electorate, making endless excuses for it. The scandals of the Trump administration have been normalized by one side and absolutely outrage the other, even though under any other administration there would be far more diligence and scrutiny over such issues by the majority of Americans and the media, not just one side. My particular specialty is in foreign policy. I won't go into details but the near-comic bumbling of Trump officials when it comes to dealing with other countries and their envoys is already legendary. Virtually nobody else would make these mistakes. Yet the American public is divided on a sports-team-esque basis, and thus simple questions like 'Should someone like Tom Price have ever been approved for his job?' go ignored in favor of cheerleading.
So, no, this isn't normal. The politicization of the Special Counsel, by its nature Independent, out of fear it will cost one party votes or face should never be considered normal. But it's going to be. This is not some aberration in American history: this is just how it's going to be. For a while, at least. Likely through the next administration, too.
Hope this helps!
Also read Mann and Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism to understand why 'our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”'
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
I don't have any off the top of my head, but I own (have yet to do any substantial reading of) a book called Fight Club Politics that goes back to pre-Lewinsky era Gingrich and talks about how this poison has been seeping through Congress for a long time. There's also a similar book called It's Even Worse Than It Looks which I haven't read, but I'm lead to understand (by reviews and, among other things, the title) that despite the American electorate believing collectively that on some level all of this is just political theater, that this is actually really really bad partisanship.
Those might not be exactly what you're looking for, but they're surely in the right vein. The other thing when it comes to Obama to remember is that he's black. I'm not saying that everyone who opposes him is an old-fashioned, biological racist. Many are what's referred to sometimes in microaggression theory as "symbolic" racists (whereas when conservatives accuse liberals of being "the real racists" they're accusing them of being "aversive" racists. It's a different thing).
When Obama got elected, he ran on a platform of "hope and change". I think this scared a lot of white people, because for white people, they don't need much hope and they don't want change because things have been going pretty well for them. If you don't recall (I'm not sure how old you are), the rhetoric coming from the right was not far off the shaking in the boots that we're seeing Linsey Graham doing now over ISIS. Obama was going to come for your guns, and then give all your money to the (lazy) black people, and that's based on socialism. Etc. etc. etc... Worse, socialism takes away FREEDOM and, in modern practices has involved DICTATORS, which is likely how people came to a lot of these crazy conclusions.
I'm not sure exactly where in the last 25 or so years--I'm sure it talks about in the books that I mentioned--the word liberal became this weird pejorative. It's funny to me, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty so I'm proud to call myself liberal and progressive, but whenever someone starts saying "The liberals" or better yet "those libs", I know they're about to spout some baller-level ignorance. My point is, somehow liberals became un-American to the true patriots.
In fact, watch Jon Stewart's clip from last week ripping Fox News for the latte-salute while followed immediately by the awful boobs-on-the-ground joke. "Fuck your false patriotism" he says. It's pretty powerful, and he doesn't pull any punches.
So yeah, I'm sure someone has done better research on it than me, but combine all those toxic elements and you've got the people convinced that Obama is the Antchrist.
George Friedman is terrible at East Asian geopolitics. Absolutely terrible.
​
In his 1991 book that he published/authored, entitlted: "The Coming War with Japan", available on Amazon with a measley 3 star rating, he predicts US will go to war with Japan in the future. The guy has been wrong for 27 years and counting!
​
He doubled down on Japan by predicting in the next 100 year's book that Japan will be the Leader of Asia, and China/India somehow disappears from relevance from internal upheaval. A fiction sci-fi American nationalistic narrative.
​
What a complete farce.
​
I found it!
Gore Vidal History of The National Security State: Includes Vidal on America https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1494887991/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_okZRCbFG8NG2R
Interesting choice of arrest book, I have a follow up for anyone reading, what was Assange shouting as he was arrested?
Sky News are reporting he’s telling the U.K. to refuse the Trump Administration with large portions of what he is saying labels as “inaudible”.
Wouldn’t that statement go against the whole point of Wikileaks who leaked Hillary’s emails?
Ex-army here. I did six years in the Army Reserve and a one year deployment to Iraq in 09.
The military is the most extreme example of hierarchy I can think of. There are literally dozens of layers of it, in the rank system and the chain of command, and you wear it on your chest in the form of your personal rank.
The purpose of the military is to destroy and conquer human beings, so it isn't surprising that those in the military experience what we dish out. It's why we have higher rates of suicide, mental illness, crime, etc. Everybody's experience is different of course, but I would call mine a "socially acceptable abusive relationship". Those on the top would engage in verbal abuse and physical abuse (in the form of corrective action through physical exercise, as well as sending us on pointless mission that put our lives at risk).
The military is about power, just as corporations and other big businesses are about power. Power is how you take more than you create. It's how a CEO can pay himself a million bucks a year but give his employees minimum wage. The military is how capitalists and states maintain their power at home and overseas. When foreign nations refuse to part with their natural resources or labor for a pittance, that's when those in power have to take action. I'd suggest reading Understanding Power to get the specifics here.
I could always feel there was something wrong with this system, but it took experimenting with a number of different philosophies before I came to anarchism. Abolishing all hierarchies and tools of oppressions...that's what really got me.
Attempting to blame democrat migration for the state of gerrymandered districts is weak tea and intellectually dishonest. While gerrymandering has always existed in our country, it has never been conducted on the scale which the GOP engaged in gerrymandering after the 2010 census and tea party rise to power. All of this is well documented in this book which shows a coordinated effort by the GOP and their donors to subvert democracy through gerrymandering of congressional districts. We are not only talking about red states here either but also blue and purple states where the majority of voters are dem but are represented primarily by republicans since 2010.
Fortunately gerrymandering is fairly easy to prove in court and we have seen a number of successful legal challenges to the practice over the last year. If this continues, dems may not have such a steep road to re-taking the house, especially when one considers the recent results in special elections...
Seems to be. One aspect it doesn't cover, however, is that the Rubio and Trump views come from primary campaigning versions of themselves. Even with Trump, it's reasonable to assume their true views aren't quite as stringent as the rhetorically simple messages they put out for primary voters. And I say that being personally as far from a Rubio/Trump/Cruz supporter as you might find.
The revealing part is that about Bush—he really did couch the argument that starkly, at least publicly. The author writes:
> Bush called al-Qaeda “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century … they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism.” Many Republicans still see the “war on terror” in these epic terms.
In my opinion that's rare for a president, aside from instances of actual threats of world domination, like that of the Nazis and USSR; and it's an unwise thing to do...but that's also my opinion. That un-nuanced, all/nothing choice was successful at the time. But I've since seen even conservatives criticize this, saying it ended up weakening the U.S. position. Yet most of the republican candidates are now back where Bush/Cheney left off.
The portion about Obama subscribing to the Robert Pape argument is interesting.
> ...that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but occupation
I've not seen this argument made about Obama before. It does seem correct. I'm looking forward to reading the essay cited... which is actually a book, here on Amazon. (As I was writing this I assumed it was shorter form, online content. Good as the book maybe, if anyone can point me to online content discussing Pope's argument, I'd love to see it.)
For all those on the left I have the "Perfect" book for you, it's #1 in the Political Ideologies section of Amazon! Why Socialism Works
One of the best books out there about redistricting is Rat F**ked. A must-read.
Unity comes when people within the party know their leader cares for them.
Do you honestly think that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton care about you AT ALL?
Reality check: SHE DOESN'T. (AND HE DOESN'T.)
She'll do whatever to make it SEEM like she cares, but SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT US (99% of Americans).
She's in this presidential election to win so her rich donors can get their federal appointments on boards and commissions and their interests lobbied and heard in DC, and implement laws that will ONLY benefit them.
Hillary Clinton is a puppet that's being manipulated by corporate interests.
ie. Clinton Cash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469736845&sr=8-1&keywords=clinton+cash
If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I am NOT voting for the lesser of the two evils that are Trump and Hillary.
Progress will only be made with someone like Jill Stein of the Green Party, who shares the most similar values and beliefs as those of Bernie Sanders.
If you are a true Bernie Sanders supporter, you would vote for Green Party's Jill Stein in 2016.
The only reason Bernie endorsed Hillary is to save his political career.
If Bernie had held out until the very end and refused to endorse Hillary at the Democratic National Convention, then establishment Democratic politicians would not like him, and this would further impede his influence and progress in the Senate, where establishment Democrats make up a good amount of the Senate seats.
So the next best thing we can do is to elect progressive leaders to Congress to impede Trump or Hillary from furthering their top 1% interests and fighting for the 99% (the American people).
He's written and published an essay!
From now on, we should sticky this at the top of all these threads.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
Nearly finished with Clinton Cash, 10/10 should indict
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
80% of the legwork is already done by the author, should ship copies to Congress
Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard
There is no one person short of Henry Kissinger who has been more of a political insider through last 4 decades than Brzezinski. He was a key figure in supporting the Mujahideen and he almost single handedly created Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda means "the base", which referred to Brzezinski's database of useful Mujahideen fighters).
Brzezinski has advised on foreign policy from Carter to Obama and everyone in between. His book and his own words document the reasons for and the consequences of the US' role in the creation of Al Qaeda.
Any video claiming to give information on the beginnings of Al Qaeda/ISIS is horribly incomplete without THAT story....especially when the words come from the horse's mouth and the man is still alive today (his daughter is the co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC).
Big money is center to right; it prefers control and manipulation to ensure profit at the upper echelons of politics. The Democratic party wants to appear left leaning with social policy regarding gender and race, but in all other matters it is right of center. Center wouldn't even be bad if it protected a stable middle class, but that's not the case.
I just finished reading Clinton Cash. If you have any doubts about where the Democratic party is headed if she wins the election, read this book. It will give you a clear understanding why the Democratic party under Clinton will push for more fracking, the Keystone Pipeline, further uranium sales to Russia, strip mining and more war. And if you have any doubts at all about what will happen with affordable education, then the parts in the book describing the millions of dollars the Clintons have made with Sylvian/Laureat will help you understand that the very politicians who say they will help make education more affordable actually profit from it not being affordable.
So I'm not even sure the Democrats are centrist. They are right of center.
On a related note, something I got off another redditor:
> Robert Pape Uni. of Chicago, studied every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 attacks in all:
>"The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" - Source
The person who wrote the story is Thomas Frank, but this is not the same Thomas Frank who wrote, What's the Matter with Kansas and Listen, Liberal. The latter wrote a harsh criticism of the Democratic establishment in his latest book, but the former is a corporate tool for CNN (or perhaps a former corporate tool since he has now resigned).
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
We've got a problem in our country. A deep-seated one and one that won't go away when Trump exits the public stage- whether that's 8 years, 4 years, or 2 months. Those people will still be here. Radicalized by a demagogue. And looking for "revenge" against the nonwhites who they've been propagandized to believe are the roots of all their problems. And deeply unhinged. They saw what power they had. I'm watching Trumped-a documentary that revisits the utter craziness of the 2016 presidential election- a stirring reminder of just how far Trump crossed the line in vulgarity, how comically inept he was at the debates, etc. and yet they willed him into office.
Sometimes it seems that a demagogue has gotten so into the heads of his followers, that they are so far gone in terms of what they're tolerate and what they'll believe (ie: conspiracy theories) that ordinary people are at a loss for how to even talk to such people. (let's not forget Voltaire's quote “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”)
Whites have always been a proud people and with the right agitation, history shows it doesn't take much before their violent instincts get the best of them. We shouldn't go to sleep on this tendency of theirs.
And it's not some mentality that is restricted to the low-class mouthbreathers; there are people like Michael Flynn (national security advisor to the White House) and Steve Bannon (chief strategist - White House) who are not 'garden-variety conservatives'. They are also believers in the creed of supremacy and have this notion that white self-restraint in the past has harmed America (which they say publicly) and has harmed "goodhearted American people" (white people) which they are more coy about but believe just as much. (these concepts of white 'self-restraint' and 'victimization' are largely fiction, but they are foundational to their worldview; it justifies their outlook which paints a dark picture of nonwhites- their being problems and threats). I strongly advise people read George Lakoff and how he talks about "framing"; his book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a short read but a terrific primer on linguistics in politics; summarizing here: Once you use language that convinces your audience that Person X or Group Y is villainous, you can attack them with impunity; the crowd will be indifferent of even supportive. No one will object to your 'defending' them from an aggressor.).
What this re-emergent white supremacist movement's rank& file and leadership both share is a 'persecution complex'. People are very dangerous when they have this perception. They will do things in this mode that they wouldn't ordinarily do if they viewed things like geopolitics in an objective way. It's not a sober evaluation of cause and effect; they see it as Action or Death. Once they whip themselves into this frenzy, where they completely distort reality, flip it on its head, and in their newly constructed funhouse-mirror of the world- nonwhites are 'taking advantage' of whites who are now the Victim- seemingly nothing is off the table in terms of "self-defense". A victim sees himself as willing to use "whatever means are necessary" to stop the "abuse". Trump and Co. have used precisely this language with regards to Mexico and China. Trump has said China is "raping" the US. This is not the language of a statesman; it's the language of someone who wants to sway the people into giving him maximum flexibility to "retaliate". And when it happens, as is our practice, unilateral aggression will be packaged as "self-defense".
Yes, agreed, everyone should. But most won't. And many who do read it either fail to understand it and/or refuse to believe it because they are more comfortable with the fantasy that America is some sort of great, leading Democracy. The cognitive dissonance is simply too much for many Americans. A very false sense of American exceptionalism tends to win out. If you notice, Wikipedia is even considering doing away with the individual Inverted Totalitarianism page.
Anyway, here are more links for those interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nelGtSOimwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=AV_c1ElZl7Q
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/180-0382729-1464265
http://www.alternet.org/news/85728/
The analysis of the stock transactions was put forward in a book by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
The book, entitled "Throw Them All Out", and subtitled How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison, was featured in a recent "60 Minutes" investigation that gained a lot of attention.
In it, Schweizer said McDermott "bet big" by buying 2,000 shares in ID Biomedical of Quebec for $10 apiece in June 2004. That was six weeks before the House of Representatives passed the $5.6 billion bill dubbed Project Bioshield. Shares in the company subsequently tripled before McDermott sold them in September 2005.
Asked if he was accusing Rep. McDermott of insider trading, book author Schweizer said, "it is highly unethical to purchase stock in a bill you are supporting and then enjoy the profits when the corporate recipients see their stock climb."
Also named in the book as beneficiaries of cronyism and insider tips are Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
https://vimeo.com/39566117
Testing theories of representative government
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
US distribution of wealth
https://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>Is there any politician out there willing to fight for Canadians? Is that too much to ask?
Sorry to tell you the government doesn't work for you.
These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Rd wolf on economics
http://www.rdwolff.com/
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/
Education as ignorance
https://chomsky.info/warfare02/
Overthrowing other peoples governments
http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
https://youtu.be/ABDiHspTJww?t=17
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
https://vimeo.com/39566117
Testing theories of representative government
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/
Blum:
http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137
US distribution of wealth
https://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Centre for Investigative Journalism
http://www.tcij.org/
Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.
https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/
The real news
http://www.therealnews.com
Links to everything that was disproved. 'Cause dis book still in circulation and the documentary adheres completely to the 2015 published copy.
Gotta cite your sources, otherwise I'm not grading your paper.
Are any of these claims...wrong?
For example, take:
> Anti-conservative sentence of the oped: " the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t." Hmm.
This isn't a hot take from Krugman. It's conventional wisdom in political science. See https://voteviewblog.com/2015/06/10/more-on-assymmetric-polarization-yes-the-republicans-did-it/ or https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
SS:
here is the video of julian #HERO assange being dragged out of solitary confinement :
he can be heard shouting “you must resist”.
here is the book he is holding:
Shame on UK
Shame of Ecuador
Shame on USA
Shame on Australia
The two books Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer and Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank pair extremely well and are required reading for anyone that wishes to understand how US politics has been shifted so far to the right these past decades. Dark Money, while extremely informative regarding the propaganda of billionaires, largely gives a pass to the Democratic party which Listen, Liberal reveals as being undeserved.
If anyone is interested in reading more about the gerrymandering on steroid that the Republicans been using since 2010 I recommend RatFuck by David Daley
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628
If you want a broad view of Chomsky, I suggest The Essential Chomsky. It's a collection of some of his most influential writings. If you want to skip the linguistic stuff and focus on political writing, Understanding Power has been suggested. I haven't read that one, though. The linguistic stuff, in my opinion, is interesting but very hard to follow if you're not into linguistics already. The opening piece from Essential Chomsky is a 50+ page essay which is a critical examination of a linguistics writing. It took a long time to read and I retained little.
Here is more info on the first book I recommended. Here is the second.
Pat McCrory was a pretty decent Republican mayor in Charlotte as a counter balance to the Dem controlled city council & county board of commissioners. He was likable and worked across the aisle to get things done. When he won the governorship the N.C. legislature had a supermajority due to gerrymandered districts and had been drunk with power. McCory was ill prepared. Art Pope, a long-time right-wing operative, became his chief of staff like Cheney was to Bush. McCrory went along with Art Pope's reckless ideas and never pushed back to the wacko republican legislature and lost his soul.
Charlotte Observer columnist Mark Washburn nets out McCrory's astonishing record. Eleven nice words to describe the reign of Gov. McCrory
North Carolina is a purple state suffering from gerrymandered districts that followed the 2010 census as are these states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Here a good book on subject:
Rat F*cked
Wait, you accuse the left of calling everyone they don't like Nazis? Seriously? Conservative call liberals Nazis way more often. The biggest conservative movie last year was all about how the Nazis were left wing. It was written by Dinesh D'Souza and entitled "The Big Lie". If you're such a smarty pants truth teller, why didn't you know about this movie that tens of millions of conservatives watched? Why didn't you know about Dinesh and all the times Fox News has said the Nazis were liberals? Fox News was even going to recently run a special saying the Nazis were left wing. Because, you know, Hitler hated the white privilege and patriarchy.
​
Clinton Cash
Hillary would sell weapons or arrange for them to be made available to countries, and then surprisingly those same countries would make a large donation to the Clinton Foundation.
It was front page news several weeks ago, and the man who wrote the book about all of this is enjoying a few weeks on the bestseller's list.
And you're exactly right (the book by Sheldon Wolin is great, incidentally). No meaningful form of political democracy can survive in a society with a capitalist economic substructure. Capitalism inevitably creates a ruling class of wealth that puts itself far above the people in both legal and social status by subverting whatever form of government might exist. If we want egalitarianism and democracy to exist in the future, we must completely transform our economic system into some form of socialism, for which the capitalist ruling class's power base of private capital ownership does not exist.
Sounds like you've read Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. The author Sheldon Wolin makes the point that the Democrats have failed as an opposition party and have become complicit in the neutering of the federal government. The book is an excellent read and eye-opening as well.
The book that the term is coined from.
A Chris Hedges lecture where he discusses the term.
It's not really a paper, so to speak, he organized it really well in a book. Simple read, very straight forward, authentic sources and well cited.
You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373188706&sr=8-1&keywords=logic+of+suicide
'The Gulag Archipelago' by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
I'm not exactly sure what your view to change here is, but I'll take a stab at your causality by inserting a step before the "the sides don't understand each other so they fight against and demonize straw men," point.
This may CMV - it may not - but the problem isn't ignorance of the other side so much as each side is driving it's own narrative that is intentionally wrong. To borrow from Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Reagan was talking about the left, of course, but you could just as easily levy the same attack against the right.
So... it's not ignorance of the other side that's the problem, it's rather a false understanding of the other side in the worst possible terms. It's not accidental; it's intentional.
And it's the inevitable consequence of the application of post-modernism to the political system. This is laid out wonderfully in "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. This book, which has been essential in shaping left-leaning politics for about 20 years now is all about framing and context. The central thesis is that Truth (with a capitol T) doesn't exist and that truth is whatever people think it is. Therefore, the left must re-frame the debate to it's own ends, developing it's own metrics of success and failure and (this is key) never accepting the right on it's own rhetorical ground. The right is also building on it's own framing paradigms, such that and the end of the day, the left and the right can talk about the same basic issues without actually talking about the same thing at all.
You see this in campaigns where each campaign seeks to "define their opponent" on their own ground rather than to let their opposition define themselves and meeting on that ground.
In summation, I think your point is correct, in as far as it accurately describes the situation, but I think what you describe is a symptom rather than a cause and that the cause is political sophistry designed to prevent the left and the right from finding common ground.
I'm wondering if this is tied to the Terry McAuliffe investigation now. Remember waaay back with the Clinton China gate in 1996? There are lots of well founded allegations of the Clintons getting funded via China in exchange for technology transfers. In particular, guidance technology that was used when the Chinese shot down one of their own satellites, and now threatens our national security.
Well now Terry McAuliffe is being investigated over Chinese money influencing US Politics. He also has tight connections to the Clintons through the Clinton Foundation. And as mentioned above, Clinton Foundation servers were seized. =
Things are starting to come together, and there is speculation that the unsecured server was a way of transferring information to the Clinton's foreign connections in exchange for money flowing in through various people and back channels.
... This is what you hang people over.. I mean I don't care what your politics are, this is some grade A fucked up shit. If the FBI puts all the pieces together and rounds up a huge ring of people involved in this INCLUDING the Clintons.. Man that would just restore my faith in the US government. This book, Clinton Cash.. Its author and contents are quickly becoming very very accurate.I would expect the same treatment of people like the Bushs if declassified papers find they took money influencing their politics from the Saudis in return for hiding their connection to 9/11. (I'm still not sold on the theory that the US was involved as well).
