(Part 3) 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 products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
http://www.amazon.com/Neckbeard-Uprising-Mr-T-Kirk/product-reviews/1482338769/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=byRankDescending
> 5.0 out of 5 stars Such brave insight!, March 27, 2013
>
> After consuming my daily provided intake of orange-dusted snacks and Mountain Dew, I always like going online and reading about the true Amerikkkan society that our brainwashing capitalist media doesn't cover (I'm looking at you Faux News). Mr. Kirk, known by his YouTube pen name TheAmazingAtheist, delivers brave insight on the corrupt state of affairs in the United States and the facade that the Christian Right carry over all of our affairs. His message, as encapsulated within this novel, delivers a brave and euphoric message that has indeed proven controversial to the nation. Only these brave media warriors in the blogosphere can say what really goes down in the Western World; it is only with the help of nonreligious middle class white teenage boys that we can hope to educate the masses on how other demographics are the true causes of our problems. As a whole, I am enlightened by this book; not because of some phony critic's blessing, but because of, T.J Kirk's intelligence.
lulz.
http://www.amazon.com/Neckbeard-Uprising-Mr-T-Kirk/dp/1482338769 I just cringed a mighty cringe.
If you want to invest a few dollars, there is an excellent collection of Osama Bin Ladens writings called Messages to the World - The Statements of Osama Bin Laden. The translations are apparantly excellent (I never went beyond first year Arabic), and a highly regarded scholar of religion, Bruce Lawrence, provides contextual information throughout.
No promises you won't end up on a watch list :-)
I studied Modern Middle Eastern history in College and have a shelf full of books that probably have put me on a list.
Too true. Since the late 70's the media arm of the GOP has done an excellent job at demonizing the words Democrat and Liberal. They're literally used as general derogatory descriptors in Texas.
EDIT: For those saying or insinuating that the left is equally guilty of this, not by a long shot. Of course Democrats will take any opportunity to disparage all Republicans even if it's only some of them behaving badly - but that's not what I'm talking about. The GOP has honed this craft to a fine art through talk radio and various propaganda outlets which masquerade as "news." It was a brilliant strategy, really:
Step 1) Portray "government" as the problem to everything
Step 2) Drive home the message that Democrats/left are the party of government
Step 3) Ensure that government cannot actually function in order to fulfill Step #1
Step 4) Win elections by pointing to #1 and #2
The dysfunctional, hyper-polarized political environment that we find ourselves in now is not equally the fault of both parties and one party has clearly done a better job at whipping it's base into a frothing fury over the last 30 years.
Two good books (one from a long time ex-Republican strategist) if anyone is interested in learning more about how we got here and what can be done to change it:
The Party is Over
It's Even Worse Than it Looks
That's a big myth, but it's only "capitalism all the way" if it benefits corporations -- things tend to get very pampered, protective and socialist if a regulation helps corporations. Great books on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer, and Republic, Lost.
>Republicans are trying to classify not liking Republican ideas as a mental disorder?
They write books about it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political/dp/0977956318
More like a golden goose egg. I wonder if there's ever going to be an anniversary of the Anthrax attacks? Those letters started going out a week later, and everyone's going on CIPRO ... right about now. Graeme McQueens review of the Bush Cheney book reminded me of his excellent work on that subject, summarised nicely ...
Graeme MacQueen Reveals The Anthrax Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVHTvUFxUH4
... and also available on Amazon ...
The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy Paperback – by Graeme MacQueen
https://www.amazon.co.uk/2001-Anthrax-Deception-Domestic-Conspiracy/dp/0986073121
I doubt Ben realized Email for Dummies is real, he just wants to go for potshots because Hillary is a dummy with EMAILS.
That said, since Ben Garrison is aware of the "...For Dummies" series, I'd like to recommend him this book, and this one, and of course this one.
This isn't exactly all that new, there was a pretty comprehensive section about it in the recent book about UKIP's rise. Basically under Blair labour realised that the working class was a shrinking demographic with insufficeint votes to get them into power, as opposed to the 50's and 60's when it was a very sizable voting bloc. So they went after the growing educated urban middle class in the 90's and their core working class vote kind of just came along for the ride because many were lifelong labour voters and many would never vote tory.