If you haven't read it, you should read Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. In this book, a chapter is dedicated to Hati, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere immediately after the earthquake that killed half a million people. I'm not going to get too far into it here, but needless to say, Bill shows up on behalf of the Foundation (unapproved by the IRS) and starts raising money for the "relief" effort. Long story short, most of that money never made it to Hati--something like only two or three percent. Talk about pure evil. To take money from the poorest of countries after this devastating disaster and you and your cronies pocket it? Deplorable. Things got so bad when Chelsea went to visit, she wrote to Hillary about the awful conditions highlighting the out of control sickness and paid special attention to the diaharea for some odd reason. Read the emails on Wikileaks. Cholera also broke out, which we found out later was brought by UN relief workers. In addition, Clinton managed to squeeze open pit gold mining rights from Hati and put a mining company her own brother was vice-president of, while only paying Hati back 3% of the revenue--which is completely unheard of in these kind of deals. This is just scratching the surface of all the shit they did, but I would encourage all centipedes to red this and become even more informed.#MAGA
Still waiting on our "coming war with Japan."
Documetary adaptation of the book Clinton Cash. Shows how the Clintons acted as global power brokers for the wealthy and powerful while using the foundation and speaking to accept legal bribes.
Here is where all of the "proof" comes from
Here's the thing, International Relations is all about figuring out why states act as they do, using culture as the metric misses a lot of motivation for how states interact as logical players in a somewhat anarchistic game of survival as a state.
I haven't read this book, but I've read Joesph Nye and he's also one of the standards that most IR students will end up reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Global-Conflict-Cooperation-Introduction/dp/0205851630/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
I also mention Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics in another comment. It's heavily assigned and great if you loved playing Risk as a kid.
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276
Especially when its laid out in a book by Jimmy Carters National Security Advisor
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
Have you read Gore Vidal History of The National Security State: Includes Vidal on America ? (This is the book Julian Assange was holding when he was carried out of the embassy.)
It is a very short book but VERY easy to read and super interesting. Your time will not be wasted. It addresses the incestual relationship between Washington and the media as well.
Someone identified it as Gore Vidal: History of The National Security State
OMG I know this dude.. Look up his "book" on Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
Chomsky's views on postmodernism aren't at all new. He dismisses pomo in Understanding Power (2002); I don't have my copy handy to give a page number, but I'm pretty sure it's in the index. He said things to the effect that he can hardly read pomo literature and that it's hardly amenable to serious analysis because its claims are so obscure or indeterminate. His latest remarks are a quite-consistent extension of his earlier ones.
lol. no way I could do it justice... thanks!
I like bobswern's comment where he politely suggests kos take a sabbatical and give all this some more thought. Im tempted to pile on and tell markos to log off DKOS, turn off MSNBC for a week or two and go read a few good books. Go hole up or have a few drinks with Meteor Blades maybe, heh.
start with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Im sure we collectively could come up with a pretty good reading list for him lol
Why do you attribute hostility towards Soviet union as American propaganda? Is that some pathetic way to try and argue or do you believe that Europeans view Soviet union more favorably? Soviet union was murderous corrupted dictatorship what took over entire Easter Europe and fucked them for 50 years, why would anyone like Soviet union?
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851 Have some reading
...not that bad? Here's a quora post?!
The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
For about what it was actually like during that time.
Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick
About what it looked like around the fall of USSR.
Eastern Border Podcast
If you want something more casual, less dense and a podcast
If you weren't a party member there was no "pretty good win" for anyone. I would have happily been homeless in any other first world country than "middle class" in a socialist country during the 20th century.
That is an excellent question. I think it requires diligence, pointing out the lie each and every time you hear it, and being fearless in doing so. The liar will profess instant indignation and threaten legal action, so courage is required.
Being careful of what is being said is also important. "Tax relief", for example, is a loaded term, making taxes sound like a sort of punishment, when in reality they are the necessary fees that keep society running, like the membership fees of a gym. You pay your fees, you get something useful in return, like a stable society.
George Lakoff called this "framing the debate" and wrote an interesting book called Don't Think of an Elephant! about this.
Feast your eyes on this: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509
And then you can google-fu from there if you're not dead of laughter.
This one actually exists.
At risk of copyright infringement, I will print here the entire text of the book here.
>It doesn't.
Ed Gillespie is the architect of modern gerrymandering. He is directly responsible for the mess we're in right now - the rise of donald trump and white nationalism. Without ed Gillespie, we would have had fair elections, we'd have fair representation in congress, and the few wouldn't be in control of hte many.
Im sorry poor Ed is getting "unfairly" judged as a racist extremist, but his policy of disenfranchising poor, black, uneducated voters, is something that a racist extremist would think up.
> Gillespie was chairman of the Republican State Leadership Conference, the national organization that supplied the money and minds necessary to install GOP majorities in the state legislatures, which, in turn, draw congressional seats.
> Because Republicans now hold two-thirds of the nation’s legislative chambers, it is no surprise that they are comfortably in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/jeff-schapiro/schapiro-va-republicans-on-defense-over-redistricting/article_52ebb4a6-089d-5d1e-bd2f-737bc9ba86b6.html
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506446330&sr=1-1&keywords=9781631491627
No one else has mentioned it. "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff talked greatly about how James Dobson and Focus on the Family moved Evangelical Christianity into a wealth=moral fortitude type of mentality. The idea that God only allows the people who are upright Christians to be successful and wealthy is one they capitalized upon and were able to use that value-speak to cause a lot of people who often voted with the Democrats (particularly the blue-collar labor class in the South and Midwest) to side with the Republicans.
You should read this -
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
words matter.
Hillary Clinton’s Problematic Record in Foreign Policy:
...when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace.
-former President Jimmy Carter in a recent interview - http://time.com/56770/jimmy-carter-jesus-christ-iran-putin-clinton-kerry/
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Bernie Sanders Is the Commander in Chief We Need - http://time.com/4266766/bernie-sanders-commander-in-chief/
“The commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military must have the sound judgment to know when to use America’s military power and, just as important, when not to use that power.” –Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Slams Clinton’s Failed Foreign Policy Record [video] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwQY-2Y9UB8
There’s a very clear difference between what someone says and what they actually do, and that’s where as we look at this most important question of who our next Commander-in-Chief could be and what qualities we look for in them, we can tell what they would do by looking at their past. I have not heard Secretary Clinton actually apologize to my brothers and sisters in uniform, military families for her vote for the Iraq war. –Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
Hillary Might Break the Glass Ceiling If She Wins, But She Won't Put a Dent in the Military-Industrial Complex - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-clinton-might-break-symbolic-glass-cieling-if-she-wins-presidency-its-doubtful
Ten Reasons Why Bill and Hillary Clinton Do Not Deserve a Third Term in the White House - http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-reasons-why-bill-and-hillary-clinton-do-not-deserve-a-third-term-in-the-white-house/5520424
Hillary the Hawk - http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35011-hillary-the-hawk
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes - http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes/5509543
Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal - https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/
How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world
Clinton Foundation:
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (book) - http://amzn.com/0062369288
Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties - http://www.advfn.com/news_Hillary-Clintons-Complex-Corporate-Ties_65560730.html
Oil Companies Donated To Clinton Foundation While Lobbying State Department - http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832
As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations - http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
Clinton's Chevron ties - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-chevron-ties/article/2564237
UBS Deal Shows Clinton’s Complicated Ties - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/30/capital-journal-ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-congress-faces-a-turbulent-fall-next-hurdles-for-the-iran-deal/#1
Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Hillary Clinton, Cisco And China: Company Funded Foundation, Was Lauded By Clinton Despite Role In Repression - http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-cisco-china-company-funded-foundation-was-lauded-clinton-despite-role-1884160
The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for - http://www.salon.com/2015/0/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/
Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department - http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Arab nations’ donations to Clinton Foundation: Curing world’s ills or currying favor? - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html
Related Info: A searchable index of Clinton Foundation donors - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/26/a-searchable-index-of-clinton-foundation-donors/
Related Info: Clinton Foundation Contributor and Grantor Information - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
Related Info: Speeches for the Clinton Foundation by President, Secretary, and Chelsea Clinton - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/speeches
Honduras:
How to Hide a Coup: The US Role in the 2009 Honduran Coup - http://uchicagogate.com/2016/05/30/how-to-hide-a-coup-the-us-role-in-the-2009-honduran-coup/
"She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup - http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/shes_baldly_lying_dana_frank_responds
“"I want to make sure that the listeners understand how chilling it is that a leading presidential candidate in the United States would say this was not a coup. … She’s baldly lying when she says we never called it a coup." –Dana Frank, an expert on human rights and U.S. policy in Honduras
Another Indigenous Activist Is Assassinated, Urging Calls for Clinton to Come Clean on Role in Honduran Coup - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/another-indigenous-activist-assassinated-urging-calls-clinton-come-clean-role-honduran
Hundreds of Scholars Demand Justice for Assassinated Honduran Indigenous Activist Berta Cáceres - http://www.alternet.org/world/hundreds-scholars-demand-justice-assassinated-honduran-indigenous-activist-berta-caceres
Open Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry - http://www.coha.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LetterSecStateKerry1.pdf
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras - http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34941-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-enabled-the-coup-in-honduras
Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. It should be as scandalous as Libya - http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_criminal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/
Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup - http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras - http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34941-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-enabled-the-coup-in-honduras
Uproar Over Hillary's Role in Honduran Coup Grows as Her Campaign Denies Connection - http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/uproar-over-hillarys-role-honduran-coup-grows-her-campaign-denies-any-connection
The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders - http://www.thenation.com/article/the-clinton-backed-honduran-regime-is-picking-off-indigenous-leaders/
Iraq:
Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on Whether to Invade Iraq – 2002 [video] - https://youtu.be/2ySJLIc5BJM
Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations - http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999
Hillary Clinton Iraq Business Opportunity [video] - https://youtu.be/sQq3hs_lXpY
The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion - https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion
Latin America:
A Voter’s Guide to Hillary Clinton’s Policies in Latin America - http://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-policies-in-latin-america/
Libya:
A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html
“And Mrs. Clinton would be mostly a bystander as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.
The lessons of the Libya experience have not tempered her more aggressive approach to international crises.”
The Libya debacle undermines Clinton’s foreign policy credentials - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/libya-debacle-undermines-clintons-foreign-policy-credentials/2016/03/30/e57e36d4-f5db-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html
Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails - http://www.globalresearch.ca/exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillarys-emails/5514010
Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess - http://www.globalresearch.ca/cleaning-up-hillarys-libyan-mess/5518041
“Clinton’s ultimate vulnerability on Libya is that she was a principal author of another disastrous “regime change” that has spread chaos not only across the Middle East and North Africa but into Europe, where the entire European Union project, a major post-World War II accomplishment, is now in danger.
Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations.”
>She already did stuff - its well documented. In fact, there is a book about it.
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
>
>Liberals don't care about it.
Because it's plain and simply put not true. There's not a good damn thing about any of those claims that has been verified. At all.
>The biggest threat facing our country is globalism and that is why Trump literally saved our country.
Globalism is what made America rich.
You don't honestly think we did this by ourselves, do you?
> Rich people aren't being represented obviously!
This book, outlined in this article and summarized in this video says otherwise. It is an inevitability of liberal democracy.
^^I'm ^^agreeing ^^with ^^you, ^^btw.
> According to Stratfor's prediction
I'll be honest, Russia's current Federal structure isn't exactly a rock of stability, but a total USSR or Yugoslavia-style breakup/meltdown is a long-shot at best (worst). Besides, I wouldn't trust anything from Stratfor farther than I can throw George Friedman.
Weitere Erklärungen wurden nachgereicht!
>
Ich habe 8 Jahre für die Bundeswehr / NATO gearbeitet. Da bin ich oft in die USA, dort wurde mir das 2003/4 schon gesagt. Ebenso die Entwicklung in Syrien.
>
Eine Revolution oder ein Krieg ist immer lange geplant. Das passiert alles nicht zufällig und einfach so. Es wird die politische Lage beobachtet und dann entweder gegengesteuert, wenn man eine Entwicklung nicht haben will oder befeuert wenn die Entwicklung im nationalen Interesse ist. Dann wird eine Werbekampagne gefahren (Brunnen bauen in Afghanistan, böser Russe muss zurückgedrängt werden, im Irak gibt es Massenvernichtungswaffen, Erdogan böse, deswegen sind wir jetzt in Jordanien). Eigentlich spielen alle das gleiche Spiel und alle miteinander. Ebenso ist die Krim-Übername der Russen von allen mehr oder weniger abgesegnet. Dafür kann der Rest zur EU, mit Krim und Schwarzmeerflotte wäre das nicht möglich gewesen.
>
In Jordanien sind wir aber nicht wegen Erdogan, sondern wegen den Palästinänsern, und ihrem neuen Staat den es bald geben wird und Jordanien dabei eine wichtige Rolle spielen wird.
>
Mehr gibts eigentlich nicht zu erklären. DIe Nachrichtendienste sind dabei die, welche die Informationen sammeln, und Nachrichten für die Öffentlichkeit aufbereiten. Nicht in Deutschland, aber die deutschen Medien sprechen auch alles nach, was von Übersee kommt.
>
Das ganze funktioniert sogut, weil die allermeisten bei den Themen gleich austeigen und es nicht glauben wollen. Andere beschuldigen dann sie seien Verschwörungstheoretiker und so geht das Spielt halt weiter.
>
Wenn Du Dir das Buch "The Great Chessboard" durchliest, dann wurde da schon ziemlich genau die Zukunft 15 Jahre vorausgessagt. Das ist durchaus möglich. Wenn die Vorhersage also im nationalen Interesse ist, wird versucht, das geschehen zu lassen.
>
Und die AfD war eben, dann guter Aufklärung schon 2003 bekannt, ebenso wie 1998 die Entwicklung in der Ukraine oder im Nahen Osten bekannt war (Buch dient als Beweis)
Falls jemand sich das Buch kaufen will https://www.amazon.de/_/dp/0465027261
Invading Iraq, and doing an ostensibly bad job of it, were only one small part of the desired outcome of 9/11. Read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses. The Grand Chessboard by Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, is similarly illuminating and nausea-inducing.
I often beat the drum for Sheldon Wolin, as I found his book on our current political system illuminating. The Amazon description of the book explains it better than I can. http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
I recently saw the Progressive writer and commentator Thomas Frank on C-SPAN's BookTV, where he was launching his latest book Listen Liberal. This one is a history of why the Democratic Party turned its back on the US working class and how it has become a second (and maybe, no longer just the spare) tool for financial interests. He ended his formal presentation with this alarming comment about the upcoming Presidential election. Choosing Trump is voting for 'Intolerance'; Choosing Clinton is a vote for 'Inequality', presumably to be perpetually increasing.
This guy is insane. He'll probably wait for them outside an event an stab them or something.
He has a book too
he wrote a book. its on amazon. this fucking guy has a book for sale in the real world...
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509
his title game is fire though
You can also buy a book by him, if for some reason you want to dive into his mind (Mildly NSFW cover on it).
The books written by people such as Dinesh D'Souza have very high ratings compared to what I would expect.
I mean I know that doesn't mean 1 star reviews are deleted, but his book about how "the left" is somehow connected to the Nazi Party, has 4.5 stars and 300 something reviews.
Don't Think of an Elephant is by a cognitive scientist and psycholinguist named George Lakoff. Whether or not you agree with his politics, I've found it incredibly useful to know how to bait audiences into making assumptions.
The general thesis is that people organize their concepts into "frames," or categories that help us make sense of complicated ideas. But many of these ideas can exist in more than one frame, so when people evoke a specific frame instead of another, they can subtly guide your thinking by introducing a new semantic context and perspective.
So much of Act One requires the audience to simultaneously 1) know that the protagonist has a flaw, 2) secretly agree with the misguided belief behind that protagonist's flaw, 3) not know how to defeat that belief, and 4) be enticed into learning how to defeat the wrong belief. Though #1 an #2 seem mutually exclusive, knowing how to lure audiences into adopting incorrect frames can allow you to highlight cognitive dissonance in the audience, which you then correct over the course of the protagonist's adventure.
Further, knowing when leaders or organizations are trying to manipulate you into accepting incorrect frames can be a big indicator that other people are being misled also. So you can be "Mr. prescient hot-button writer guy" when you write a movie about the issue that "says all the things I was thinking, but didn't quite know how to say."
Make sure to buy or check out Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich from your local library. Tons of dirt. The Clintons are corrupt to the bone and belong in jail.
George Friedman's projections on Eastern Europe and Russia is spot on (likely because he is of Polish descent).
However, his projections and analysis on East Asian affairs leaves much to be desired.
Check out George Friedman's book published in 1991 called: The Coming War With Japan It's been 27 years, and his projections is completely off the mark, since US and Japan has not gone to war, and Japan remains a steadfast US ally.
Take what George Friedman says in The Next 100 years with a grain of salt, he predicts China and India to somehow magically disappear while Japan becomes the Leader of Asia.
Anti-Turkish sentiment was unleashed when Turkey began accession negotiations to join the EU. The more reforms Turkey passed, the more frantic many Europeans became, so they began accepting all anti-Turkish propaganda available on every Turkish issue.
Now the anger is about Turkey going with the alternative of a Middle East strategy. This wasn’t Erdoğan’s idea. Turkey becoming more Islamic and increasing its cooperation with Russia and the Arab world after being outcasted by the EU was a rational act predicted by political scientists before AKP ever came to power.
Most Westerners don’t have agendas related to Turkey and they're usually reasonable people, but there’s definitely a derangement people develop by reading Western news about Turkey. At this point, you’d have a more accurate understanding of the PKK, the 2016 failed coup and its aftermath, Erdoğan, etc. from reading Daily Sabah than you would from much of the Western press. That’s sad.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives
>It takes leadership and compromise to overcome differences in politics. Republicans are representing their constituents as well as the Democrat elected are doing the same.
>Get over it guys, this is normal. This is politics, this is the american way. Like it or leave it.
Actually, the filibuster has been used more during Obama's term than ever before. It is worse than it used to be.
Check out "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer.
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
If you want sheer awesomeness in the "failed predictions" genre, you can't go wrong with this.
IMHO the realist/Clausewitzian explanation is by far the most effective. The theory posits that all states are inherently confrontational, as all states seek to maximize their own security, and doing so necessarily compromises the security of other states. The situation is tragic, as elucidated by Mearsheimer.
How this is Clausewitzian is that he posited that any state in a position of strength would become aggressive, whereas any state that is weak would become passive and seek peace. China and Russia were both in positions of extreme weakness around 2000 economically, something that they both fixed during the GWB administration. Note China and Russia's economic ascendance during his terms. Both the Chinese and Russians have expressed the desire for peaceful relations with the US, neither of which receive much reciprocation, because the US doesn't have to, at least not yet.
So, bottom line, China and Russia have become aggressive because they can now actually challenge US aggression...and make no mistake the US has been ultra-aggressive since the end of WWII (chart #2 shows % of global military spending by US since 1988).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
Policy maker extraordinaire.
His latest stance on Iran/Israel/Middle East/ ruffled a few feathers to say the least, http://www.haaretz.com/news/zbigniew-brzezinski-israel-s-push-for-iran-strike-may-hurt-u-s-ties-1.259081
His rather famous book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1334963523&sr=8-2
Her book: http://www.amazon.com/All-Things-Once-Mika-Brzezinski/dp/B0055X56M4/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334963560&sr=1-3
I've been doing a lot of reading trying to figure out this election and why the heck we are so divided as a county:
https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Resentment-Consciousness-Wisconsin-American/dp/022634911X
https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250108691
https://www.amazon.com/Glass-House-Economy-Shattering-All-American/dp/1250085802
https://www.amazon.com/Colony-Nation-Chris-Hayes/dp/0393254224
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777
If by 'best journalism on TV' you mean they read Peter Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out.
http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146
Prior to Quantitative Easing 1 (QE1), "there were 18 Federal Reserve Board members who were previously high-level executives of the “too big to fails” that were in line to receive the bailouts, according to a GAO report. And 76 percent of Fed board members also own or owned stock in those same institutions."
"Those (top 6 financial) entities spend billions of dollars to lobby Congress and finance Congressional campaigns and buy Presidents (they own both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney)."
Source
Sounds like plenty of corrupt breathing down of throats already.
If you haven't read Throw Them All Out, I highly recommend it. Both sides are corrupt as the day is long, and the Federal Reserve is just another tool of that corruption.
Until relatively recently, the foremost practitioners of suicide bombing were the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who are... well, nominally non-religious, though probably majority
BuddhistHindu, trying to oust a majority-HinduBuddhist population (the Sinhalese).At the time Robert Pape's book on suicide bombing, Dying to Win, came out, the Tamil Tigers were still top of the game.
That's getting inside the 20-year limit this sub likes to impose, though.
Longer ago, you might get something out of reading up on the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, carried out by the Christian Falange in Lebanon and the ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War (including Srebrenica massacre), carried out by units of the (nominally Christian) Serbian army.
In both cases, there's a Christian force on one hand carrying out atrocities against a Muslim population on the other... but the Christian forces are state sponsored, and the Muslims are just kinda... there.
---
EDIT: fixing who's likely to be worshipping who in Sri Lanka; thanks /u/TheOneFreeEngineer.
Iirc it was this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
Just order off of Amazon. Here's a good book. Why Socialism Works https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521531218/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_3VKYAbCJQKFAK
The two books i've read are The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant. He is a congitive linguist who wrote a lot about metaphor and framing, and how the Right has effectively framed every major issue in their own terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff
His ideas aren't radical or world changing, but the Dems really shun him (i think over some personal spats... like, he disagreed with Rahm Emmanuel once (a plus in my book) and also with Steven Pinker (more plus), so they don't like him). Not that if they listened to him they'd win all elections, but maybe they'd do a little better?
I'm interested in him because, so far as i've read, his explanation for why Republicans voters vote for Republicans is the only one that makes sense. "Why do they vote against their interests" leaves out that they are voting for their values, even when those values are against their interests.
But, i dunno, maybe he's way off base and that's why no one listens to him. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts.
You might be interested in a short read called "Don't Think of an Elephant". The author is a linguist and he looks at how Republicans manipulate language as a means to an end. He addresses your question to some extent.
He appears to be holding a book as they drag him out of the Embassy, but I don't recognize the face of the man on the cover. Anyone recognize the book that's such a page turner he can't put it down to be man-handled by a bunch of cops?
EDIT: found someone else in the comments had already pegged it: https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991 Good ol' Gore Vidal. Worth a read.
For those curious: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
An important book everyone thinking about joining these groups should read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this one:
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
It's pretty comprehensive in terms of covering the essentials of his positions on most major issues, but the editors did a fantastic job of presenting all of it as a question/answer type of format. Another cool thing, the footnotes/citations were so voluminous they made it a .pdf online because it would've probably doubled the size of the book:
The Footnotes to Understanding Power
Kamala Harris let fucking Steve Mnuchin go when there was a mountain of evidence that he was a corporate criminal. Harris was also the only Democrat to receive a campaign contribution from Mnuchin and his criminal enterprise One West Bank. Now that crook is Trump's treasury secretary.
Get the Book "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. He lists the crimes of the Clintons and Obama in detail and Frank is a well know liberal himself. It may open your eyes.
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851
Actually George Lakoff is not praising them for doing this at all! He founded a progressive think tank to try and COUTNER this framing, and wrote a book about it called Don't Think Like an Elephant (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931498717/103-8161085-8388602?v=glance&n=283155)
Yeah, pretty much. There's already one book on the subject. It has 50 pages of sources.
I eagerly wait their reply. The movie was narrated and based on the book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. I mean the title sounds like the book has already made up the author's mind, and I guess it has... I have not read the book, but it is on my list now. I'd like to see the counterpoints, but the way it is portrayed in the video, the evidence is pretty damning.
Most of the situations the film covers involve the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton getting massive speaking fees from foreign countries or businessmen who have an issue being debated by the State Dept. and soon after a check arrives, they get an agreement approved. It's A LOT of that. As the author states in the film: one or two times...OK, maybe coincidence, but it seems to happen A LOT. Beyond that, the deals she agrees to are part and parcel against the progressive values she spews out of her mouth (i.e. human rights, woman's rights, environment, etc.) ....all things she claims she fights for but then proffers favors for shady characters in exchange for cold hard cash.
I think it's a hybrid on both what Israel and the US wants. Multinational western corporations has a huge interest in protecting the availability and resources in competition with e.g. China. A few years back I read Zbigniew Brzezinski's (Obama's dad) book "The Grand Chessboard", there he makes the case for a crucial economical, geopolitical interests (for US-EU) that is dependent on a strong Israel as a stronghold towards the new far east trading blocks.
Every American should read this book.
Well, you are not the ones decide to invade not invade. Here are some article that give hint of what's going on in the head of those who do. Brzezinski's book is especially interesting, as it was written in the 1990s. Many event since then, especially in the middle east and central asia, follows its advice. And the guy who wrote the come war with china is in the trump government as their china expert.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-China-Wars-Revised-Expanded/dp/0132359820
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-12-11/who-will-run-world
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-10-15/vanishing-nuclear-taboo
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option
and to put things in historical perspective read the following as well
https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Asia-Effect-International-Politics/dp/0765805243
https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20131016_MackinderTheGeographicalJournal.pdf
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct
There's a great book by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that explains a lot of the problems we face today in terms of partisanship. There are a few factors that caused both parties, but especially the republicans, to move to the extremes starting in the 1970's. They include:
The "Reagan Revolution" which brought social and religious conservatives together with fiscal conservatives.
Newt Gingrich, who encouraged GOP Congress members to avoid talking with Democrats or face severe repercussions. He later led the 1994 Contract with America.
The election of Barack Obama, who the conservative movement hates for a variety of reasons. Politicians are feeding off that hate.
Money in politics has made Republicans at the whim of major corporations, which paralyzes progress.
That's my response for the moment. I'll upvote and mention anyone who has something better.
EDIT: formatting and grammar
It's even worse than it looks By Tomas Mann and Norman Ornstien is all about Republican obstructionism and how polarized our political system has become. There's plenty of evidence and specific examples in there, especially the first chapter.
As stated in this segment, it is based research done in this book, http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146/?tag=wwwbreitbartc-20 . The book probably should be required reading.
Holy shit, he wrote a book
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509
This creep wrote a book too:
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Legal-Daughter-Complete-Stranger/dp/1520441509
Define "news", because his name and face have been out there for a while, in addition to some choice writing.
Noam Chomsky has been talking about this since before most of us were even born.
Depends. What topic interests you, and at what level? He's written on philosophy, politics and of course lingustics.
For an overview of his political beliefs, I like Understanding Power, whose footnotes are web-only, because otherwise they would've more than doubled the book. (It's also very readable, since it's taken from question & answer sessions, where he's looser with language than in prepared talks or in print. And even Chomsky uses the book to look up stuff, praising the duo who assembled the book.)
Language and Politics is also interesting, and touches more on philosophy and lingustics.
There's much on the web. He also used to participate on ZNet's old message forums; however his years of posts (probably in the thousands) answering people's political questions may be lost.
I've heard several people call Liberalism a Mental Disorder, I've seen it on bumper stickers. In fact, someone wrote a book with that exact title.
Even so, I'd say that an ideology that promotes the belief, for example, that we should not all have to work 40+ hours every week to have a decent life is not the same as having a compulsive behaviour preventing someone from accomplishing what they require for basic needs. For one, a belief is not the same as a behaviour.
Yes you really should read a [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1621573486) and get out of your echo chamber for once.
But you won't.
We need a trust circle in which the party, activists, and the average voter can engage in dialog and support. A philosophical stalemate between activists and the Idaho Democratic Party has led to a total communication breakdown. The average citizen has given up completely as they know the Democratic Party serves only millionaires and up. The activist resent the IDP for their greed, ineptitude, and frank reluctance to show any support for FDR's values.
The IDP refuses to acknowledge that neoliberalism has failed utterly and completely. The party base continues on roaring into the void while the IDP declines to support what might have been their best field organizers. Unfortunately the IDP has been hooked on the D.C. money funnel for so long they fail to see they have lost all credibility by supporting the DNC. If the IDP were to turn off the tap and start having faith in the citizens to provide for their economic well being they might turn things around. They dare not become accountable to the majority. The simple math determines that pleasing a wealthy minority easier and more profitable then attempting to solicit funding from the cash strapped average citizens. Politics have become a safe career to leach money from the upper crust, see Sally Boyton Brown skipping town.
The enthusiasm among the citizens for the IDP has bottomed out due to the radical differences in finical desires. Idaho's majority individuals lives in poverty or near poverty.. The average the median per capita income for Idaho was $24,273 in 2015. You need at least 30k to stop living pay check to pay check per person. The citizens want healthcare, green jobs, education and social security. The IDP waits in vain for a Idaho millionaire/billionaire to help build the "collation of the ascendant" that will never come to Idaho and what little was here has begun to crumble.
The Democrats for the past 40 years have been slowly dismantling the FDR values that brought them easy votes for multiple generations. They have become lazy and spoiled expecting the working class to keep blindly heaving them over the finish line. The working class well has finally run dry, see the 2016 Presidential elections. Now we face an impasse, do we burn down the crooked orchard and start again or do we try to prune down the twisted roots put down by the neoliberal elite?
The answer is neither. The IDP needs radical restructuring so as to knock out the hierarchical leadership. All party decision should return to directly to precinct captains. As in precinct captains act as a virtual house of representatives that elect a virtual senate made of the district leadership. The senate elects a party leader. Why add all this crazy complication to the political machine?
Probably do some more (any) research instead of continuing to advocate for economic illiteracy and abject human suffering.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1843430851/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_cfBxCbTMN25WV
It's not about free speech. Stop accepting that framing.
*This arguments is obviously less applicable to situations where they really are just sticking to speech, which is worth thinking about. Kinda a whole other can of worms I'm not really ready to get in to.
More context: NYTimes article
Rolling Stone article
Clinton Cash book which is a primary source for much of the corruption allegations.
Newsweek review of Clinton Cash book which actually says there isn't proof, just situations that look bad.
Article by The Atlantic about Clinton Cash. Again, it looks bad, but you would need an FBI investigation to prove it's illegal.
"No longer"?
Do you libs still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too?
The US was never Democratic. This is why liberalism is not a real, serious ideology. More like propaganda, mythology, fairy tales to shape how the sheeple feel about and relate to their political overlords. A sheeple control mechanism.
And liberal myths about progressive heroes like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc, are nothing more than mythology and hagiography, fulfilling much the same role as, e.g. myths about old Teutonic heroes like Armenius were intended to fill in Nazi Germany.
I'd like to suggest Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule."
ROFL at the George Friedman links. I think I'll pass. It's imprudent to learn geopolitics from a self-promoting moron. Here's another Friedman classic
Friedman has always had a boner for Japan for some reason.
Russia will become irrelevant, it's time is over as a global power.
Population is important, but geography is the name of the game. He does make some unorthodox prediction through the book, but I think he was completely right with Russia. It was pretty obvious if you were looking for it.
This is the usual place to start: 1953 Iranian coup d'état
> The 1953 Iranian coup d'état occurred on August 19, 1953. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown by forces loyal to the Shah, and coordinated by British and American intelligence services.
Tip of the iceberg, really. WWI also had an oil & middle east component, but that was more Great Britain than America per se.
The current situation is best described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard, IMO.
I remember when that book came out detailing the insider trading and horrible corruption going on in the halls of Congress. As I recall, 75% of the politicians mentioned negatively in the book are Democrats with the remainder obviously being Republicans. Guess who /r/politics ragged on . . .
Toilet cleaning should be a privilege for these jackals. They deserve to be on a chain gang turning big rocks into smaller rocks. Read "throw them all out" by Peter Schweizer to learn about how nearly all of our elected officials are straight up criminals, via insider trading and other shady deals they all conduct.
Dont' forget Clinton Cash, Unlimited Access, and the Starr Report (which covers both Whitewater and the Lewinsky purjury/obstruction
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062369288?fp=1&pc_redir=T1
Happy reading. It happened. A lot. If you take away the accusatory narrative and just look at the facts. It's really not that hard to come to the conclusion that she's corrupt as fuck. If ONE instance in that book is true then she's a corrupt politician. But there's an entire book. On true events. Some person, government, company, gives the clintons money, and they get favorable treatment. Obviously there's no way to say that X directly contributed to Y but the sheer amount of times this shit happened speaks for itself.
Follow the money. The Clintons have hundreds of millions from Russia but they just seem to get a pass.
Klassisches 2D Schach (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives):
https://www.amazon.de/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
Kurzer Abriss:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-eurasian-chessboard-brzezinski-mapped-out-the-battle-for-ukraine-in-1997/5373707
The Grand Chessboard. Written by: Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Climate denialism is inextricably linked to the discursive dynamics of varying forms of conservatism (American libertarianism, nativism, anti-globalism, so on) and more broadly, capitalism. Though the wealthiest of the world could support climate change policies and initiatives and still remain grotesquely rich, we have clear evidence that capitalism has repeatedly and systematically discouraged and failed to incentivize action. Then consider that the wealthiest individuals in Western society and elsewhere own most of the media. Though many (e.g.) Americans like to claim they are skeptical of the media, the overwhelming majority are absolutely plugged in to their reality, capitalist realism. Though not strictly on climate, check out Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism. A proper democracy would not tolerate the inaction on climate we see today.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Robert Pape is a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and the auth of Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - original paper as a pdf. He's written and been interviewed about terrorism, especially Daesh. In this interview, he argues against What ISIS Really Wants, and makes the case that they are primarily a nationalist group:
>Wanting territory means there’s a community that wants a state. ISIS, and most suicide groups, are driven by an ideal of nationalism; they want to control their destiny with a state. ISIS is composed of a leadership of about 25 people, which is one-third very heavily religious, for sure; one-third former Saddam [Hussein] military officers who are Baathists, who are secular; and one-third who are Sunni militia, Sunni tribal leaders. That just conveniently is lost in the Wood piece.
It’s definitely the case that ISIS wants to kill people who are not part of its community. But this is normal in nationalist groups. (Hutu wanted to kill Tutsi; they also wanted to kill moderate Hutu who didn’t want to kill Tutsi.)
Gore Vidal's History of the National Security State.
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
Political works by Chomsky:
The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967),
At War With Asia: Essays on Indochina (1969),
Government in the Future (1970),
The Fateful Triangle (1983, 2015),
The Chomsky Reader (1987, 2010),
Manufacturing Consent (1988, 2002),
Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1992, 2015),
Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky (2002),
Hegemony or Survival (2003),
Failed States (2006).
Works on Chomsky:
Noam Chomsky: A personal bibliography, 1951-1986 (1986),
Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent (1998),
Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals ( 1999, 2002, 2016),
The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky (2005, 2017),
The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky (2000, 2002, 2004),
The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower (2007), Noam Chomsky (2015)
Also this, this, this and this.
The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.
But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.
If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.
If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.
Enjoy!
> Liberalism is literally a mental disorder.
SAVAGE
They've read too much Dinesh D'Souza.
Who am I kidding? They probably just listened to too many talking points on right wing media generated by the book.
Absolutely true. Dinesh D’Souza proves this in his book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left”
Link:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
"With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America." https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
And the Dems are not listening to us. On the contrary, the money of the privileged class is speaking.
A good explainer. http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462717848&sr=1-1&keywords=listen+liberal
> Source?
sauce
> Authoritarianism has literally nothing to do with revolutionary politics.
[Some reading for you and others who think they can do the revolitionary politics without the authoritarianism] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Harvill-Editions/dp/1843430851/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496820937&sr=1-1&keywords=the+gulag+archipelago)
How much time do you have? If you have enough time, I’d recommend this book. It’s a little older but it’s the only one by Lakoff that I’ve personally read. It’s a very quick read and great help. There’s a book on a essentially the same topic by Frank Luntz and the thought of my money going to Luntz kinda makes me wanna puke but there’s no denying he’s effective at messaging. At the end of the day (and also sadly) facts won’t effect influence unless you can effect emotion from your message. That’s what the book is about.
Edit 1: Best of luck buddy!
Edit 2: If you don’t have enough time, or if you want a second pair of eyes, feel free to send me what you’re planning to say and I’ll use my experience with this to help. Just PM and we can work out the deets
george lakoffs book "dont think of an elephant" is an inexpensive, short, easy-to-read book that explains how language has been hijacked by the neo-cons, and what liberals can do about it.
A++++ would read again.
> effective blocksize increase
"Effective blocksize increase" isn't too bad. Presuming that "blocksize increase" is the same thing as "effective blocksize increase" is what I'm objecting to. Perhaps you were just misreading Bitcoinopoly, or perhaps you were just abruptly disagreeing with his terminology, I don't know.
> before you started proposing "capacity increase"
I'm just following Greg Maxwell's terminology on that. I think he was being very careful in how he worded things in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion, and I appreciate his effort.
> cut-through transactions like Lightning
Interesting term. That's an improvement, thanks.
> You seem remarkably paranoid and quick to jump to negative conclusions.
Sorry, it maybe comes from being American. Politics in the USA are full of calculated use of [language and framing in order to direct debates] (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717). I took enough classes as an undergrad to know how important these kinds of effects can be, and my cognitive science background makes it hard for me to not notice when these kinds of effects are occurring and potentially becoming significant. In this case it was probably unintentional.
JtO's response seems to me the sort of emotion-laden bombast that you'd find from many political commentators. I don't think he has the reach of impact of a Glenn Beck or Andrew Sullivan, but the tactics aren't dissimilar and they do seem to work by shifting the Overton window.
I sometimes think that the most useful information many people here could learn is standard political issue framing. Pick up George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and give it a read (don't panic if Lakoff doesn't mesh with your personal political stripe - the tactics are agnostic and the book examines which ones tend to be used by which side in a pretty even-handed way).
This is a political fight, and in political fights, words matter. Learning how to use them effectively forges your metaphorical linguistic sword and shield for that battle.
I looked around but didn't see anything. Robert Pape worked on a similar database for the University of Chicago, and a lot of the data from that project was published in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism -- which, incidentally, came to conclusions very similar to those in the linked-to article.
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
It was this from Gore Vidal... History of The National Security State
That looks like Roger Stone to me but that would be ridiculous.
I'm def wrong: https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
I've read many books on socialism.
The evidence is very clear. I highly recommend read this book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=socialism&qid=1555585874&s=gateway&sr=8-5
Is this a Warren Meme? It's pretty clever, tbh. Reminds me of this book on socialism.
Same here. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
>But I've not yet found a good discussion on power.
Noam Chomsky is your huckleberry if you lack the stomach for French verbosity.
Power & Ideology
Understanding Power
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions
Father's day is coming up, OP should get his dad a copy of Michael Savage's book, Liberalism is a Mental Disease
I left years and years ago. 9/11 opened my eyes to what the left was all about, I remember people on the left saying stuff like “what did we do to offend them?”
I couldn’t believe it. 3000 dead Americans in one day, and these people were asking what we did to offend the Islamic mental cases that did it?
Over the years it has just gotten worse and worse as the left has become more and more fascist.
Here’s a good book to understand the left:
The Big Lie
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank
>Also Clinton supporters being right wing? I don't see it, like Trump supporters most Clinton supporters are coming straight from Obama and I don't see how they're right wing.
From a modern American perspective, no. But from a global perspective yes. It used to be very different, in FDR's time for example. People did fight against his social-democrat policies, but they were adopted and widely popular. I mentioned how the John Birch Society shifted the Republicans to the right, and that's where things started to change. After McGovern's loss and, later, 12 years of Reagan and his VP being massively popular somehow, Democratic leaders assumed that they couldn't win by appealing to the left (which ignored the other circumstances surrounding McGovern's loss and Reagan's win). When they got back into power it was with Bill Clinton, who explicitly pursued a centrist agenda (he called it "triangulation") that included dismantling/privatizing the welfare state (welfare reform), expanding the police state and deregulating the financial industry (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000). And these are all positions which were considered right-wing in the pre-Bill Clinton era. Now fast-forward to Obama, who has basically pursued the same foreign policy as Bush II, and whose central accomplishment is a bill which is an altered form of a healthcare-reform idea proposed by the far-right Heritage Foundation, and he is basically being attacked as a secret communist by Republicans. Frankly, it's rather insulting to the communists to group Obama with them.
(The book Listen, Liberal discusses in more detail how the Democratic Party moved to the right, if you're curious in reading further into this.)
>the real problem that we both should be against is the current corrupt people in power which is why a lot of people support Trump's promises to get rid of the people dividing us further for their own gain.
His proposals for lobbying reform and term limits aren't bad actually. But his proposed cabinet is, well, it's certainly a change from Democratic corruption but not the good kind. The people he's proposing are mostly distinguished by loyalty rather than actually fitting their position (lol Ben Carson), most of them have conflicts of interest based on their business histories, and most of them are big donors to the Trump campaign. Is any of this unusual for a Presidential cabinet? Well, not really, but it doesn't inspire hope about Trump actually wanting to address corruption more than nominally. And maybe he won't appoint any people with connections to the right-wing's favorite boogeymen such as Soros (though Mnuchin is a close Soros associate so... lol) but for every Dem-aligned billionaire rigging the system in their favor there's a Republican one doing the same thing. There's the Kochs, ALEC, and so on. Corruption isn't a Dem-only thing. When businesses spend billions to elect their stooges, that's an assault to democracy, doesn't matter which party's doing it (as I've said, the two parties are not too different in their goals at this point). But I never see Trump supporters worry about the Kochs or ALEC, oddly. I think that they're using anti-corruption as a cover for partisanship, ultimately.
If anti-corruption reform does happen, it's not going to occur thanks to politicians and businesspeople who've benefited from it. You can't use the system to change the system. Big money is the problem. And capitalism more broadly is the problem. Electing someone who'll just put the big businesses in power directly, rather than having them go through middlemen, isn't a solution in my opinion. If you want to get shit done, you do it through a mass movement and direct action. The civil rights and women's rights movements didn't succeed because they elected the right people, they succeeded because they essentially used sheer manpower (or, womanpower in the latter case) to make the government change shit. That's real democracy, IMO.
> murdered that man
Yea, that was kind of the point of posting the quote.
And somehow you morons don't understand that as soon as the socialists take power here the same thing is going to happen to all you other useful idiots, as has happened every single other time this little experiment has been tried.
Here's some recommended reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851/
I have noticed that when existing moral or cognitive categories/structures are challenged, people tend to regress to more basic ones. So even as many people have embraced liberal human rights ideas, such as gender equality and dignity for QUILTBAG (LGBTQIA+), many others are in a backlash as they pull back to try to find something that they can understand and rely on, and that tends to be more simplified power and authority structures where big/loud=strong.