However, after 20 years of being ignored and one financial crisis which hit them fairly hard, lots of the core labour vote have got sufficiently alienated and pissed off that they're either alienated from the political process and don't vote or are abandoning them for UKIP. At this point in time, there's an absolutely massive difference in the values between young urban labour voters and the older trad who are now abandoning them, which is pretty obvious from all these stories (the "bigoted woman" thing being perhaps the first obvious instance). Anyway, some kind of pitch from a man called Tristram to regain 'english patriotism' is frankly nowhere near enough to overcome the schism (and will probably be percieved as quite condescending by those it's targeted towards), if indeed it can be overcome at all.
>There is also the issue of whether we can trust the Mayday PAC to stay as focused as they claim
Given the primary name behind it, I'm standing behind them (I donated some btc to the cause). Given Lawrence Lessig's history, he can stay pretty darn focused.
Take some time to read up on him, and the uphill (some would say Sisyphean) battles he's fought over the past couple of decades.
> whether their criteria for determining who the Mayday PAC will support ends up correlating to other political issues
That's kind of the point - it doesn't really need to correlate to other political issues. The only issue they're focused on is campaign finance reform. All other points, to them, are moot - because when the reform is in, a real discussion on those points can finally happen. They might support a pro-life pro-death penalty anti-immigration candidate in an election against another pro-life pro-death penalty anti-immigration candidate ... as long as the former candidate is for finance reform, and the latter is not.
Because until the (aboveboard, but no less) corruption is debrided, a real discussion on those topics, free from corrupting influences, cannot happen.
> an issue that everyone has strong opinions about despite the fact that most people only have an extremely limited understanding of the details.
That's right. A lot of what they're going up against is public ignorance - I have a feeling they will be spending just as much, if not more, on public education of the issue in battleground districts/states than on direct candidate endorsement.
> That's great, but let me know when you have drafted the motherhood and apple pie bill so I can actually understand what this means.
But the bill cannot be drafted until the candidates are in. You're putting the cart before the horse, here, to torture another analogy.
Some resources:
https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWfCqsFP05A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aavBn_1llpc
http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406230329&sr=8-1&keywords=lawrence+lessig
http://www.amazon.com/Lesterland-Corruption-Congress-Books-Book-ebook/dp/B00C3LLYM2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1406230329&sr=8-3&keywords=lawrence+lessig
And something not really about politics and campaign finance, but his (enlightened) views on intellectual property (also covers the SCOTUS case he lost - and why he thinks he lost - in re perpetual copyrights):
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Nature-Future-Creativity-ebook/dp/B000OCXHM2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1406230329&sr=8-4&keywords=lawrence+lessig
There are so many:
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy
The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
The Ronald Reagan Myth
The Lou Cannon book is recognized as the most thorough and scholarly:
President Reagan: The Role Of A Lifetime
Please check out republic lost by Lawrence Lessig and join us over at /r/rootstrikers
Always the best example. That thing has been around since the 30's and is still used on a lot of military vehicles.
A runner up is the B52, which has been around since the early 50's and is expected to continue until 2040. On that note, it seems like there's a possibility that the A10 will end up like that as well, because even though there's always talk about it getting canceled (even Rumsfeld talked about ending it IIRC) it keeps getting sent into combat. Side note: while the book The Pentagon Wars is predominantly about the Bradley IFV, it does have some great bits early on about the development of the A10.
Other have mentioned basic rifles, and yeah, that's a good one too - we've been improving the M16 since Vietnam, with the M4 being the current incremental evolution, though it's interesting to see the technology you can put on the rifle (targeting lasers, optics, etc).
There's a ton more (U2, C130, etc), so the last one I'll mention here is the SINCGARS radio, which has been around since the 80's and has evolved over time. There were attempts to develop new radios, but they didn't work out.
You are incorrect. The Republicans have become radicalized. Democrats have not. R is the party that deserves 80% of the blame. You can read it here:
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465074731 AND here
https://www.amazon.com/Broken-Branch-Congress-Institutions-Democracy/dp/0195368711
Recall that Obama reached out to them early in his term and was rebuffed. Also, recall that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell had a meeting to plan out tactics deliberately designed to obstruct.