George Lakoff described some of this thinking in Don't Think of an Elephant.
You might be thinking of George Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant (2004). I searched the wiki of episode guests from 1999 - 2006, but Lakoff doesn't appear. He has written many books over 40 years, has lots of interviews on youtube; plenty of material to sink your teeth into.
If Lakoff wasn't what you were searching, maybe he'll be a good substitute.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://nypost.com/2015/06/22/clinton-cash-author-demolishes-hillarys-self-defense/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/27/these-are-the-two-companies-that-might-land-clintons-foundation-in-big-legal-trouble/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/27/schweizer-russian-uranium-deal-clinton-world-no-good-answers/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/report-hillary-clintons-campaign-mgr-john-podesta-sat-board-company-bagged-35-million-putin-connected-russian-govt-fund-2/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/timeline-countdown-john-podestas-35-million-russian-deal/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062369288/?tag=buzz0f-20
The FBI was tipped off by a (NYT bestselling) book?
Ok. That explains a lot
If anyone wants to understand this academically try reading Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Politics, but it is an academic read that might be difficult to parse for those not trained in political science methodology. You can view a documentary regarding the book here.
The Coming War with Japan
I think that's a great argument for the rising importance and power of Poland. But his simultaneous argument that the EU is inevitably going to fail in the face of nationalism seems to gloss over the mammoth amount of thought every architect of the EU has given to exactly this problem. It's a huge obstacle to overcome, no doubt; but simply pointing to it doesn't make it insurmountable.
Let's just hope he's as wrong about this as he was when he predicted war between Japan and the US during the 90s.
You mean George Friedman's 1991 book titled: "The Coming War with Japan" ?
George Friedman's knowledge on East Asian geopolitics is a joke compared to Robert Kaplan, who is also employed at Stratfor.
I mean, he did write this in 1991, claiming that war with Japan was inevitable within the next 20 years. I don't think "crank" is too unjustified.
Some from my shelf
Arsenals of Folly
The Cold War
On China
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
NATO's Return to Europe
On War
Bonus: The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by Mearsheimer.
https://www.amazon.ca/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics/dp/0393349276
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory
Also the guy who wrote this this.
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives
by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Zbigniew Brzezinski tackles the United States grand strategy on maintaining American preeminence in the twenty-first century.
> Central to his analysis is the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass, which is home to the greatest part of the globe's population, natural resources, and economic activity. Stretching from Portugal to the Bering Strait, from Lapland to Malaysia, Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America's supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.The heart of The Grand Chessboard is Brzezinski's analysis of the four critical regions of Eurasia and of the stakes for America in each arena—Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and East Asia. The crucial fault lines may seem familiar, but the implosion of the Soviet Union has created new rivalries and new relationships, and Brzezinski maps out the strategic ramifications of the new geopolitical realities. He explains, for example: Why France and Germany will play pivotal geostrategic roles, whereas Britain and Japan will not. Why NATO expansion offers Russia the chance to undo the mistakes of the past, and why Russia cannot afford to toss this opportunity aside. Why the fate of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are so important to America. Why viewing China as a menace is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why America is not only the first truly global superpower but also the last—and what the implications are for America's legacy.
One of the cycling official reasons, yes. For a less jingoistic understanding of US foreign policy, I might suggest The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski and Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman. In short, the US would never mobilize its considerable war power at such cost just out of pure, altruistic desire to topple a dictator. No doubt you're aware of the many dictators the US has installed and supported over the years.
>is this a proxy confict with Russia?
yes
"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
The corporate control of the media and de facto control of the government is corporate fascism, or what the political theorist Sheldon Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism.” Check out his book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/069114589X/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_t1_Qx9qDbZ87KK29
Even fascists have unions. So do communists. So do socialists. So do dictatorships. They too have their orgs. For Benito it was black shirts, for Hitler, the SS. For the US, the KKK and later American Bund.
Per Wolin and his magnum opus, I know there isn't one democratic institution in the United states.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
The NRA can't be a democratic institution. The united states is hybrid to authoritarian when stripped of American execeptualism.
> It's so offensive to imagine resources being squandered on luxury yachts and sports cars just so that rich people have something to continue spending more and more money on.
This is what you get when you support capitalism. You'd have to strictly limit how much any one individual could gain. Note that it's a matter of history and population size, not that these people "earned" their money. Not to mention our current societies are based on massive historical slaughters and injustices.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
I suggest reading Democracy Inc [1]. Fun book!
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
Indeed. When Harris writes:
> Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations.
any skeptic should wonder how it's possible that only Harris manages to see the Truth while all others fail. Are they really biased by wishful thinking? Do they have no evidence to support their conclusions?
Atheists often claim to follow a rational and scientific method, willing to follow the evidence whereever it may lead.
Well, then. What sort of evidence does Harris provide? All I have ever seen is anecdotes, counter-factuals, and an appeal to intution. This is hardly good evidence. He never managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about the topic, as far as I know.
What about the so called "pseudo-scholars" in the humanities and social science departments? What sort of evidence do they have? It seems they do take terrorists by their word. They do in-depth interviews with former terrorists. They do statistical analysis where terrorists come from. They do a careful comparison of the available data.
What's more: Their explanation is consistent with what we know about motivations for violence, in general, and what we know about the relative impotence of religious doctrines for getting people to do good.
There's hardly any doubt who's closer to the truth, here.
The people arguing that terrorism doesn't work assume that terrorists' stated goals are their actual ones. That's a problematic assumption. Terrorists have all sorts of reasons to misrepresent their goals; recruitment and fundraising, for instance, would probably fall off if they started saying that their followers were suicide bombing for a slightly improved bargaining position.
This article presents one side of an ongoing academic debate as if it were concluded. If you'd like the other side of the argument, Robert Pape's study of suicide terrorism is fairly accessible and makes the case for effectiveness in certain areas.
To be fair this is Based Russell, he is physically disabled and quite possibly developmentally stunted. Under no circumstances should you try to make contact with this man despite the fact that his name is public record and it is very very easy to find his contact info.
He has attempted to sue Taylor Swift, among others, into associating with him so that he can achieve his dream to have a career in entertainment as well as have prostitution legalized in the state of Utah.
Again I urge you not to contact him, not only because he's funny in his own right and contacting him will just get him to nuke his accounts again, but also because he's a very litigious man and if you fuck with him too much he might do the same to you.
I stumbled on this link on another thread in this subreddit and from there found his Facebook - it's public so you can see most of his rants.
>. Clinton could have just written fuck trump for 500 pages and I'd probably find a way to justify it being my favorite book of the year.
reminds me of this
Why Socialism Works by Harrison Lievesley
"Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" is outstanding. It's based on speaking engagements and the the footnotes are an actual website, so they're exceptionally thorough and even include some official documents. It covers many, many topics, so best of all, you can jump around and read sections you're interested in. An Amazing book. For the table of contents check it out on Amazon, but buy the book from The New Press link given above.
Here are two more of Chomsky's recommendations gleamed from Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
(which I highly recommend):
Rajani Kannepalli Kanth, Political Economy and Laissez-Faire: Economics and Ideology in the Ricardan Era
Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
Salvador Allende is a good example to see the effect America has on other countries.
Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky wonderfully links the domestic struggle with American Imperialism.
Violence by our boy Slavoj Zizek, refracts outbursts of violence into his own unique way of looking at events. Really eye opening.
America has historically exported some of the worst, murderous violence overseas for the pettiest of reasons, its own gain regardless of the consequences to liberators struggle.
I'm glad to hear of someone interested in learning, hope I've helped!
Chomsky's Understanding Power is a long, organized Q&A and has sections where he discusses libertarian socialism directly, but the entire book is about the same general philosophy.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
related: https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
It's just as valid a concept as as this one
Erst mal auf eine Definition einigen http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/rechtsradikal die Synonyme anschauen.
Und dann ist es ein klares Nein. Wie gesagt: Sozialismus ist links. Buch dazu: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Wenn wir diese absurde Definition nehmen:
"Als rechtsradikal haben wir Positionen definiert, die sich gegen das Grundgesetz richten und Aussagen, in denen die Kandidaten gegen Minderheiten hetzen."
Sind dann Kommunisten rechtsradikal? Würde auf einer Linie laufen mit der MdB von den Linken, die Stalin als rechts tituliert hat. Wir kommen wieder an den Punkt, wo man sich fragen muss, was man eigentlich fragt. Rechtsradikal ist ein Synonym für 'böse' geworden, dass von den 'Guten' bekämpft werden muss. Deswegen sind gewaltbereite Antifaschisten in ihren eigenen Augen die Guten.
Beschreibt D'Souza auch in seinem Buch, wie ähnlich die Taktiken sind. Was die Nazis Untermenschen nannten um ihnen die Menschwürde abzusprechen und sie zu verfolgen, dass nennen die angeblichen Antifaschisten Intolerant um ihnen die Menschenwürde abzusprechen und sie zu jagen.
Oder die gleichen Informationen auf Deutsch von Klonovsky:
> Als die Lebensgefährtin von Meuthen mit ihrer siebenjährigen Tochter, eskortiert von Security und Polizei, zum benachbarten Hotel läuft, werden sie von einem breiten gesellschaftlichen Bündnis beschimpft und attackiert. Das Kind ist danach völlig verstört. Später bricht Meuthen selbst auf, ebenfalls von einem uniformierten Kordon geschützt, und der Mob rastet aus. Pfiffe, Schreie, besessene, wutverzerrte Gesichter – ein Goya-Capriccio anno 2017. Die Kobolde rennen neben dem Oppositionstrüppchen her, brüllen "Nazis raus!", "Haut ab!", "AfD – Rassistenpack!" und ähnliche Urworte orphisch. Einige versuchen, in den Kordon zu drängen, kommen aber nicht an den Beamten vorbei. Man sieht staunend und betroffen: Manche dieser Bakchen würden den AfD-Vorsitzenden gern zerreißen, ihn auf dem Alter ihres perversen Antifaschismus, der längst dem Original zum Verwechseln ähnlich sieht, dem Götzen der Diversity, Vielfalt, Buntheit und Menschenfreundlichkeit zum Opfer bringen; die ganze Szenerie ohne die Staatsgewalt, und der Parteiführer teilte das Schicksal des Pentheus. Der Kampf gegen die vermeintlichen Nazis bringt lauter neue echte hervor. Ich laufe ein paar Meter hinter dem kleinen Pulk und rechne jeden Moment damit, von der Seite angesprungen zu werden, doch die gesamte Aggressivität der Meute konzentriert sich auf Meuthen, ungefähr wie Boxer während des Kampfes den Ringrichter nicht wahrnehmen. Vor dem Hotel flutschen zwei brüllende Furien von höchstens zwanzig Jahren durch die Security und kreischen ihr "Wir kriegen euch!" auf einem Hysterielevel, welches Drogengebrauch vermuten lässt. Als Meuthens Begleiter die eine auf Polnisch anspricht, ist die kurz völlig irritiert und blafft schließlich, er möge gefälligst deutsch zu ihr sprechen. Endlich schließt sich die Hoteltür hinter uns, und das beste Deutschland, das es jemals gab, bleibt draußen. An der Hotelbar klingt der Abend beschaulich aus. Eigentlich schade, dass den Schulz, Tauber, Stegner, Roth, Schwesig, Gabriel et al. eine solche Erfahrung mit den Früchten ihrer Saat verwehrt bleibt.
> Am Rande: Wieviel Courage erfordert es, sich gegen die AfD zu "bekennen"? Null. Welche Gefahr droht bei einer Demo gegen "rechts"? Keine. Was aber gewinnt man? Ein gutes Gewissen, "zivilgesellschaftliche“ Anerkennung, Aufstieg auf der Tugendskala, "Sinn", Lob vom Parteisekretär, ggfs. Kohle von Frau Schwesig, ggfs. Sündenablass, in jedem Fall Herdenbehagen. Es ist pures Wellness.
https://www.michael-klonovsky.de/acta-diurna
Sind das Rechtsradikale, die hier auf ein siebenjähriges Mädchen losgehen? Die die Minderheit (13%) AfD-Wähler mit Gewalt bedrohen und gegen sie hetzen?
Knowledge is only a Besos away
Exactly, a system excluding independents 7 months before the vote, when people barley know any other candidate but the establishment name-recognition candidate, is not corruption, definitely not rigged, it's the voters stupidity for having busy lives and being disgusted by the dirty tricks of the two parties.
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
They should just know to make sure the system didn't exclude them months before the candidates have even set foot in their state to pitch for their vote.
Trump merely just has to say the democratic primary was rigged and it falls on sympathetic ears, he's now winning amongst the people cheated by that process, and you are calling them idiots, I have rarely seen something so obviously backwards, your perspective makes it that that simple for one of the biggest liars to tell the truth, my god.
The Democratic Party hasn't been liberal for 35 years. It is astounding that liberals still believe the DNC represents them.
Thomas Frank explains it way better than I can, and it is worth a read or listen:
Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391
I'll ignore the "insult" part and just focus on the label.
Liberals isn't just used by people talking about those who are "too far left". They are people who believe in or advocate for one of the liberal ideologies. Why do you think it's "toxic" to have a label we can use to refer to those who believe in and advocate for a specific ideology (or family of closely related ideologies)?
Now, I'm not going to disagree it's not misused, but that's a thing that's always going to happen with words, especially ideologies. It's a useful rhetorical tool and, let's be honest, most people aren't gonna have, want, or need a nuanced understandings of the features that differentiate their perceived enemies. Euphemisms happen. Ignorance is a fact of life. I understand people are going to call me a liberal sometimes because they don't know what I am, and that's okay - I'm sure I've done the same to others in other situations!
And yeah, it's gonna get misused as a symbol for the purpose of virtue signaling, but anything could be.
That doesn't mean the word isn't useful, and it is (often) used in a way that is perfectly descriptive. To a certain extent, I sort of feel like this post is an attempt to deny that the ideology even exists, or that it's particularly common - but it is an ideology, a fairly coherent one, and it is a common (often outright dominant) ideology on college campuses, in news rooms, in the entertainment industry and the halls of politics on the Democratic side. How else will you better describe those ideologies and their advocates if not using the word that literally means that?
I think it's also important we have the word, so we can differentiate between the different flavours of leftist thought - between the liberals, the neoliberals (who really aren't particularly liberal despite the name), the socialists (of various flavours) and those who identify as none of the three.
What exactly do you think "Listen, Liberal" should have been called instead? Who exactly would we say the book was trying to address?
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Those two quotations are from the front matter of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, the new book from Thomas Frank.
http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Read this book and it will make sense
Thanks for sharing this!
In a similar vein, this book talks specifically about the Republican plan to control all state legislatures through systematic redistricting starting in 2008. They've been immensely successful in their plan, called REDMAP. (yes - REDMAP - Redistricting Majority Project)
The Amazon excerpts of the introduction give a good sense of the book, then a state by state breakdown of their actions starting in 2008. Wake County libraries have this book - I'd recommend it.
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628
See the book "Ratfucked" by David Daley, where he lays out exactly how it was done.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ratf-ked-david-daley/1123515748
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483937743&sr=8-1&keywords=Ratfucked
They have indeed. This book lays out exactly how they did it too. Here's a hint: it wasn't because they had better candidates. They simply saw an opportunity to redraw all the maps... and took it.
Pretty evil stuff if you ask me.
But that's the thing - people didn't think they were voting against their interests. Trump promised jobs. He promised action. He promised to shake things up. He reached out to a segment of the population that has felt left out, and told them that what they've been through is horrible, and he can make it better. And he gave them a boogeyman in the news and "PC Culture".
I think you'd be surprised at how much of the country still is OK with racism. Still believes in white supremacy. They may not state that they are racist, but their policies and behaviors show they are.
Also, don't underestimate what happened the last couple of weeks of the election. Those letters, and subsequent gobbling up by the media is likely what pushed all of this over the edge.
Finally, read this book which goes into the strategy the GOP used to Gerrymander districts which made this no field day.
Yes, Ratfucked summarizes the story pretty well
[Amazon link] (https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497177188&sr=8-1&keywords=ratfucked)
The politically correct crowd are basically neomarxists in disguise.
Marxism: society is a collection of groups of economic power. Some groups control others and this should be reversed (Leninism).
PC: society is a collection of groups of social (and therefore) economic power. The patriarchy controls others and this should be reversed.
Marxism: dialogue is a mode of control. Speech between different groups can only be for the purpose of maintaining control and supremacy.
PC: dialogue is a mode of control. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are in essence the attempt to remove yourself from the negative effect of another groups dialogue. Because it is, by definition, controlling. Do you wonder why gender studies intellectuals avoid debate like the plague?
Marxism: If we can destroy the hierarchy of groups, eutopia will follow.
PC: Destroy the patriarchy! Equitable eutopia will follow!
Marxism: success and status are, in a classed system, stolen by the higher class from the other. If you are more successful at what you do you MUST have oppressed someone. That was the justification for exporting millions of skilled agriculturalists to Siberia to die (and they did) in the USSR. These rich farmers are rich because they have oppressed you, come and kick their door in with me! (I'm literally paraphrasing Lenin here). Guess what happened when you punish the productive farmers for being productive? You stop producing food! Ask the 6 million Ukrainians how that turned out.
PC: Success and status are, in a patriarchal system, stolen by rich white men from everyone else.
If you are a successful member of a majority class, you are successful because of 'privilege'. White privilege is just a retooling of class guilt. If you are a kulak, you should feel guilty for stealing your success from the working class; if you are a white male, you should feel guilty stealing success from the multiplicity of suppressed minority classes.
100,000,000 people died as a direct result of internal suppression in Marxist systems in the 20th century. Why are we putting up with the same immoral arguments again? Why have we let it almost completely usurp our academic institutions?
Anyone who feels like these words might be resonating with them should read this book. Have a good week everyone, listen to and be good to each other.
The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It may not turn you into a Trump supporter, but it will definitely turn you away from current left wing ideologies that tout any form of socialism.
Is this the book in question? Heard it's a very effective redpill if you wanna completely eviscerate the credibility of Marxism and related stuffs.
Check out this book if you are interested in communism - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Harvill-Editions/dp/1843430851 it has changed my life.
> We have the resources to life everyone out if poverty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333
> and rebuild it.
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851
> We choose not to
Probably because every time this kind of horseshit has been tried it has led to totalitarian dictatorships? I get you want to play woke and pat yourself on the back, but this kind of shit is braindead retarded and only a child would have the capacity to utter such an ignorant and generalized statement.
Go do something actually worth a damn and donate to a charity, bitching on Reddit will get nothing done.
If you found this article interesting, checkout "Don't think of the elephant" by George Lakoff. He goes in much deeper into the whole Horatio Alger myth and how it affects US politics.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
I didn't downvote you, and never downvote what I consider sincere and well-meaning posts by people trying to contribute new ideas, after all, that's how new ideas get going...but I have to say that I don't think more Orwellian double-speak bumper-stickers is necessarily what the Dems need. What we really need is for the American public to finally get their heads out of their asses. A book recommendation for you: Don't Think of an Elephant! Also, a little reminder: it doesn't get much more simple, catchy, and benevolent than "Hope" and "Change."
You ever read any George Lakoff? Check out: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
this fantastic and short book is a great primer on the cognitive science that underlies political leanings
In short -- conservativism and liberalism constitute holistic world views.
The conservative world view is one in which the following exist: good, evil, weak, strong, work, and sloth. The strong and good must protect the weak from evil. people show their nature through their actions. ultimately this means they get what they deserve. it is evil to interfere with that process because it hampers justice.
The liberal world view is one in which these categorical divisions blur due to complex causality. Behavior that looks like evil can be protective and result from previously received trauma. A good work ethic can be the result of a good and safe upbringing. A bad one can be the result of hampered development. Ultimately we are all the same and deserving of nurturance.
Everyone please read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
We can take back our country!
Read "Clinton Cash". Hillary has always been all about the Benjamins. She has no morals at all, she just wants money and power. She has done and will do anything to get money and power.
Here's a good book to start with.
Edit: The only thing people can say is "hur dur right wing" because facts and morals do not matter to these scumbags.
>How could changing the outcome of an election not lead to impeachment?
Putin probably cannot be impeached
>Hillary Clinton would have won 2016 had the Russians not intervened.
and asked Hillary to sell them the uranium which was exposed in
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
which helped Trump win
Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems SPOILER
Amazon
Google Books
B&N
If there is anyone who wants to read this and legitimately can't afford it.... reply to this... and I'm sure we can find a way.
The Golden Rule Documentary feat Noam Chomsky
Can you add some info about the book(official title, author) for those just arriving to the party? I was searching Amazon... but I don't know the author and there are a few "The Golden Rule".You should read this, if you get a chance.
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176
I thought the documentary was great but it's very long and I think a lot of people don't catch the details. I also thought it was good to revive the video since I think it's informative and more people should check it out. This particular excerpt seemed relevant to social democracy.
The rest of the documentary is largely focused on Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems and features quotes from Ferguson and Noam Chomsky quite heavily. Ferguson believes that you can predict government policy by following the financial backing of the various politicians. For example, it is argued that health care entered the US national debate in 2008 not necessarily because people wanted it but because various manufacturing industries were seeing their costs of labor go up and were feeling the pinch during the financial crisis and they in turn lobbied the politicians. At the end the documentary tries to make the case for both socialism and democracy.
> but like it or not an age of war is coming
Every age is an age of war. Absent technology that neutralizes fission and fusion, mass deployment of conventional forces between major powers seems unlikely. Best leave the predictions to the experts.
----
> we will need them to drive trucks, push paper, and support logistics to free up bodies.
The US could easily draft a force of 15+ million men without resorting to children, the elderly, or women. How many shitty little proxy wars do we need to fight? Women are more expensive and less expendable.
Every woman employed in almost any military capacity represents a reduction in potential combat power.
-----
> ... the value in trained women as Intel officers...
This is the only solid point in in any of your posts. But I don't think anyone here would dispute that women have been extremely useful in intelligence gathering.
---
> bunch of edgelords
Am I wasting time arguing with an entryist?
I think that The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a really neat book. This is somewhat unrelated to your niche, and some of you guys have heard me speak about this on IRC. I have no education in International Relations and a high school education in history, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it really does a good job at explaining ambitions that underpin nations foreign policy and what causes them to have such ambitions. It's certainly not a perfect book, but it does a good job at explaining a staunchly, sobering realist theory of international relations. One reviewer puts it this way, "I found the book an enjoyable read but Mearsheimer has a surprisingly superficial grasp of world history. However, he does provide a helpful explanation of American foreign policy over the past 200 years." That's important to know before digging into this book, and it's also important to know that John is very staunchly realist. In my own opinion, I think realism is a very good theory, but it also assumes (again, my uneducated opinion) that (like with books like the Dictators Handbook) that leaders are psychopaths with no emotions. That ideology doesn't play a role on some level in decision making. That foreign policy is entirely predicated around protecting a nation.
I'd like to hear /u/Fresh-Snows thoughts on it. He studies international relations extensively from what I've heard. He could offer an interesting opinion.
Also, Ender in Exile is a very good book that I am currently reading. If you have read Enders Game, or of Scott Cards books on the Ender universe in general, I highly suggest picking up this book.
A book recommendation for you: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer builds up a clear argument, with analysis of historical relevance stretching from Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany up to the modern United States.
His view is arguably colored by his assumptions about International Politics. However, the author makes this clear in the first few chapters, explaining his theory of Offensive Realism. It is at the same time a logically understandable and depressing view of the interaction of states.
The book finishes with a chapter wherein it is predicted that the rise of China is unlikely to be peaceful. There also are suggestsions of strategies for the U.S. to deal with this change in the balance of power. A clear and convincing read, highly recommended.
To give some sense of overview, there are other views of International Poltitics, this is just one of them, there is enough room to be critical. This book gets a serious debate going though, which you are looking for, reading from your post.
And since you are asking my opinion: Great Power politics are likely to trump relatively minor factors of environment and language in international relations. I assume that being the leading nation in the world means having the most power in the world. This has little to do with language and less to with environmental policy. It has everything to do with military forces, arsenals and alliances. Economic power as well, has a higher priority.
I am not saying the factors you point out are unimportant. The spread of language and the accompanying culture can be a spread of "soft power". The spread and popularity of Hollywood movies is an example of this. Many people throughout the world today speak English. But this can change. It is not hard to imagine that in three generations Chinese can have spread its influence as a language significantly.
If Chinese military and economic growth can be turned into a dominant position, other countries will study its culture in order to court and befriend it and hopefully benefit from associating with them.
This entire conversation is basically a way of saying "how can we prove neorealism wrong?" Neorealism says that it is the nation state that's important, and liberal institutionalism says that it is institutions that are important (constructivism focuses on identity). The EU is a supranational institution, and with the problems caused by forces of nationalism during the 20th century in Europe and how they led to war, and because nobody wants war, some Europeans thought they could overcome the nation-state, and therefore overcome war.
And that's why its a 'tragedy' that neorealism is right. If you want to find out how the world really works, I can't suggest anyone better than John Mearsheimer (along with Stephen Walt). They're both neorealist theorists, Mearsheimer being an offensive neorealist, Walt a defensive neorealist; they agree on most points.
After years of studying this stuff, I couldn't find anyone apart from these two academics who explained international politics better. As an example, check out this book and all the controversy it created.
They are not popular in Europe, for reasons such as neorealism being pessimistic, nation state-centric, and concerned with questions such as survival, rather than the thriving of a society (they would say geopolitics trumps economics, or that you can't have economics without first taking the security and defense issues off the table as it were). They would say that it was not the EU which deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, but that it should have gone to NATO, as an example. They would likely say that the democratic peace thesis is wrong, because it is non-falsifiable; no democracy would call the country it is going to war with a proper democracy like it is.
There's more to say, but when I found out about these guys, it was like a bomb going off in my head. Finally, everything made sense, instead of things always being twisted around like a pretzel. In conclusion, they'd likely say the dream of a properly federalized Europe is a waste of time, and your time and personal political philosophy would best be spent elsewhere. Oh, one last thing - they're just as harsh on the US as they are on Europe!
Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard is a great place to start.
I would say in so far as one considers the overall question of who's interests are being served in the greater middle east, while clearly up until the 1960's or so, there was a favorable attitude towards Israel as a strong proxy in resistance to Communism , it could be seen as a secondary.
A fascinating book on neoconservative political though, Leo Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli", pointed out that among what we would today identify as neoconservatives, they should endeavor to gain and keep literary and ideological influence in the US political structure.
Strauss makes a second major (although very obscurant) observation that given the Western penchant for representative government, if one really wants to lead, the "best" form of representative democracy is in fact totalitarian democracy, whereby people elect a leadership, but that leadership effectively has absolute power, during it's tenure.
Even a cursory reading of constitutional writings makes it pretty abundantly clear, this vision is not exactly what the founders had envisioned, and in fact can be seen as highly incompatible with the original intent of US constitutional processes.
Neoconservatives, however, during the later years of the 1960's (and this is a FASCINATING observation made by many early neoconservatives), especially after the 1967 days war and the attack on the USS Liberty, it became increasingly clear to Irving Krystol and others that polemic influence was rapidly declining as the "left" in the United States became increasingly difficult to gain reliable outputs from the political process ;Representative "Scoop" Jackson was being investigated for espionage, the Viet Nam anti-war movement was in full swing, and it was unclear the "left" would long remain uncritical of Israeli political/military positions, indefinitely)
So the notion to "switch" political affiliation started ,and astutely re-ordered itself slowly becoming rhetorically reflective of and ultimately part and parcel of the conservative movement - which was seen as far more capable of being managed rhetorically.
More painful to read was that what neoconservatism should do, first and foremost is decide what is wanted, and disregard the practical considerations , or reasons one might not want to do such a thing; this is a tragic element of neoconservatism since it encourages the political class to disregard the well being of any host society and perform at some political 'id' level of functioning - effectively giving philosophical sanction to sociopathy - that makes Ayn Rand look positively generative by comparison.
In this way we can attribute the decline of "realpolitik" to the political maneuverings and ascent of neoconservatism within the Reagan administration, ultimately consigning that political tradition to the last holders of those political views in the 1990's , (Schultz, Bush Sr, Scowcroft even Kissinger were marginalized)
Today we see this in the preposterous ideological stances of some Israeli leaders (Avi Lieberman for example) proposes that non-loyal Jews (and of course all Arabs/Sephardi) be required to take loyalty tests or be "relocated", how one fails or passes a loyalty test and when the disloyal Israeli citizen is relocated is not mentioned. More perverse is the notion of racial purity gangs sprouting up, that are not actively discouraged. That said, I'm not Israeli, these days, if they want to setup racial purity laws, or ethnically houseclean, it's not my concern, although history clearly shows that ultimately it does become our concern eventually (honestly, who in the US, wants to end up on the wrong side of another Apartheid argument).
In US politics, you get the notion of constant warfare, I dislike the polemic of Chomsky on this point but do find that there is a very strong element of don't ask whether it's in the interests of the United States, but rather ask whether it is in the interests of these ideologues and then push hard for whatever it is.
This operates in concert with the overall feeling of some in the US oriented political class that military might is the signature element of US power, rather than taking the traditional / historical view (Paul Kennedy makes this case in his excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" , that military power is a direct consequence of economic power, and that confusing the two / or failure to reconcile the relation has repeatedly lead to the self-destruction of more than one economic power in the past.
So it is for that reason , pretty much alone, that the United States, does very well for itself by constraining it's military expeditions to those which are strictly necessary and similarly keeping military and other social support expenditures well below our means if we mean to persist as a functional nation-state.
Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" makes a grand statement about US presence and influence in the US, but does so in a surprisingly insightful way, it's an excellent counterpoint to alot of the geopolitical views that hold sway today, covering many of the same problems, but with a more US centered focus.
In recent readings, I think one of my favorite books on the subject was a short and easy read by Donald Kagan "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace", or , both of which basically lays out the notion (although he NEVER states as much for obvious reasons), that US military dominance implies a duty to preserve US interests in the Eurasian sphere of influence, limiting the ascent of China and dominance of Russia.
Most of these positions are entirely counter to the positions taken historically in the US, and more disturbingly they are directly counter to the actions and policies of all of the major developed nations (Japan, Germany, England, France) which 40 years ago, made coherent energy ,infrastructure and industrial policies that slowly moved their nation-states away from oil, and the geopolitical instability of the Middle East.
More damningly I think this political worldview, rather abruptly disrupted, our educational system, both at the liberal arts and especially the scientific level;
There is a peculiar animus towards scientists who can counter the political views of absolutism, one of the best examples of this was very early on when Richard Perle got shut-down, from his hard-line and openly discredited idea that the Soviet Union was "breaking" US / USSR arms treaty conditions, here a knowledgeable expert destroyed Perle in a public forum, especially as the 1980's continued.
It was possible to see the vast efficiencies of computers and later communications (ultimately leading to the internet in later years), but these innovations are the legacy of the R&D and generous funding of the late 1950's and 1960's, today rather than innovate and engineer around the economic & resource constraints in our economy, we shuffle money around and hope someone else clever comes up with ideas.
Ultimately, however the sad tale ends up in the actions that warranted the removal from office of most of the political operatives and strong ideological advocates of neoconservativsm in the United States military / civilian establishment, in 2003-4, when FBI (CIA and DIA conducted similar investigations internally) all started to determine independently, that US interests, were not just being poorly served, but in fact were undermined, forcing the Bush administration to remove or allow to retire almost all of the major players, although , the damage was done, the US had overthrown the Iraqi leadership by this time.
In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and less successfully against Iran by stove-piping questionable information to the US administration, and in some cases there was evidence of at the very least questionable and arguably treasonous actions undertaken by some elements of the political/military administration under the Bush administration.
Personally, I found the investigation and continued influence of these guys totally disheartening, and it has made me very apathetic to continued US involvement in the Middle East whatsoever.
It seems simply far more logical , and in concert with our longer term interests, to just load up on static energy production - solar, thermal, wind , "cleaner" coal, and just do whatever is possible to maintain a small footprint in the region, and re-establish our governmental educational/industrial/military trajectory from - what - a generation ago?
Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.
Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski
George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman
Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.
If I think of more I'll post 'em.
> I'll concede the point that the US is very concerned by Chinas's rise but Russia's?
Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1992
"Russian threat" segment, unedited (ie "before being leaked") version:
> We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.
This translates well in what is now happening in Ukraine. Here is was mister Brzezinski has to say about Ukraine in his book:
> Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasion chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the South.
Furthermore,
> Indeed, the Ukraine’s relationship to Europe could be the turning point for Russia itself. But that also means that the defining moment for Russia’s relationship to Europe is still some time off – ‘defining’ in the sense that Ukraine’s choice in favor of Europe will bring to a head Russia’s decision regarding the next phase of its history: either to be a part of Europe as well or to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its ‘near abroad’ conflicts.
I suggest you digging up the book. It contains quite a number of interesting thoughts regarding the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Unfortunately, I can't provide the most interesting of them right now.
Edit: fixed the link
Do you want to know why we are in Afghanistan and are never planning on leaving? Here is the answer. Geopolitics.
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
You also might be interested in some of these books as well.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-The-History-CIA/dp/0307389006
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081
While you're right that both parties have done some terrible things, technically, the Republicans are demonstrably MORE culpable in this bullshit. I highly recommend this book. It's pretty damning.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
Whenever people make this false equivalency, it shows their lack of understanding of how Republicans have governed over the past 30 years.
From a bipartisan source (one expert from Brookings, another from the Heritage Foundation), actually it's true.
>When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
>“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
Brilliant book that takes a very serious look in to both sides over the last decade. It's written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein who have spend decades studying congress and pride them selves on being as non partisan as they can.
Edit: Didn't read the part about not being too wordy and this most likely falls in to that category. Excerpt Going to leave this here for others though.
Peter Schweizer was a foreign policy advisor to Sarah Palin. He works with Andrew Breitbart and has authored several books with titles such as Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic.
But I don't bring this up to discredit the man. I think it's great to see a person of his character addressing such a pertinent issue like insider trading in Congress. The fact that it is him delivering this message encourages unity between conservatives and liberals so that we can more effectively confront the extensive corruption within our state and corporate systems.
Edit: This story was also covered well by Newsweek. Peter Schweizer's new book, on this topic and based on his independent research, is Throw Them All Out.
The problem with the world is, there are way too many people that have been apathetic for too long about political corruption. It's start to demand change at every level of Government, which means kicking out all incumbants and anyone that was so much affiliated with anyone participating in any type of Fraud, Waste, or outright Abuse. Anytime anyone in government commits fraud, they should immediately be forced to resign, or should be voted out in the next election cycle.
https://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-Politicians/dp/0547573146
This book is incredible, it probably has a Republican bias to some extent but well worth reading. The legal standard for insider trading among US politicians is completely different from what you’d find in business.
Something like http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-Politicians/dp/0547573146?
The links I mention in my OP... These are not isolated incidents but years of lying and deceit. Funny you don't see any such links accusing Bernie of any crime or breach of ethics eh?
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?705412-DNC-California-Election-Fraud-is-biggest-scam-of-2016-Is-Hillary-Clinton-proud-of-her-latest-crime
http://anonofficial.com/anonymous-hillary-clinton-the-hillary-files-full-documentary/
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288/175-7388387-5080132?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&linkId=THCIOEQNE2B4NWDJ&tag=worldnetdaily-20
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?705894-The-Real-Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?703360-FBI-Director-amp-Senator-Hillary-Clinton-TOLD-ON-9-15-01-about-Saudi-funders-of-911-Fedex-confirmed-delivery
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/07/judge-napolitano-hillary-clinton-james-comey-and-department-political-justice
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-wrong-on-familys-immigration-history-records?utm_term=.werOBmvMg#.tap3LjA4z
“Crooked Hillary” is not just a nickname; it is a way of life.
For the latest generation of indoctrinated millennials, who were educated in the black hole of Clinton’s actual political conduct for decades, the notion of selling out real national security for funding her family slush fund may be hard to swallow.
For hard core Clintonistas, the practice of trading favors for money is politics 101, taught in the book from “Chinagate”.
[https://www.independentsentinel.com/lest-we-forget-hillarys-china-gate-scandal/]
Lest you forget, “the transfer of America’s most sensitive technology, including but not limited to nuclear missile and satellite technology, apparently in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election effort and the Democratic National Committee”, is a family tradition.
You can always depend upon the Clinton apologists to ignore, divert or circumvent the linkage that demonstrates the corrupt nature of the Clinton cabal, pay to play culture.
But how much is enough before some of the most left wing ideologues begin to admit that the stench can no longer be avoided?
Last year Mother Jones published a stunning comparison chart that shows Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals. “17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton’s State Department”.
Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors is most revealing and cites from an IBT investigation:
[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals]
“As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism.
In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”
She declared that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.”
She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.”
She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.”
All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department…
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”
The Hill confirms these numbers. Hillary scrutinized for arms sales at State and cites a new book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash.
[http://thehill.com/regulation/international/243089-hillary-clinton-facing-criticism-over-international-weapons-deals][Clinton Cash: http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288]
The essential question raised, whether foreign governments sought to curry influence with the Clintons by making donations to the foundation, should be easily answered.
When the conflicts of the Clinton Foundation become too much for even MSNBC, the outrage no longer can be said to be part of a “right-wing conspiracy” against the wicked witch.
“MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked Clinton in March if she should shut down the Clinton Foundation.
“Is there a case to be made, an ethical case to be made that the Clinton Foundation and the global initiative should essentially be wound down as a family foundation while you run for president,” she asked the Democratic candidate.
“I think it is not unreasonable to suspect that people may give donations to The Clinton Foundation hoping that they will favorably influence your opinion toward them, as a presidential candidate, or eventually as president if you’re elected.”
Clinton sidestepped the question.”
Still, the most reliable and recent information is published in The Daily Caller article, Persian Gulf Sheikhs Gave Bill & Hillary $100 Million, which provides a much needed narrative that deserves wide exposure.
[http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/]
“The FBI has reportedly launched a second investigation of the former secretary in addition to its probe of her private email server.
This investigation is looking into “political corruption” and is seeking evidence where former Secretary Clinton may have offered official government favors to foundation donors.
Most troubling for Hillary, however, could be Bill’s personal, five-year business partnership with Dubai’s authoritarian ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin-Rashid al-Maktoum and his overall friendship with the rulers of the United Arab Emirates — a confederation of states that includes Dubai.”
Under her tenure, the Hillary Clinton’s State Department Armed Saudi Arabia to the Teeth, but this only scratches the surface.
[http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-state-department-armed-saudi-arabia-teeth/]
However, the irony of her War Party devotion is at the heart of Why Hillary Clinton’s “Strongest Issue” Is Actually Her Biggest Farce.
[http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-arms-deals-gun-control/]
“Hillary Clinton just might be the top salesperson for the military-industrial complex in US history, yet she is claiming to be the undisputed champion of gun control in the 2016 race.
The fact that Clinton has sold more weapons than George W. Bush in his second term isn’t mentioned much by the major cable news networks, who have allowed her to get away with the narrative that she wants to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of killers.
But much of the unrest in the Middle East can be traced back to US-supplied weapons during Clinton’s years as Secretary of State, particularly to countries with deplorable human rights records.”
For continuous updates on the Clinton Foundation Corruption News, Judicial Watch discloses some astounding details that few other publications would touch.
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-foundation-corruption-news/]
“The illicit partnership between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation extended even to fundraising.
An August 2009 email chain including Hillary Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, and then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton was to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/]
Caitlin Klevorick, senior advisor to the counselor and chief of staff to the secretary of state who previously worked at the Foundation, notes:
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-clinton-conflicts-00772-pg-4-6/]
“One question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”
The State Department material includes background information about Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.
Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.
The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the State Department Internet site confirms that the then-secretary of state did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:”
[http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/09/129644.htm]
So what can be concluded from looking into the relationships that link the money trail to arms shipments?
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department gives a clear viewpoint.
[http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187]
“Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, told IBTimes that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, defense contractors and foreign governments seeking weapons approvals is “a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”
“It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t,” he said.
“American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest.
When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself.
This wasn’t an issue.
And that was probably better.”
Operating above the law, reporting requirements and transparent disclosures is a pattern that the Clinton crime syndicate has long practiced...
More: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/clinton-foundation-bribes-weapon-deals/
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464224454&sr=8-1&keywords=clinton+cash
It's from a book. A very meticulous and well sourced book
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
What they did is pretty extensive and very shady, this details it well: https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
#NoFilter Politics
Clinton Cash
> Except for the fact that those questions were specifically fact-checking trump's outright false statements, like the fact that stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional.
Here, this is a quote from the article that you posted:
> "Stop and frisk as a tactic is constitutional. But the way the tactic was applied in New York City has been found unconstitutional. This is an important distinction."
Lester Holt lied. Hillary Clinton lied. You've been duped. They use projection as a tactic. Here we are talking about how Trump lied about stop and frisk yet he was the only one on that stage attempting to tell the truth. The notion must be absurd to you. Stop and frisk, as a law enforcement tactic, is still constitutional in New York city and everywhere else, via the supreme court ruling of Terry v. Ohio in 1968.
Hillary Clinton basically invented birtherism. It all stemmed from an e-mail within her campaign, her supporters picked up on the idea, and Hillary incubated the idea during her run for president in 2008.
> "She'll say anything and change nothing" - Barry O
These people are the proprietors of institutional corruption within this country. It's not bullshit. Dig into it if you feel inclined. I recommend the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer, and Crisis of Character by Gary J. Byrne as a jumping off point. The Clintons are scumbags, and I want to see them stop controlling the lives of average Americans.
Just watch the video I linked from the 10 second mark and you will see the book there.
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.
In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.
Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.
Well she's a pathological liar, I don't think that's up for dispute.
There's entire books on the corruption and the Clintons.
Clinton Cash
No one left to lie to by Christopher Hitchens, who was admittedly more left-wing than not
The Uranium deal with the Russians where Clinton was given half a million dollars for a speech
Hillary lying about Benghazi to hide her incompetence, she wasn't even capable of protecting an embassy and people want her in charge of the country lol
The pardon of Marc Rich where the Clintons continued to be given money err donations
>What bothered so many was that Clinton’s clemency to Rich reeked of payoff. In the run-up to the presidential pardon, the financier’s ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and “over $1 million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era.”
It never ends with them
Basically, people can say what they want about candidates, GOP or democrat, but Hillary is by far the worst of the bunch, well below Trump.