Recall that my argument was about USSC obstructionism not any of the lesser courts. Stick to the topic, please.
It has nothing to do with being "fiscally responsible", it has everything to do with obstructionism and radicalism. Being fiscally responsible is a cheap codeword that means "cut govt programs" and "make America weak".
Indeed, if that was the case then why are the Rs OK with spending 58 Billion more on the military BUT not spending on domestic programs such as healthcare?
I do agree that a Market oriented approach, like the kind that was modeled on RomneyCare, is the better approach.
Edit: words
If you read Revolt on the right (which is the best book about UKIP right now) they suggest that the BNP hindered UKIP's success in the north when they were prominent and that up to 2010 one of UKIPs main aims was to squeeze them out iirc.
Two terrific books on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful-ebook/dp/B00603PI3U/
http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576441/
Obligatory link to Wolf PAC: http://www.wolf-pac.com
Interesting book by Michael Flynn;
> The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies
Also recommended (and this one is free) if you want to understand how the other side thinks:
> Destiny disrupted: History of the world through Islamic eyes by Tamim Ansary
The movie is a comedic retelling, but the facts are legit. Burton - the author of the book the movie's based on - was a bird colonel who spent over a decade in the procurement machine. And the Bradley was eventually beaten into a functional and very feature capable IFV, so in the end, it was worth it.
Stellar Wind called for the very Utah data center the NSA is in the process of finishing. Not closing. Not turning into a warehouse for outdated office equipment. Nor is the government re-purposing all the storage and computing power for some serious online gaming.
The Program is now called Ragtime or Ragtime-P. Status is operational. As is X-Keyscore. This may have been a redesign of Stellar Wind to meet metadata provisions put forth by Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
== Source ==
Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry Details Ragtime-A US-based interception of all foreign-to-foreign, Ragtime-B intercepts from foreign governments that transits through the US, Ragtime-C counterproliferation actvities and Ragtime-P which is all domestic.
Elliot Spitzer's use of prostitutes, General Petraeus or just mundane chit-chat that has not been flagged. Not PRISM alone, it's Ragtime.
>Faulk described the personal nature of many of the calls, and how he and his colleagues would encourage each other to listen into a call where “there’s good phone sex” or “some colonel making pillow talk.”
Right now it's in Bernie's head and soon to be in his computer. The release date is Nov 13^th.
As for his other works, here's what you can do:
Step 1: Go to your local library's contact page (now is a good time).
Step 2: Contact them and ask them to order copies of:
> Where Do We Go From Here ISBN 978-1250163264
> An Outsider in the White House ISBN 978-1784784188
> [Our Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Revolution_(book) ISBN 978-1250132925
> The Speech: On Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class ISBN 978-1568585536
> * Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution ISBN 978-1250138903
Step 3: Smile that public funds are supporting the political revolution and disseminating our message.
Step 4: Pass on the idea if you think it worthwhile.
Step 5: Lean into standing up, exercising your voice, and fighting for what you believe in.
The tracked transport carrier you're thinking of is most likely the M2 Bradely Infantry Fighting Vehicle, which was put in to service back in 1981. That would make the movie The Pentagon Wars (1998), based on the book by retired Air Force Colonel James G. Burton. The Burton in the movie was portrayed by Cary Elwes (sporting a passable American accent), with Viola Davis, Kelsey Grammer and Richard Schiff as supporting cast. The whole movie is up on YouTube here, though one of the best parts about how the Bradley "evolved" can be seen here.
This article is a typical hit piece that uses several well known propaganda techniques to instill doubt into people. As someone who actually knew most of the things Peterson is talking about, from other sources, I can vouch for what Jordan Peterson says, the man is not a crank.