What I have trouble comprehending is how democratic voters just outright ignore these instances, and there's literally dozens and dozens or them, and will march in lock-step with the Clintons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453258631&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=%E2%80%9CClinton+Cash%3A+The+Untold+Story+of+How+and+Why+Foreign+Governments+and+Businesses+Helped+Make+Bill+and+Hillary+Rich
This covers it:
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453600000&sr=8-1&keywords=clinton+cash
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
This is being made into a documentary check for release time.
Here's one and the other is all the shit Comey said.
Clinton Cash is a better choice.
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
Definitely get Tom Ferguson's book then. Sadly, I haven't found a pdf of it online but your library or Amazon should have it. He has a number of articles that should be interesting. In short, he explores how the opportunity cost of voting causes political systems to be dominated by moneyed interests. As labor organizes, it becomes a moneyed interest and is able to get into the political system, which affects the composition of the parties. I should be able to snag his scholarly articles if you can't get them through your university or wherever. He spends some time talking about Europe too, so you should be able to get some useful info for making comparisons.
I'm afraid I don't have much on China, probably because unions are illegal and thus quite small and powerless.
> It's a big government that has been purchased and is currently being run by big corporations.
The corporate form is relatively recent (4, 5 centuries?) so let's generalize it to "the rich."
The problem is, if you study history, governments have pretty much always been associated with the rich. It is an institution that is either created by, or controlled by the rich, or in cases where the government is imposed by those who control military force, the guys who control it in very short order become "the rich" and use their control of government to make that state of affairs permanent.
As far as corporations are concerned - don't forget how corporations are created. By a State Charter. I.e. corporations are entities created when the government bends the rules and exempts some rich people from liability laws for some of their investment/business activities.
So there is a case to be made that government supporters are ultimately responsible for the problem of corporations.
> Big corporations that Ron Paul wants to further remove regulations from.
How did those corporations get so big? Who controlled the government when it enacted those regulations? So what purpose do those regulations really serve?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176
> Just as thinking the problem is only democrat or only republican caused
I don't think that. The vast majority of you liberals or Democrats think that. That is a big part of the reason why I yell at you.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1i6ac5/wounded_soldier_writes_letter_about_being_forced/cb1mwdd?context=3
> thinking Ron Paul the deregulatory is the solution shows that you just aren't paying attention.
Of course he's not "the solution." But his campaign in 2008 and 2012 were probably the best efforts to back, to make things better.
Because corporate/Wall Street scam #1 is imperialism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
And a guy who is speaking out against that, in front of Republican audiences, is pure fucking gold.
> Why do you think Ron Paul is the only "crazy" the media allows to have even a small voice?
The media has to maintain the illusion we're a free country with a free media. So they can't simply ignore a movement of a couple million people. It's the same sort of stuff they do with #OWS or anti-war rallies. They can't completely bury it, so they either play down the numbers (i.e. anti-war rallies with hundreds of thousands of people made to look like it was "only" 50 thousand) or portray them like crazy kooks (Ron Paul, #OWS).
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-ron-paul-media-video-2011-8
I humbly suggest you read Winner Take All Politics, or if you're a voracious reader: Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. These will free you of some fetters.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-War-With-Japan/dp/0312058365
> Omul asta e unul dintre cei mai capabili din lume sa faca predictii. A scris si o carte foarte interesanta
Cum ar fi predictia asta. Stratfor mi se pare o sursa de propaganda cu o agenda proprie foarte pro-americana, asa ca incerc sa-i evit pe cat posibil sau sa fiu foarte sceptic la orice debiteaza.
Cum ar fi predictia asta. Stratfor mi se pare mie sau cele mai multe ori, e ultima soluție.
And almost as good as this guy.
>Make note, I'm just a high schooler. I don't have any significant experience in academic IR studies, and I get most of my information from books, magazines, and journals. To be honest, I'm a little fuzzy on theory
I was the same in high school, trying to self-teach. If you have the opportunity to take a college intro-IR course it clears up sooo much. If you did it like me, you are teaching yourself out of order and context, and in a way that biases strongly towards some things and not others. Anyway, if you can't take an organized class, try to pick up a book on theory and that starts at the basics. I haven't read it yet, but if you like Realism then The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is supposedly excellent. Likewise, The End of History is the go-to Liberal book. Haven't read that either yet, so someone correct me if I'm way off-base with these recommendations. There's also Constructivism as the new thing, but I'm not really familiar with it. Anyways, getting theories down more helps a ton, it definitely changed my views on whether or not certain wars were good/bad ideas. But from your post you seem to have a good grasp on things, so IDK if this advice will help that much.
(^ this isn't related to your question, I just thought it might be helpful)
Anyways your question is basically Liberal Vs Realist it seems. A liberal of the Neoconservative (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, ect.) branch would say Saddam violated the liberal order first, and now the newly democratic Iraq has removed the threat. Iraq will join the other democracies and only attack dictators til there are none left and we have world peace. (this is really dumbed down, but you get the point)
Other less militaristic liberals (the Clintons, Woodrow Wilson especially) would say that that was an expected occasional break-down in the liberal order, and that liberal institutions for the most part prevent this sort of thing from happening more often, as it would if there was no UN or WTO ect. In their eyes, if Bush were ever put to international court and tried then it would be proof of the liberal order's success. The liberal order includes international free trade, which liberals say makes war unprofitable, and so they say, unlikely.
Realists (George HW Bush, Nixon, Kissinger) would agree with your middle paragraph, that the 'global order' is a manifestation of American hegemony, and that liberal institutions are set up to maximally benefit the USA, which is why other powers become revisionists; Iran/China/Russia does not feel it benefits from a US-led order (the WTO, World Bank, ect), and wants to set up an new order that maximizes their own power instead.
So its depends on who you ask, there is no real consensus here. For what its worth, I think you are dead on about the 'liberal order' really being the 'American order', and like you said, its mostly been a good thing.
To understand the failure of the foreign policy of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy one should read
https://www.amazon.de/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501
As you said you saw the usual classics I'll skip over Hayek, Hazlett, Milton Freedman, Orwell, ect
1.A very interesting read on America's Economic History. Not econ theory, this is the history of our economy crushing it for over 200 years. Will give you the faith that America's best days are always ahead of us as long as we remain capitalist :
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125
2.The best book on Foreign Policy I've ever read. It's a realist take on internation affairs which is what we are finally back to under this admin.
Nation's will work in thier own self interest, armies need to take territory to win wars, you need a great economy to have a great military, China must be confronted, ect:
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276
Seconded on Elements of Style. Also, try reading authors who are known for straightforward and concise prose. It's only coming to mind because I was a political science major, but John Mearsheimer is great for this- his chapters precisely follow the "tell you what I'm going to say; say it; summarize what I just said" mantra.
Yes it is. Read the Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404998957&sr=8-1&keywords=grand+chessboard
It's one of their biases, though it's not anti-china as much as its not pushing to legitimize China's claims on the East Asian Sea/South China Sea. But save that comment for later this week, as I'll post a (hopefully on monthly or bi-monthly basis) discussion Friday regarding critical analysis of a certain publication/source's short-sight and biases. From there we would cycle through the most common publications posted, offering great opportunities to pool our communal perspectives (Fact-check, etc).
On on a more abstract level publication like "the Diplomat" do provide is an interesting case study of soft power projection from the broader American-lead consensus relating to foreign policy (aka current alliance orientations). Though using words like alliance may sound like 19th anachronism, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the highly influencial book The Grand Chessboard. Terminology he puts forth is often used, particularly as a lens of analysis in the recent Crimean Crisis. Anyways, he describes Japan's role in the US grand strategy as a "vassal". So that might be a rough and ready reason for the publication's particular thematic choices.
This book pretty well satisfies me why we would want to take down Iran (again).
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320609129&sr=8-1
>The U.S. decided to fight the Taliban because they, as an entity, supported Al Qaeda with money and equipment, and provided them safe havens to train in. Plus, as a bonus, they're huge pieces of shit who treat women like dirt and have turned child abuse into a national pastime.
You can level the same criticisms at Saudi Arabia, but we're best buds with them.
>Whatever pipeline might cross Afghanistan didn't remotely enter into it
If you seriously believe that geopolitical concerns related to projecting America's hegemony into resource rich regions of the world, and maintaining America's role as the only true world super-power, played no part in the Afghanistan war, then I suggest you read 'The Grand Chessboard' and learn about PNAC.
> if you believe otherwise, you're an idiot.
Ad hominem attacks on my mental faculties show that you don't believe that your arguments have sufficient merits on their own, and, so, you must resort to cheap insults without providing further content to the discussion.
Right, but the principle is the same. Flynn visited Russia as a private citizen who was a fan of Putin. He consulted with Trump because they both see America's role in the world similarly. Manafort never worked for Putin but for a Putin-backed leader in Ukraine. He got the gig with Trump through mutual friend Roger Stone. Trump, Flynn, and Manafort probably all share a similar view on Russia, and had Trump never run for office and you asked all three in 2017 they probably all would share the same view, and it's the view I have as well. Putin is a strong man, he's a killer no doubt, but that's none of our business really in an "America First" oriented foreign policy. The opposite of this kind of non-interference is quite clearly seen in the meddling our country was involved in in Ukraine in 2014. Before that our relations with Russia were good publicly. We played games behind the scenes as part of a Grand Chessboard
Eurasian strategy and of course Putin fought back. He's not dumb, he knows what's going on just like we do. He knows we tried the same shenanigans in Syria after the Arab Spring (which likely was real). When he saw Obama wasn't going to go beyond proxy war there he stepped in and mopped up our little operation and that's when he became "a thug, a killer, a dictator" according to McCain and Rubio and Rachel Maddow and all the rest, when he never changed for 16 years and they couldn't care less the first 15 years.
So for whatever reason Flynn and Manafort are former Establishment types who left or were ousted from the inner circles but they know all the games going on against Russia. They let Putin know, look if Trump gets in office we're ending these spy games and proxy wars. We're going to stop pushing NATO into aggressive postures on your doorstep. We're going to take off sanctions. Rather than good vs bad, a more realistic view of foreign policy is to see different power groups vying for position. The sitiuation we have now is men in the white house who understand the real situation and the players and the games, but who are free agents. That's why the establishment has been so freaked out ever since it was clear Trump could win through to today. Because Flynn, Bannon, Trump, et al are really free agents who've somehow gained the controls of state and aren't interested in using America as a battering ram against the few rogue states still holding out from Anglo American domination, or using our military as a mercenary force on behalf of banks and multinationals, or completing a project of global domination. They want to discontinue all that and instead direct that energy towards making America Great Again for its own citizens. That is their great crime.
> No I got the grammar, I think they're not logical conclusions. Why is "preventing any other country from dominating Western Europe or East Asia" a necessary condition for deterring invasion?
Your question displays profound ignorance of America's security interests. Preventing a single hegemonic power from controlling Eurasia is one of the core tenants of American foreign policy.
Check out Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard for a good primer on post-Cold War American grand strategy.
So everything, in your mind, ties back to oil? Not the hotbed of terrorism? You haven't mentioned precious metal mines in Afghanistan? The Chinese? The belt?
Have you ever read The Grand Chessboard? There's a section in it talking about the plan involving the ME and China.
I remember Bin Laden's piece.
You sound a little supportive of Jihadis. That's worrisome.
Also try - Grand Chessboard. He uses it as a textbook to his classes. I've seen it making rounds on p2p networks. Take the latest edition.
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
The Grand Chessboard.
Non-fiction about Geopolitics and Geopolitical Strategy. Originally published in 1998, the book has proved to be quite prescient and insightful.
go_fly_a_kite: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
>is this a proxy confict with Russia?
yes
"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
They are not about reasonable, work together, get a functioning government.
They are about "oppose anything the Democrats suggest, all the time."
(Except for trade deals, of course.)
This is a pretty good book about it. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism/dp/1476763801
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X
These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.
The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#443b3c5b12ab
Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.
This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.
It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.
Perhaps, but the average person also the sort of idiot who watches reality TV. That's the problem.
And it's frankly ridiculous to cast Democrats and Republicans as equally crazy. False equivalence. California is run by competent people who live in the real world, even if you disagree with their specific policy priorities. States like Kansas are run by people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the way to stop teenage pregnancy is to not tell them how to avoid it.
Even if you think the deregulation of licensing organizations should be prioritized, for example, you can't possible see the Republicans as a rationally equivalent organization. They've gone off the deep end.
Don't take my word for it. Ask actual conservatives.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
I would encourage you to consider the work of Sam Wang at Princeton. Also, nonpartisan experts like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote in 2012 about the issue of Republicans changing the rules to protect partisan Republican advantages in legislatures. This research is not conclusive, but there is ample evidence to support my contention that the benefits of incumbency and redrawing of district boundaries gave Republicans advantages in the 2012 Congressional election.
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/02/03/slaying-the-gerrymander/
http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
A book I just finished reading for my AP Gov & Pol class seems to be relevant here. It outlines some key congressional issues, especially the overuse of filibusters and failed old tactics we keep trying to reuse. It was a pretty good read, especially for something so critical. I'll put up a pdf of my summary i had to write for it if you guys want.
EDIT: Added a few words.
If you really want to lose your mind at how bad it is, read this book. It’s insane what they’re legally allowed to get away with.
https://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Out-Politicians/dp/0547573146
Regarding your 2: there are five different scandals linked on that linked page alone, just from the time Bill was President. There have also been many scandals she's faced since that time. You don't consider that a problem, seriously? They say that whenever you see one cockroach you should conclude that there are several nearby. So what then should we conclude when we see several cockroaches, if not that there's an infestation?
I can see three main possibilities: either she is an innocent person and keeps getting accused of illegal actions due to the worst luck in the universe, or there's a far reaching conspiracy focusing on manufacturing false claims against her specifically (much more often than against any other potential target), or she is guilty but calls in favors and destroys relevant evidence in order to get away with things she shouldn't be able to get away with.
Which seems the most probable to you: a corrupt politician getting away with it, a powerful conspiracy against a politician existing but somehow failing over and over and over again to get rid of her, or someone innocent of all wrongdoing repeatedly facing scandals for absolutely no reason?
If you don't think it's a big deal when politicians break laws in order to make themselves and their friends money, I'm astonished. Corruption is the ultimate form of rent seeking, and the proximate cause of highly extractive institutions. Additionally, when someone who's corrupt is in power, they'll tend to bring other rent seekers in their wake. They are likely to sympathize with their friends promoting special interest groups, rather than to dispassionately evaluate the costs and benefits of policies for the average citizen. I think the laws that we do have are permissive enough as it is. I'd much prefer a candidate who seeks to strengthen and broaden these laws in order to give government policymakers good incentives, over a candidate who prefers to weaken them, circumvent them, or break them.
The cattle controversy is the one I'm most familiar with. She got a hundred fold return shorting the cattle futures market during a time when the cattle futures market was rising. Expert economists, using a model "stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt... concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion." Whatever the justice system might or might not require, I don't need any more evidence than that. An exact description of how she did it seems unnecessary, in my view, when such an implausible outcome occurring without corruption is essentially impossible. I am very much inclined to think that if she were a normal person, rather than a rich white ex first lady who has lots of friends and knows lots of secrets, one of these scandals would have landed her in jail by now. Politicians are corrupt all the time, and get away with it all the time, and she shows every possible sign of being typical in that regard.
I am not saying that because she is corrupt, she's automatically worse than any other possible candidate running for the presidency. I'd prefer Clinton to Trump, certainly, and am essentially indifferent between her and Sanders. However, I do think that it's shameful to our legal system that someone like that is allowed to walk free, and shameful to democracy in general that she's the best candidate our electoral system has managed to produce for us this year. It has become mainstream for people to mock and insult the Republicans for having Trump leading the polls, and the Republicans deserve it, but if the world made sense the Democrats would be receiving similar insults too, and just as frequently, but they are not.
It's not just Hillary I think is corrupt, though, lest you think this is all coming from a place of partisan bias. Karl Rove belongs in jail too. As do many other "respectable" people who've helped guide our country, in both the major political parties, whose names are too numerous and controversial for me to list here.
Sheldon Wolin is a political philosopher of the first order; he has educated some of the more contemporary greats as well. His book about inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy is here.
See also: Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism
Most people in canada are politically unsophisticated and aren't educated enough to answer. Get off the subs for the illusioned and uneducated (which is what reddit is in a nutshell).
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
Well educated people don't see it happening. Hedges and Wolin have spoken about this topic at length.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069114589X
If revolution is going to happen its going to happen elsewhere first, former national security advisors are worried about the non north american peoples primarily but they are going full blown into 'protect the rich' mode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY
It isn't about Islam. Before 2003 the Tamil Tigers were responsible for the most suicide bombings. Good book on suicide terrorism
You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence for anything you have stated. I cannot go through all your points as they are assertions rather than supported statements. Let's try a few and then call it a day. What I am going to do is offer a citation EVERY SINGLE TIME. If you do not reply in kind, I will use this as evidence that you are talking shite.
Absolute shit. Total and utter. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. Please read "How the Weak Win Wars".
nationalist (this is the majority of terrorist movements);
No it is not. You're wrong. Flat out wrong."
No, I didn't say "who cares what they think" You are the one offering a one-size-fits-all explanation that refuses to take their claims seriously. I am the one saying that different groups have different goals. On trends in the movement, while it is true that nationalist and ethnic goals are declining, they still account for most terrorist movements in the world. See this RAND report's conclusions. Or are RAND not as wise as you? (also note, note that ideology is treated as a political motivator, not inherently terroristic - i.e. used the way I define it; not you).
3."No it is false, naive, and dangerous to glorify them by claiming their ideals are complex and motivations are all different. They do these things because they want to kill people, people that they emotionally hate. They are irrational. They are motivated by various ideologies but they all have one common ideology: That destroying property and killing innocent random people within the area of your enemy, will result in social change."
You really seem to be struggling with the differences between means and ends. Just because a group targets civilians it does not mean the group's goals are to target civilians. It might mean that they do this because they think it will meet other goals. By your logic, the US army only goes to war because it likes to blow stuff up; not because blowing some stuff up might have political effects. Read Clausewitz. On terrorists and extreme violence read Pape
How is saying that terrorist groups have various goals and various beliefs "oversimplify" the issue. It adds complexity. You are the one offering a monocausal explanation. I never said they didn't have beliefs. I am saying they have different beliefs. Oh, and by the way, saying "it's complex" does not mean "it's random" or "we can't understand." It simply means simple answers may not work. On the various goals of terrorists, see Hoffman.
I was referring to things that you said political scientists ignored. I was telling you they didn't. So don't get your nose out of bent when I contradict you. Admittedly my tone is not nice. But then neither is yours.
You haven't mentioned a single person by name. Everyone I have mentioned is a peer-reviewed political scientist. Show me your sources. I hope you are smart enough to know that some sources are less credible than others.
And how does that make any logical sense? Absolutely it is necessary to make accurate analysis which you clearly failed to do."
You said that you cannot study terrorism without clearance. I said you can as (a) there are tons of cases one can study that are now declassified, (b) many viable methods don't require clearance (e.g. interviews), and (c) unless you are trying to explain a specific operation or attack you do not necessarily need every single bit of fine-grained information. Your question determines your method. On designing research please see KKV or Brady & Collier
Yeah so admit that you are wrong and ignorant."
I have been wrong on many things, many times. It took me some time to become smart enough to figure out when to let go of ideas. It is not easy for most people. But buddy, don't fucking fool yourself, you are not winning this argument.
I am not trying to justify anything. I am trying to explain it. Studying lung cancer doesn't mean you are in favor of cancer, or against cigarette companies for that matter. It simply means trying to explain it. I'm not the one with blinkers on here.
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu.
If you don't respond with proper citations don't expect a reply. But, whatever you do don't chalk it up as an intellectual win.
EDIT: for formatting, before I gave up.
>As an example I bet that the majority in the U.S. would accept serious restrictions on Muslims, something I oppose.
How merciful of you, but I don't think the majority of the US would do such a thing.
>I also think you are well aware that the Brotherhood did so well because of organization not simply popularity.
Regardless of what actually happened, your tidbit is irrelevant because I'm talking about democracy, which is determined by popularity (ideally).
>Do you want a history of wars based on religion? On the horrors in Europe and the Islamic world because of fights over religion? There is a saying that has lots of truth: good people can do good things and bad people can do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.
Always a go to argument among atheists while completely disregarding ulterior motives for many of the past wars and also ignoring the thousands of wars that had nothing to do with religion at all. The fact is mankind loves to go to war whether there are religious reasons or not, having an excuse just makes it that much easier. There are a lot of books on these things.
Also, I am of the opinion that if you don't agree with the ideals set by your country, you are more than welcome to leave. No one will be completely ok with everything every country does. Don't like Islam's view on public adultery? Don't live in an Islamic state. Simple.
>Why should I care what a semi-mythic first state was like?
Because that is what this religion is (or rather should be) basing it's ideals on, whether you think it's mythic or not.
>Do you think the Islamic parties in Egypt are going to try for something like that first state or more like Saudi?
Probably like the first Islamic state. The majority of the Muslim world sees the ridiculousness of Saudia Arabia's government.
I haven't heard much from Dr. Pape since youtube videos of several of his presentations starting proliferating around 2010. I've been wanting to hear, 5 years later, if the conclusions from his - books regarding the motivations of suicide terrorists still hold true with ISIS as they did al Qaeda years earlier.
I am also curious about his views on Libya now. He was interviewed weeks after the multi-national intervention in Libya had begun and he listed it as an example, a precedent, of "healthy" intervention. There's a comment on that video that asks several important questions:
> So my question(s) for Dr. Pape -
Again, writing them off for taking a position you don't like is YOUR bias, not theirs.
For one, the wall annexes large tracts of land and doesn't even wall off all Palestinian communities, seriously questioning the "security" rationale. Further, most studies, such as this one and especially this one suggest that suicide bombing is caused by military occupation, and doesn't occur randomly or because of religion or culture. So assuming that suicide bombings are some kind inherently Palestinian problem that can only be solved by walling them off is pretty loaded. But in any case the wall doesn't wall them off, it goes THROUGH many of their communities in order to annex land.
What were we talking about again?
Yes there is a way to reason; pull out and apologize. Stop funding pro-western dictators like in Saudi Arabia (aka MECCA) and let them run their own lives. Eventually they'll come around and emulate us voluntarily... only difference is our corporations won't have access to their sweet, sweet oil.
A huge issue is Israel. If we took a more hands off approach Israel would be forced to compromise, and the "terrorists" would lose one more reason to hate the US.
Check out Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win"
There are plenty of people who have proposed alternative solutions to violence, such as Michael Scheuer look into it.
Hoffman's book represents the orthodox western security agencies view of terrorism, it's superficial, partisan in its approach, and there are far better books out there. Its good for describing the media/Terror relationship but not much else.]
This is well worth a read, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
and this: Understanding Terror Networks
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
This is the book he's holding. History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal.
He was carrying the Gore Vidal book "History of the National Security State" as he was carried out of the Embassy.
Now with added cancer!
Snapshots:
^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
Relevant book:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
To me, the best was "why socialism works" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498567671&sr=1-1&keywords=why+socialism+works
Why Socialism Works https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521531218/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_MRaRBbEVFXRBD
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Now with more commenting ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
Understanding Power gives a pretty broad overview of his ideas.
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
I don't think that they are paid, this is just the way propaganda works. It's a little scary to see it first hand frankly.
You may enjoy reading a book by Noam Chomsky, it is quite eye opening:
Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky
No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.
As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.
The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.
I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)
So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.
To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"
Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).
As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).
Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.
Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)
I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).
Understanding Power is a collection of lectures and Q&A sessions, and as such it is in a conversational style that is much easier to digest than his more scholarly works. I would definitely recommend this over books like Manufacturing Consent as an introduction to Chomsky's ideas. Manufacturing Consent was made into a documentary which does a good job of outlining his critique of the mass media.
No, this is false. Have a read of Stephen Pinker's Better Angel's of our Nature. It shows clearly, in many graphs detailing information about many different types of violence; that all types of violence have been in steady decline over the last thousand years.
This trend of a steady decline also continues over the last 100 and last fifty years and he documents this.
Further, US military strength has been in steady decline over the same period.
Your argument is not backed by data if your argument is that greater military strength produces greater peace. The inverse is true. Also if you want some political discussion about why this is the case have a read of this book.
[Understanding Power] (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-The-Indispensible-Chomsky/dp/1565847032#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1450851636683) USA good one. I linked to it in Amazon just so you can read the description. Just a heads up, Chomsky is widely considered to be one of the greatest modern thinkers, but because of that, he can be pretty formidable and at times difficult to follow, but if you can you will definitely be smarter because of it.
>>So having a political leaning makes one biased as to what facts to focus on and report?
>It very well can. More importantly why suggest a left wing pundit when there's going to be hundreds of other reports on the documents from other sources that aren't biased?
I don't see an answer to my question here. That it "very well can" doesn't show that Maddow in particular is biased just because she has obvious political leanings. (It's actually the obviousness of the political leanings that would incentivize her to be as unbiased as she can - you know, for credibility's sake, which you preemptively deny to her for no good reason.) As to "why Maddow," it's because she notably spends a lot of her shows being on Mitt Romney's case, trapping him with facts and his own statements, that's why.
>And why the mention of chompskey? Do you even understand his views? He spoke out against mainstream media regularly so I don't think he would be suggesting we listen to a cable news reporter either. More importantly chompskey holds very different views from a modern liberal like Maddow. Chompskey is heavily influenced by classicaly liberal philosophy which is completely different from modern liberalism. If anything chompskey would be a sort of neo libertarian. Do you know who noam chompskey is?
First off, it's spelled Chomsky. I've read his book Understanding Power and numerous columns of his at tomdispatch.com. So yeah, I know a thing or two about the guy. Even had a short e-mail exchange with him a couple weeks back. And I know how he's influenced by classical liberal philosophy and calls himself a libertarian socialist, the socialism (and, e.g., his stated support for the OWS movement) being what places him quite prominently on today's political left. And he's very clued into factors that generate bias in the media, and he inspires his more adept readers to identify and combat any biases in their own cognitive endeavors. Which brings me to my original question which you really haven't answered.
Understanding Power
One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems themselves.
For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.
And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."
(page 388).
Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?
Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.
Seriously, they've already been trying to convince people that. See Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage or anything written by Ann Coulter.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1484178189&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+savage+liberalism+is+a+mental+disorder
Have you ever heard of Michael Savage?
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437
Rush Limbaugh on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/RushLimbaughAndTheEIBNetwork/posts/10154025327167906
On his website:
http://dailyrushbo.com/rush-liberals-democrats-are-genuinely-mentally-ill/
Anne Coulter:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/17/ann_coulter_liberalism_is_on_the_spectrum_of_mental_illness.html
Conservative Radio Host Wayne Allyn Root:
https://twitter.com/wayneroot/status/764139954561687552?lang=en
It's also on Infowars but I don't know what stature they really hold:
https://www.infowars.com/new-york-legislator-proves-liberalism-is-a-mental-disorder/
Would you agree that these are some fairly influential voices?
They need mental help.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
Michael Savage coined it, even wrote a book about it
His new book is Trump's War
My comment was meant to be humorous, just as the title of Michael Savage’s book was meant to be funny.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595550437/
Nope
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621573486/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_q2HoDbJFG0T0V
[The Big Lie by Dinesh D'Souza] (https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486).
lol oh no what kind of monster would do that
[I wish it were nothing](The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621573486/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_V1TNzbFDHQPZW)
> Comparing a rabble of halfwits ... to actual Nazi brownshirts — a nationwide, organized paramilitary force — is risible.
Somebody forgot to tell this guy...
>> Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts. Dinesh D'Souza, The Big Lie
Yours is the perception of that frog that doesn't realize the water he's in is being brought to a boil, until it's too late. "Risible", I know.
Why not try to reveal the similarities between Nazi party policy and modern democrats? Its a saltmine of full of butthurts and reees.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
http://observer.com/2017/05/what-is-neo-fascism-democrats-mussolini/
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Secret-History-American/dp/B0018O22WG
http://www.returnofkings.com/58601/why-modern-leftists-are-fascists
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/03/fascist-roots-american-left/
>Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.
>With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.
From the publisher's description of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal. Sounds like I gotta read this book!
Here is his new one , another home run imo
[Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?]
(https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)
>From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics -- a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?
>It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.
>But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.
Read Listen Liberal if you really believe Dems aren't neoliberal.
>1. The Democratic party, for some insane reason, followed the Republican party to the right. I dunno what the strategy behind that was, but if they had not, they would likely have control of most State governments + Congress.
Read or listen to Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank
cool. Thanks for acknowledging my point and stating your disagreement in a diplomatic way. I think we are getting to a real discourse here.
My first disagreement with your statement is I don't think fighting republicans and making democrats better is either or first or second type of situation. In fact, considering how the democrats are always chasing the republicans rightward often losing big in election seasons, I think that making the democratic party a stronger one that better represents and inspires its people will stop the rightward shift of both parties.
Because policy polling shows the democratic platform is way more popular than the republican one and actually on most polices, the majority of American's are left of the democratic party but the constant losing of ground on policy, the appearance of elitism and corruption, the focus on identity politics which doesn't resonate compared to economic issues, and the fact that economically the middle and working classes have been devastated by republicans AND Democrats are some of the reasons why Democrats keep losing. That and the Democrats constant shift rightward, because when voters are presented with the options of republican and republican light, they'll go with the real thing.
I do agree the republicans are worse and we should fight and obstruct their agenda I also don't think investing energy in trying to change the republicans is the most prudent strategy.
There is a cogent argument made by Thomas Frank in his book Listen Liberal that the democratic party abandoning the working class in favor of the professional class is what led to them losing the majority of legislatures over the last 40 some years. So the way I see it, if the democratic party can take on the role of being the party of the people again, in a meaningful not rhetorical, way they will win seats and if the republicans want to stand a chance as a party they'll have to follow the democrats lead.
Continued support for the military industrial complex
Bold and expressed support for the war in Iraq
Pushing for the war In Syria
Continued support for more wars abroad, even adding 4 more major conflicts under the Obama presidency
Continued support for the war on drugs
Continued support for the prison industrial complex
Continued support for predatory lending industries
refusal to support a living wage
refusal to support single payer / medicare for all / universal healthcare
refusal to support extending public education beyond k-12
growing support within the party to move towards greater and greater privatization of public services
Enactment of the ACA, a healthcare proposal initially concocted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
refusal to break up the big banks
refusal to support or truly fight for a carbon tax
a continual decline of support for unionized labor
The continued and increasing acceptance of legalized bribery / money in politics
A general abandonment of leftist economic policy
The democrats do pander very frequently to leftist ideals, but they are either extremely ineffective at governing toward their ideals or are disingenuous. In my view I lean toward the latter, mostly due to the blatant and transparent acceptance of enormous sums of money from special interest groups. It makes them look like they are paid to lose/throw the fight - but still pander to the left and win votes.
This criticism of the Democratic party as moving rightward by no means excused the disgusting sprint toward facism of the Republican party, but the Democrats have been trying for years to run away from being branded with associations to FDR or New Deal style politics. For a very thorough analysis, check out this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
I recommend a book called "Rat F*cked," by David Daley, which details how Republicans took advantage of the 2010 Census through their "REDMAP" plan. Every 10 years, we redraw districts once we get new data from the census. While Democrats have a decided technological advantage on GOTV, Republicans applied that same type of data analytics to Gerrymandering, capturing many state houses which then decide federal level districting plans.
David Daley launched a book earlier this year called "Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy"
The title sounds like a crazy conspiracy... because it is. It chronicles the literally secret plan flawlessly executed by republicans in anticipation of the 2012 elections and how we're now stuck with this for decades.
There was an excellent interview on NPR's Fresh Air with the author a few weeks ago. Moneyball applied to politics as they call it, complete with outside consultants, computer modeling, secrecy and everything.
This book is entirely about Gerrymandering and is something every American should read.
Popular Vote went Clinton - Meaning in vote total she won by 3 million votes. but that doesnt matter.
GOP Quotes of the Effect of REDMAP on the election - Your Party speaking on boundary movement.
Extra Reading:
NPR
Ney Yorker
Book (RatF**ked)
I'm not blaming anything, the GOP used american systems well to win the race. But don't act like you know shit, and as much as Hillary makes people awful people trump is a dumbass candidate making you a dumbass. Learn to spell, learn how the race was won, and learn more you uneducated mong.
In WW2 we fought national socialism.
Then came Korea and Vietnam, communism.
Please read this lovely little bit of communist paradise
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851
Oh, this video, it's been a while since I've touched on this one. I've already touched on this video a few times before since it came out, it's missing many things and makes broad accusations against, and using simplifications of systems that are more complex than the weather to justify it.
Look, this conversation is going to be pointless, I know it, and I suspect you know it given your name. You have bought into ideas and shaped your identity around them, asking you to let go of those ideas is like asking you to jump your ship in the open ocean during a hurricane, hoping that someone else will pick you up rather than just staying with the boat you have. I can't change your mind, even if we knew each other as best friends and you trusted me implicitly, it would take me months and months of talking to you, showing you evidence, and even then it might not work.
The best thing I can do for you is to give you a list of books to read, and hope you read them, which I'll do while I explain where each of them fit in Badmouse's video.
>Black Book's Estimations
This estimation is an average between other estimations. It's difficult to really understand this number until you start looking at the error bars. Democide under communism has been estimated by many different people, but the range of these numbers is from 40 Million, which is accounting basically for the minimum Stalin killed, and the minimum that Mao killed, which is 28 and 5 million respectively, and then adding bits and pieces from the other regimes. Adding other events, like the Cambodia Killing Fields, North Korea, and many African countries, can put this number well above 100 million, and if we take the highest estimations and assume they're correct, the total number comes out to be just under 260 million. This number could be further inflated, as if killing anywhere between 40-260 million people needed an inflation, to something much higher given that communistic regimes often start wars and turn their countries into meat grinders for the conflict.
>That's not real socialism
At this point if you think that your ideas have nothing to do with theirs then there's no saving this conversation. That would be like a young fascist, wanting to bring about the perfect form of government, claiming that Hitler was really a socialist, or a capitalist, and had nothing to do with fascism. Sometimes people go so far off the reservation that you just can't reason with them because their morality is orange (as in the fruit) and blue. instead of right and wrong. All I can say is read The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn spends three books explaining why the USSR, one of the two big serious offenders, was socialist, and why it went down the way it did. If it's too much for you, listen to the audio book.
Peterson isn't wrong when he says the thinking is that the person apologizing for socialism and it's regimes assumes they could have done it better, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were in the right place and did the worst thing possible and so it's blamed on them, that's why is wasn't socialist. But that assumes that there could be a person who could do it right, and given that there isn't a ready example given, it's assumed the person apologizing is making that claim.
>Deaths
This assumes these problems could have been stopped, which Badmouse does not know that, and neither do you. You don't know how to run an economy, and the people who have tried killed millions of their own people trying.
Getting a burger in your house on a plate is much harder than you think. Multiple people are needed and multiple steps have to go correctly: The beef farmer has to have a good stock of cows, the wheat farmer has to have a good crop, the lettuce and tomato farmers need to have a good crop, the wine maker needs to have good vinegar for things like mustard, the baker needs to be on time, needs to have sleep, needs to eat, and needs to make good bread on time, then the butcher needs to not waste the meat by making bad cuts, or know when the meat is spoiled, then needs to make a good grind for the burger, keep the grinder clean and so on. Then the cook needs to know how to cook, needs his sleep, his own food, and the spices to make the burger right, a grill to cook it on, oil to make sure he doesn't make a mess. Then the manager of the restaurant needs to make sure he watches out for people lagging on safety, ensure orders are correct, disputes with customers are resolved, fills in for the cooks when the cook is sick or needs help, order the buns and meat and condiments for the burger so that the cook has the things he needs to make the burger. Then the driver need to know where to take the burger, need to know how to drive in any conditions, need to have insurance, need to have food, sleep, and so on, and lastly, they need to know how to treat the customer.
And that's not even half the steps, and accounting for most of the usual scenarios, and that's just one burger, the steps for more complicated things that make that process possible, like Mack Trucks, are even more complex.
Anyone who claims that they have the answer on how to distribute wealth has no idea what they're talking about. These systems are incredibly complex and is the equivalent of a retarded child wanting to drive the helicopter. I'm sorry little Timmy but Collins here spent 5 years just getting his license and has been flying since '72, you barely know how to tie your shoes, let alone how to fly this thing.
Taking on Crusades like this is historically bound to end in failure. Yes, horrible things happen, I know you think you can save them but you really can't. The best thing we can do is to keep what little patch of street we have clean. The moral pleading is there to manipulate people into dismissing those who have looked at the process and come out of it saying "we're literally doing all we can, things have gotten amazingly better, what are you complaining about?"
When the doctor says "you have cancer, and with any luck you'll have a few more years to live with little to no pain if we work on it." you don't stand up and scream "You're just dismissing the problem! you're benefiting off my suffering! You're wrong! I could be a better doctor!" You sit there and accept that even if this person is wrong, he's probably not that far off from the truth, and at the very least you got back what little time you could.
I'm not going to go into a comment chain with you, I might answer a few questions, but I've done that too many times with people to want to really get into one right now. It's a waste of time, and you're better off reading the books that I provided and having an open mind instead of this reactionary, socialist insistence that there must be a better way.
The crucial difference is compelling businesses to do this, rather than them making the decision freely. I've worked in employee-owned businesses and it was not particularly different than publicly traded employers. Privately traded securities can be easily manipulated in price as well because there is no market. It's also very bad asset allocation to have any significant amount of your net worth attached to your employer. If (and when) they go belly up, you're out of a job and out of a huge chunk of your net worth.
Anyone can freely invest in companies right now for free. Vanguard's index ETFs have zero commission and exceptionally low expenses. These things can all be easily automated with very low investment minimums.
Soviet socialism has indeed destroyed numerous countries and has been responsible for the deaths of millions. Very good first-hand account of what it's like to live under such a totalitarian regime.
Additionally, employees have no ethical claim or entitlement to ownership of the organizations they work for. Entrepreneurs take all the risk in starting businesses and can rightfully reap the reward. Most of them fail and lose everything. Employees take zero risk because they are paid for their time and can walk any time they like.
If you want to start a co-op, that's great. You have every right to do so. This is a free country. And if it's actually better, as the socialists claim, then you won't fail.
If you want to force others to turn over their business, that's where we have a problem.
As a business owner myself, I have taken all of the risk. All of my employees and contractors have been fairly compensated for their time. They were not compelled to work for me and made the decision of their own free will. I invested years and tens of thousands of dollars to build this business, taking all the risk along the way. None of my employees took a lick of risk because they were all compensated for their time. Now the DSA wants me and other entrepreneurs to take all the risk and then give away the reward when we succeed.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Harvill-Editions/dp/1843430851/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502747289&sr=8-1&keywords=the+gulag+archipelago
Here's the version which I own. I really like the cover.
>read a book about socialism
Yes, please do! How about Gulag Archipelago? Also Inside the Soviet Army is pretty cool, too - the Amazon description makes it sound dry and boring, but it offers really good insight into the absolute clusterfuck that was the Soviet Union from an army officer's perspective.
Two books related to upbringing and politics that you might enjoy: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and Thomas Franks' What's the Matter with Kansas?
Lakoff also has some youtube videos of his lectures.
Read "Don't think about an elephant" (https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717) for an excellent rundown of how the GOP has used language to shape the thinking (when people bother to think) over the last 30+ years.
Read Lakoff's, Dont think of an elephant. It talks about how politicians like Lamar frame their debates around issues similar to SOPA. You can learn a lot from the book on running a productive campaign against politicians who try misrepresenting an issue.
A great book that discusses why some don't want taxes on the rich, are against abortion but for the death penalty. Don't think of an elephant!. Summary: some believe in the nurturing parent theory, others believe in the strong father theory.
I'm being down-voted, but seriously. This isn't just once in a lifetime. We can repeat this. We have to. Electing Bernie once won't do much this first point . We need to sustain. We need a new generation of politicians like Bernie. That is the only way the liberal vision will survive.
George Lakoff has some great ideas on liberal language that people should read! Language is important! I'll post some links to his works. Incorporate them into your daily life. PM me and I might buy you the books. We need an awaking of liberal frames.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717
http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-Democratic-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM
Little blue book annotations:
http://www.nowforourturn.org/Reframing/The%20Little%20Blue%20Book.pdf
Seriously. The language of the debate is important. I'll be releasing a paper on language of Bernie vs Hillary soon. I'm not respected or good at writing, but I think it has a good few points on the language we use. It's more important that people think.
Reddit should read more George Lakoff. He said the same thing years ago.
Don't Think of An Elephant
>The only way to counter this is to use "fox news" tactics. Step one: Give this law a catchy nickname that will make people oppose it.
There's actually a best-selling book about those tactics:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717
Everyone still puzzled by right-wing tactics in the US should read George Lakoff's Don't Think Of An Elephant.
Chapter 1 is especially relevant:
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/dont_think_of_an_elephant:paperback/chapter_1
>You have been racist
No, as I said, that was your misunderstanding. Facts about someone else's racist propaganda, and facts about how your attitudes fit into a particular Eurocentric and culturally condescending ideological tradition that is obscuring your objectivity, aren't themselves racist.
>you have lied
No I haven't, rather, you are in denial.
>So when I asked, I was thinking of the French invasion of Algeria that happened in 1830, which was 185 years ago, But that's why I asked, rather than simply asserting
This reflects even worse on your level of knowledge and understanding. What demon could possibly have possessed you into believing that colonial tensions somehow disappear after the colonized have officially become a subject people? Forget academic standards, this is just an absence of common sense.
You know what, I can't stand much more of this. If at some point in time you do feel like learning rather than spewing nonsense that you pull out of your ass, you can get started by reading these:
-Here is a pdf book I am currently reading on the psychology of terrorism. Know thy enemy.
-Here is an Amazon link to Robert Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. It only deals with suicide terror, though, but it's good to provide an orienting paradigm and is a solid introduction to this field of political science/anthropology. Funny that I always thought atheists were supposed to be big on science, but I guess ethnic conflicts are a universal mind-killer.
-[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book) is a Wikipedia page on Edward Said's Orientalism, a huge and dry tome that is nevertheless a seminal work in postcolonial studies and one for which its core thesis is generally regarded to be true for the time period studied.
edit: The Orientalism article mentioned Bernard Lewis as a critic of Said, and he is actually a good read too. His book (in pdf here) What Went Wrong chronicles history from the Muslim side, and discusses how certain shortcomings and attitudes in Middle Eastern culture contribute to the violence and backwardness we see today.
And you should read this: (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218)
Yes, it has been.
You don't understand sarcasm do you? Still waiting for you to tell what's incorrect in the video... You should read this book. Nazi literally means national socialist. Socialism is a leftist ideology and always has been. https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Is the desouza book popular?