Here are some easily accessible materials that will cover many of his ideas:
Everything he says about the impact of biology on behavior:
>Robert Sapolsky's 2011 "Human Behavioral Biology" course from Stanford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D
Everything he says about the denial of human nature by ideologues:
>Steven Pinker, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature": https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blank-Slate-Modern-Penguin-Science/dp/014027605X (Peterson actually mentions it at one point in his talks). (video of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFey_0cbgeo)
Everything he says about the corruption of the left wing utopians:
>Paul Johnson, "Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky" https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170 (videos of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW-Oc6HoqTE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_6NsFvjm0o)
>Roger Scruton, "Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left": https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1408187337 (video of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLfRoO8HwN0)
Everything he says about the virtues of Western Civilization:
>Niall Ferguson, "Civilization: The West and the Rest" https://www.amazon.com/Civilization-West-Rest-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0143122061 (video of the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnFeyMGUs8)
To be fair, he is very self-aware... he makes no apologies for being a neckbeard and even wrote a book about it.
I know this sounds hard to believe but I made $69/hour in my spare time just working at home! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit
It was that easy I racked up $450 in 3 days just spending time online! I love this site it made it all possible! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit
It is totally recession-proof, and read this news article from a reputable source about how this awesome Fortune 500 company is not a scam! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit
>
>
>Amazon does, however, continue to sell the following works:
>
>Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto — the manifesto of a movement that murdered more than 100 million people, specifically targeting an entire class of people — the bourgeoisie — for destruction; for sale in many editions from the richest capitalist in the world
>
>Leon Trotsky’s Terrorism and Communism — a defense of political terrorism
>
>Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf — also available in many editions — which is apparently less threatening to the current world order than my book.
>
>The Unabomber’s Manifesto — which does seem to create a moral hazard. Want to get your book published? Start mailing out package bombs. Kill three people and injure 23 others, and your book might also be fit to stock at Amazon.com.
>
>Valerie Solanas’ S.C.U.M. Manifesto — S.C.U.M. being an acronym for Society to Cut Up Men. Solanas published her manifesto in 1967. In 1968, she attempted to murder Andy Warhol.
>
>The Anarchist’s Cookbook — corrected and updated to make it extra lethal
>
>Osama Bin Laden’s Messages to the World — mastermind one of history’s greatest terrorist attacks, and you too might be fit to stock at Amazon.com
>
>Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah — apparently there’s a whole library of books by Islamist terrorists for sale at Amazon.com
>
>Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State — the blueprint of the Zionist movement, which spawned the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine through terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and wars that continue to this day
>
>Black Nationalist Manifestos by such writers as Marcus Garvey and Elijah Muhammad
>
>Everybody Talks About the Weather . . . We Don’t: The Writings of Ulrike Meinhof
>
>Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare
>
>Al-Qaida’s Doctrine for Insurgency: Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin’s “a Practical Course for Guerrilla War”
​
Honestly, Chomsky's endless publication of one book after another -- so many books, all of them (outside his linguistics work) monotonously harping on the same narrow range of subjects -- make me think that monetization is exactly what's going on. If you really care about an audience rather than making money, stick that shit online for free.
In high school I owned all four of the books in this omnibus volume (reissue, repackage, repackage) and I'm delighted by the sheer self-righteousness in some of the reviews on that page. "The comfortable lies spread by the media!"
Other people have addressed the EU question, so I'll focus more on politics in general. There's some decent BBC media which covers current politics, it can sometimes be a bit tedious, some shows are better than others, and I certainly wouldn't recommend rigorously following all of them, but it's pretty good for familiarising yourself with the current state of affairs. Some TV and radio shows to follow -
Daily Politics - daily show analysing politics, which often gets high profile politicians on.
This Week - weekly show, airing after Question time, with a slightly comedic approach to political analysis.
Andrew Marr Show - weekly show, the one which senior ministers (the prime minister, the chancellor, the home secretary, etc) are most likely to appear on.
Question Time - weekly topical debate program, with questions from the audience directed towards politicians.
Any Questions - radio version of Question Time. Often not quite as annoying as Question time.
Today in Parliament - daily radio show covering news from parliament.
 
Parliament.uk and gov.uk are both great resources for learning how parliament and government functions, and learning about legislation. If you'd prefer a less fragmented read, such as a book, then Exploring British Politics by Garnett and Lynch seems like a good introductory source, though I will add the disclaimer that I've only used it occasionally as a reference book, and it is fairly pricey.
 
It can sometimes be difficult to understand the significance of things in politics without a basic grounding in the historical context, so I will recommend some more books to help with that (although much of the info can be found online). Two of the most important figures in recent British political history are Thatcher, and Blair. Charles Moore's Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Volume One is a good book for starting to understand the political context of the Thatcher era, although it is obviously quite biographical too, and being the first volume it only covers roughly the first third of her time in government. The comprehensive tome on Blair and his wide-ranging effect on the functioning of british politics is surely Seldon's Blair's Britain, 1997-2007, although I will warn you that is it most definitely a tome - incredibly thorough and a bit of a slog. The best way to approach this is probably to read the sections on things you are interested in, like the NHS, and leave the rest until you feel you want to learn about them. Sections of Seldon's Cameron at 10 are definitely worth a read if you want some more insight into the first Cameron ministry, and the coalition years.
 
I can't really recommend any comprehensive histories on the political parties (although what I've read of Tim Bale's The Conservatives Since 1945 is pretty good). One I would recommend is Goodwin's Revolt on the Right, which offers a fairly original analysis of the phenomenon that is UKIP. There's a more up-to-date follow-up to that, (UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics), which I imagine is also pretty good, but I haven't read it. Familiarising yourself with general political ideologies (to rattle off an incomplete list: one nation conservatism, high toryism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, democratic socialism, etc), how these relate to each other, and how they have manifested in the various 3 main parties over time is a must for understanding the parties and the political tensions within them. Wikipedia should suffice in filling in the details there (and in other places), for now.
>He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
…
>The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Please pay attention to Žižek's work. Please read articles and books excoriating him. Rather than sniffing at him, I suggest you discover your own feelings on him. If you find him compelling, interrogate why you feel that way. If you find him unreasonable or dispicable, justify it.
It's just a load of bullshit that the Democrats ever had ANY political good will from the Republicans. A group of major Republican thinkers, including Mitch Mcconnell, met right before Obama was elected and stated publicly that their number one priority was to see that Obama was a one term president.
If you seriously think that the Republicans ever had any intention of helping Obama or the Democrats or that they had any ounce of support for bipartisanship you just weren't paying attention.
Edit : I suggest you check out the book by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann It's Even Worse Than it Looks They are a Democrat and a Republican, very well respected in Washington, who make the point that Republicans never had any intention of working in a bipartisan fashion.
Esquerdismo é doença.
Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains
https://www.amazon.com.br/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/0977956318
The Amazing Athiest is simply preparing for the Neckbeard Uprising.
This is not about the Guardian and 'what it believes'. If we can be mature for a moment, this is another fascinating article by the irrepressible Matt Goodwin and Robert Ford, professors at Manchester University and regular columnists to the Guardian, who have spent 10 years surveying UKIP support and have a greater understanding of their support-base than anybody else right now.
Their credentials are indisputable. If you don't like well researched observations (rather than bigotry and arrogance)... you can always lump it and bury your head in the sand.
If you give a shit (and I have a feeling you don't), read, their widely acclaimed book on this subject
and the regime-change beat goes on: Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton
I think there are more common criticisms of the military industrial complex than "they make things used in war". The OP might be thinking more about the history of corruption and the undue influence of the military industrial complex on American politics (at the confluence of money and war). For instance, as detailed in The Pentagon Wars, such as the scandal involving the construction of Bradley tanks, which were more or less deathtraps (fun version). Of course there are people who object to American imperialism more broadly (quite correctly) but they tend to use broader language than "the military industrial complex" which is a more... non-partisan problem.
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy
> project Red Map
also "Ratf**ked":
David Daley’s “extraordinarily timely” (New York Times Book Review) account uncovers the fundamental rigging of our House of Representatives and state legislatures nationwide.
https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Your-Doesnt-Count/dp/1631493213/
That's an awesome list. I'd echo that the two very best sources to learn about the exact crimes committed leading up to the financial crisis are The Untouchables and
Inside Job.
And I'd add a third:
Predator Nation (written by the guy who made Inside Job)
If people just want a single source, The Untouchables is where they should go. It shows how banks sold products they knew were defective. That is fraud, and it