Let's see:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517606494&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+lie+dinesh+dsouza
Well, well, it's a best seller here on Amazon. Why wouldn't your library carry it?
Sorry your library may carry something you find politically objectionable. Maybe you should stop going, you might see a Glenn Beck book right next to the Al Franken book.
They actually were leftists...https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1621573486/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502575410&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+big+lie&dpPl=1&dpID=51oWHzLRUML&ref=plSrch
Read the book "Listen Liberal" from noted conservative hell brand, Thomas Frank. There is lucid argument how the Democratic Party abandoned the "working class."
>Obama had his cabinet picked by CitiGroup
Have to stop reading once you say something I know is bullshit. This is false.
If anyone wants a non-reddit, educated understanding of the topic at hand, please read "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?". This is where Dems lost there way. And believe it or not, some of the blame is on the American people who fail to show up.
I can't tell if this a bot response, or someone throwing their hands up in the air before even making an effort to have a discussion. If I'm not worth the time that's fine, but I do recommend that book. Here's a link. There are also plenty of interviews on Youtube where the author talks about details from the book. I promise it's all more worthwhile than talking to random dudes online for fake internet points.
Eh.. I don't know about that. I mean, historically that has been the case, but ever since Citizen's United gerrymandering has taken on a whole new form. The republicans have mastered it and are now the king of ratfucking.
You would like this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467733922&sr=8-1&keywords=ratfucked
One of the reviews from amazon below
> - first, they provided funding to state congressional races in order to obtain veto-proof majorities in state legislatures. The republican party very strategically picked republican candidates in key states and provided them with almost unprecedented funding so that their campaigns and advertising budgets would overwhelm their opponents. The plan was spectacularly successful and resulted in republicans taking over large number of seats in a number of important state legislatures.
> - second, following the 2010 census, when the new census results mandated that state districts be re-evaluated, the republican controlled state legislatures used their power to very carefully re-draw the boundaries of enough districts in order to ensure that the voting from those districts would be strongly in favor of any future republican candidates.
> - third, in the following years when states elected their representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, the newly constructed state districts performed as planned and brought significant numbers of new Republican faces to Washington D.C., bringing control of the House solidly into Republican hands.
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1538579266&sr=1-3&keywords=gulag+archipelago
heres a good account of what your incredibly stupid and evil philosophy leads to.
The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago is Solzhenitsyn's masterwork, a vast canvas of camps, prisons, transit centres and secret police, of informers and spies and interrogators and also of heroism, a Stalinist anti-world at the heart of the Soviet Union where the key to survival lay not in hope but in despair.
https://www.amazon.de/Gulag-Archipelago-Harvill-Press-Editions/dp/1843430851
Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Please don't forget, the Nazis were also Socialists, National Socialists. They were left, not right.
>Crack a book instead of clicking a Facebook link
No, you crack a book.
I second this.
Lakoff is a linguist. Don't think of an elephant should be required reading for every progressive.
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0CQK1sKv8Y
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/21/former-haitian-senate-president-world-trusted-clintons-help-haitian-people-deceived/
(you should read this) https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1474489652&sr=8-1&keywords=clinton+cash
(you should watch this) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmMe-2qaSss
Now I feel that it bears mentioning that I did say IIRC because I was on my phone and didn't feel like finding sources. As a result my statement wasn't completely accurate. They didn't STEAL 14.2 billion, they siphoned it. They lined their pockets with it while supplying "aid". So I guess in that sense, you're right. Congrats. Worth stalking me for a couple days?
But you know what? Even if you can prove definitively that they didn't directly steal 14.2 billion from the Haitian relief fund, there is simply too much blood on their hands and too much mud in the water for me to possibly concede that they aren't evil. The child trafficking, the e-mails, Bill's countless rape allegations, Project Veritas, voting fraud, her seizures, her shady af past, Lolita express, her ties to Saudi Arabia AND Russia (uranium deal), her collusion with MSM during the election, her collusion with the DNC to steal the election from Bernie, her ties to pedophiles and suspected pedophiles.
So yeah good job bud, you won an argument based on a technicality.
We done here?
As far as sources go, this book is replete with them. https://www(dot)amazon(dot)com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
Rubbish
>The Russians are not, I think, trying to recreate the Russian empire. They want a sphere of influence, which is a very different thing.
Ah yes, they don't want to conquer, but they do want to tell Ukraine when and with whom it can do trade with and have alliances with lol. "She is not my girlfriend, but she is also not allowed to date any one else"
>For Russia, Ukraine is a matter of fundamental national security. For a Western power, Ukraine is of value only if that power is planning to engage and defeat Russia
Ridiculous.
Why is it that Sweden and Norway would never attack each other? They have no reason to, they both share the same values. Democracies have never attacked each other. Expansion of democracy and free trade will only make both sides safer and more wealthy.
Meanwhile Russia is run by a defacto dictator KGB crook who is dead set on having a pet state to bring under his wing for Russia.
>For a Western power, Ukraine is of value only if that power is planning to engage and defeat Russia
Just obscene, this is blatant propaganda, you should be ashamed of yourself, this is the most vulgar thing I've ever seen on Reddit.
Also, the author of that article was also the clown that predicted a war between the United States and Japan in the mid 1990s
http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-War-With-Japan/dp/0312058365
<== has a BA in International Relations
If you really want to get into International Relations, the LKY School of Public Policy isn't very highly-regarded in the field. NTU's RSIS is far more respectable. Main reason is: Kishore Mahbubani of LKYSPP is a prolific huckster who spouts a lot of BS in order to drive sales of his own books.
And then there's the issue of your reason for wanting to pursue this Masters. You need to ask yourself on what you really want to get out of it, because admissions committees are going to pay a lot of attention to your reason for making them bother to read your application in the first place.
There's also the problem where you don't seem to know a lot about IR. If you don't, this beginner's guide is very effective at covering what undergrads usually go through in a semester-long Intro to IR course.
For more detailed reading, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics presents one of the dominant theories of International Relations and according to my very biased opinion, the one which represents what our global order moving towards in the next couple years.
Read those two at the very bare minimum, then you should have a fair idea if you're keen on this path. If reading those two makes you bored, then forget it, because you'll be reading a lot of this kind of material.
Yeah, but there would be different issues at play, as well. There would be the whole issue, of European states looking at one another, or one European state looking at a non-European state, (i.e. Greece and Turkey) and possibly suddenly saying to themselves "I'm actually not 100% sure about that state's future intentions. I'd better make sure I'm not a paper tiger."
Slippery slope may ensue.
And it is that - in Mearsheimer's theory, that is The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (1992). (updated edition published 2014)
Start with these two:
https://www.amazon.com/Afghanistan-Graveyard-Empires-History-Borderland/dp/1605981893/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496177236&amp;sr=8-5
https://www.amazon.com/Forever-War-Dexter-Filkins/dp/0307279448/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496177260&amp;sr=8-3
Read this one to understand America's behavior: https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496177330&amp;sr=8-1
Update with a simple read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2015%E2%80%93present)
End with this: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Latest-Longest-War-Afghanistan/dp/022626565X (on my kindle TBR list, but it's gotten good reviews from reputable publications, which is key when reading any sort of history, unless you're interested in becoming one of those looney right-wingers or bat-shit lefties).
I strongly recommend this
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1480093598&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+grand+chessboard
if you want to dig deeper into what Russia has to deal with on a geopolitical level.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1371071793&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=inverted+totalitarianism
> Also, why is it your assertion that a liberal mentality is a mental disorder? What makes it inherently wrong (in your opinion) to align one's views with a liberal agenda?
A good read would be this book, it gives a pretty good idea of why people call liberalism a "mental disorder".
From one of the reviews, I don't agree with everything said in this review (not all of it is even discussed in the book and some is blown out of proportion but whatever, I don't feel like writing a thousand word essay on the book, but some of the talking points of the book are in there to give you a rough idea:
> I won’t give the entire book away, but here are a few contemporary examples (some discussed in the book) as to why liberalism is a mental disorder:
>
> Feminists will say nothing about the mistreatment of women in Muslim majority countries (i.e., honor killings, female genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, forced marriages, divinely-sanctioned wife beatings, etc.) but will complain around the clock about President Trump’s “treatment of women.” How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The LGBT community will embrace Islam, hold rallies against “Islamophobia,” and invite millions of Muslim “refugees” to live in Western countries. The problem is that if these Muslims were to seize power in Western countries, they would murder the gays and lesbians and throw them down a well (homosexuality is forbidden in Islam). Why does the LGBT community unite with the Islamists who would destroy them? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The liberals, who are pro-women’s rights and pro-gay rights, support the “Palestinians,” who want to destroy the State of Israel, which is pro-women’s rights and pro-gay rights. Yet if the “Palestinians” were to invade Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, then women’s rights and gay rights would disappear from the Middle East. Why are the libs cheerleaders for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist groups? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The liberals in Britain allow the Islamists to hold rallies where they call for Sharia to replace English law, while banning critics of the Islamic jihad from entering Britain (e.g., Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, etc.). In other words, those who want to destroy Britain are given a free pass in Britain, while those who want to save Britain from future destruction are banned from entering the country. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The liberals praise Yasser Arafat as a “freedom fighter” against the Israelis, even though, as Savage notes, “Arafat was a monster. This walking obscenity invented airline hijacking, hostage taking, school massacres, and suicide bombings. He kept the Palestinians in a prison of moral, spiritual, and economic poverty. He embezzled their money and, during his final years, skimmed more than $2 million a month to line his pockets.” (117). After Arafat’s death, the libs in the media eulogized him to the point that “you’d think this mass murderer was Abe Lincoln in a turban” or “George Washington reincarnate.” And Arafat’s “Hitleresque view of the Jews” was scrubbed from the media, too. Even Gerhard Schroeder, whom Savage calls “a socialist weasel,” said “it was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his life’s work” to which Savage replies, “What work? The annihilation of Israel?” Later on, Savage asks, “Why does the American media sit by silently, or worse, glorify this mass murderer? Because they hate the Judeo-Christian values upon which we as a nation were founded. Therefore, they vilify America and Israel and lionize vermin like Arafat.” (128) How do you explain this? Easy: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> This is only scratching the surface. There are dozens of other examples one could give. Savage says regularly on his show that whenever you hear libs do or say something that baffles you to the core and for which no rational explanation is possible, then all you need to do to regain your sanity is to say “Liberalism is a mental disorder” and you’ll feel much better.
>
>
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
You contradict yourself, and seem to be in a trance where words mean different things. Antifa attacks people for filming, and for free speech.
You are deluded. All your debate points will be laughed at by me. Feel free to wall of text your nonsense that will be jeered at.
Anyone asking for anti hate speech regulations is asking to be told not to criticize the government or cops. That's how that works. ''I want the government to decide what speech is hate speech. WCGW?''
Fucking retarded. Read a history book.
Edit:
''I hate bad cops'' is a sentence you want to be illegal. You want people sent to concentration camps for saying ''I hate the government''. That's how this works. You are literally asking Trump to regulate your speech. Holy disconnect Batman.
https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851
Fuck your desire for strict government regulations with violent ''or else'' punishments for those who say the ''wrong things''.
Look, even if I did list them out you would never change your mind. If for some reason you are serious and looking to see all perspectives I would really recommend this book. Also Christopher Hitchen's No One Left to Lie To is a great read if you'd like to know how Hillary treated Bill's victims.
Oh no, some fifteenth-order effects might cost him ten cents! Obviously he will suck China's cock!
Dude, the Clintons have been taking in a fortune in donations from China. Go read the book "Clinton Cash" regarding the Clinton Foundation's hard work to make Bill and Hillary as rich as Hugo Chavez's daughter. Then go read the book "The Year of the Rat" about Bill's various sellouts to the Chinese military back when he was president.
Then come back and tell me with a straight face that Hillary will lift a single pubic hair to help Taiwan.
Helpful Amazon links:
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288
http://www.amazon.com/Year-Rat-Clinton-Compromised-Security/dp/0895263335
Then read this
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
Note that there is this vast MSM apparatus pushing an alternative narrative? A different description of what is going on? One that fits much better with your mental image of how the world works?
That's right. That is why it is there. It is there precisely to induce that false narrative, theories of how the political system works.
It is indeed true that folks who do not adhere to "mainstream" ideas of how the political system works might be... insane, and wrong. But it is virtually certain that those who do adhere to the mainstream view are... brainwashed cretins.
Because political systems never work the way the internal propaganda tells the sheeple it works.
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176
In 1999? Where have I heard this before... oh, yeah! I think Brzezinski had something to say about that in 1997.
Here is a kicker. Putin is ex-KGB, everybody hide! Brzezinski is ex-NSA adviser to the president of the US. Pfft... don't worry, it's just a book. They would never pursue such policy, stop with your conspiracies Russia, gosh!
Suicide terrorism first gained traction in the 80s with Hezbollah. The bombers were not overwhelmingly religious, nor muslim. The Tamil Tigers learned from this and conducted a number of suicide campaigns. They are a Hindu group.
The PKK also started suicide bombing campaign against the Turks.
Muslims absolutely do not have a monopoly on suicide bombings and to argue it is to argue from a position of ignorance.
If you want to know what suicide bombers do have in common, I suggest you read 'Dying to Win'. They include:
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380
Sim. Um óbvio plágio deste livro.
E provavelmente foi inspirado [neste] (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1504059913&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=why+socialism+works).
Please read:
"The big lie: exposing the Nazi roots of the American left by Dinesh D'Souza"
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
i'm not blindly accepting it. you only believe that because you believe what america is doing is wrong. thats how self centered you are. because you believe anyone who supports the afghan/iraq war must be ignorant.
you want to know why we're truly in iraq and afghanistan then pick up a book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
then you can stop pretending like you're so high and mighty and the rest of us are ignorant. when in reality you're the fucking one that is ignorant.
edit**
please leave America
>No, what I'm saying is the means are totally justified, and the ends will be what they are.
Wow. This is some truly terrifying, Nazi level rhetoric.
>I think Donald Trump is in hock to the Russians.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
>After what Trump did in the 1990s, no American bank wanted to work with him and he had to go to Russia to get cash.
You mean while he was a democrat?
>If he's capable of separating that from his duties as Commander in Chief, god bless him
He literally just outlined out his plans for doing this.
>And, frankly, his views on Russia are extreme in the American political landscape, so my expectations for him in the investigations aren't so high right now.
Oh, so now the democrats are the hawks? Interesting.
> I care far more about good results than I do about good process.
Glad to hear you are for stop and frisk! Worked in NY!
>Hasn't always been that way, but then I got into international business at the executive management level, and I got a family. In short, I grew up.
Please. You're middle management material...
>This is me being a patriot and wanting to make sure that my government isn't, in fact, a puppet to a foreign power.
Ever stop to think that YOUR reaction is actually the one the Russians want to invoke?
Go read a book from one of the foremost experts on the subject - the highest ranking Soviet Intelligence Officer ever to defect to the US:
https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-ebook/dp/B00D99V2RY
A patriot, you are not. Soldiers who defend the president/country, regardless of political persuasion are patriots. Are you nothing close to the person you imagine yourself to be.
Besides, Clinton is already in Russia's pocket. The UraniumOne deal proved that.
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
Books? Here ya go.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176
http://www.paulstreet.org/?page_id=32
http://mises.org/document/1223
You should read The Grand Chessboard. You would enjoy it very much and then understand everything that is happening has been orchestrated for decades.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
>an entire country wants to stay at war
I never said that; I was referring to the state of Israel, not the public of Israel. But thanks strawman-ing my argument, sardonically prove reductio ad absurdum, and then make fun of me. I appreciate it.
You didn't specify which point you wanted proof for, but I'll give you my favorites. Here's the evidence:
Byman-Do Targeted Killings Work?
Noam Chomsky-Sheer Criminal Aggression. with no Credible Pre-text
B'Tselem-Fatalities
Noam Chomsky-Understanding Power
Les og lær om nasjonalsosialisme, kommunisme, fascisme og sosialisme.
Denne glimrende boken er nå på 18 plass på Amazons bestseller-liste:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Boken er skrevet med tanke på den politiske situasjonen i USA, men den stemmer meget godt inn også på europeiske, for ikke å snakke om norske, forhold.
"Of course, everything [D'Souza] says here is accurate... But it's not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this." —RUSH LIMBAUGH
Go check out the book The Big Lie. American progressives loved the Nazis until they heard about the Holocaust.
No it hasn't been debunked at all. What happened in Nice is a tragedy (I lived there for 6 months and had to message several friends to make sure they weren't dead), but we cannot simply ignore the other side of the dynamic, specificially the racist and imperialist policies of the West.
I am reading a book on the topic currently, and the common myths about religion being the primary cause are fallacious and perpetuate the problem. Suicide attackers sometimes frame their violence in religious terms, but the goals are almost always nationalistic and unfortunately more effective after the use of such violence.
Let's stop with the tribalistic, ethnocentric blabbering.
Here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Is-Mental-Disorder-Solutions/dp/1595550437
i checked and they are full of conservative people praising the book & there are no top reviews from liberals criticizing it.
[The Cost of Our Silence: Consequences of Christians Taking the Path of Least Resistance ] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1622452712) 4.8 stars
ERADICATE: Blotting Out God in America: Understanding, Combatting, and Overcoming the Anti-Christian Agenda 4.3 stars
Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America 4.7 stars
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left 4.6 stars
Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism 4.7 stars
Understanding Trump - Newt Gingrich 4.8 stars
Dangerous - Milo Yiannopoulos 4.9 stars
most liberals have more work to do than write negative reviews for tripe that can be found on any facebook comment section. see, that is the difference ; most conservatives detest and loathe liberals while most liberals want to convince conservative to let progress happen.
but sitting and stewing in your echo chamber has made you believe that liberals are evil baddies
This NYT piece explores that question pretty thoroughly, and includes a lot of outside links
This section is a decent summary:
>In other words, upscale voters were just as important to the Obama coalition as downscale voters. One consequence of the increased importance of the affluent to Democrats, according to Bonica and the three co-authors on the inequality paper, is that the Democratic Party has in many respects become the party of deregulated markets.
>“The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.
> They cite the crucial role of congressional Democrats in enacting the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which eliminated past restrictions on interstate banking; the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act separating commercial banking from other financial services; and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which restricted government oversight of most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps — all of which played a role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.
>The critique of the increased Democratic dependency on the rich by Bonica and his co-authors is modest in comparison to that of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, political scientists at Princeton and Northwestern. In a 2014 essay, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” they analyze congressional voting patterns and conclude that
> >"The majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose."
> >“These findings may be disappointing to those who look to the Democratic Party as the ally of the disadvantaged,” Gilens wrote in a 2012 essay published by the Boston Review:
It's going to be more slanted, but the Thomas Frank book Listen, Liberal charts the road the Democrats traveled from focusing on common welfare to catering to the needs of the upper-middle professional class.
Not at all. Haven't you guys seen how much Trump celebrates his endorsements from football's coaches and players? The fact is that football, NFL and college, plays a significant role in the lives of the people Trump is courting. Scheduling a debate around the time of a major NFL game which can lure away some of his audience could actually be a real disadvantage. It does make sense to complain about this. It also raises awareness of the debates for his Twitter followers. Given the state of things, they'll probably skip the
debatewhoops I meant the game.At some point, there will be an autopsy done, not just by Democrats and Republicans, but by something like the Trilateral Commission, about the erosion of trust in the government's authority. Lots of pretty words, plenty of serious analysis. Once upon a time, major newspapers and the nightly news were accused of not having enough allegiance to the federal government and spreading cynicism. And now, social media's supposed "Choose your own adventure" style of journalism will likely be accused of creating a brand new challenge for the federal government. The filter bubble, the 'post-fact' era, etc, these ideas have been picked up and spread around by the major papers since about November already.
Nothing will be said about the government's abandonment of the people for the interests of the rich. Nothing about lost jobs, prisons, constant war. Nothing about the entire world tired of being told to wait. And nothing about a public tired of the human sacrifices in Orlando, San Bernadino, Paris, Baghdad, Istanbul the global elites offered up to the heavens so that they could maintain their dirty profits and hegemony. Dead innocents were weighed against the plan to circle the underbelly of Eurasia so that we could make the fat cats and their leeches fatter. And the dead, no matter their citizenship, were found wanting.
If there is any mention of it, it'll just be called a perception, a feeling deep down in the lizard brain. The only thing they'll end up recommending to battle that sort of thing will be lies, slogans, rhetoric. Maybe a new Ministry of Information. Some way to turn the protesting public back towards apathy. "Effective democratic political systems requires some measure of apathy and non involvement on the part of some individuals and groups" (p. 124), they'll say. But it'll never be policy.
So does this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
&#x200B;
But we can sit here all day and sling links back and forth. What do YOU think?
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gulag-Archipelago-Abridged-Harvill-Editions/dp/1843430851
She already did stuff - its well documented. In fact, there is a book about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
Liberals don't care about it.
Why would I care about a Trump surrogate trying to make money?
The biggest threat facing our country is globalism and that is why Trump literally saved our country.
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296/
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296?tag=nypost-20
There's even a book about various tracked and checked governments and countries that have done what every proper government would do, and in which the US are true masters.
Speaking of political science, I'd like to recommend a couple of books to my liberal friends here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176
That should drive a stake through the heart of the fraudulent scam and marketing/propaganda lie that is modern American liberalism.
And liberalism doesn't work. Never did.
Here's one to start with Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich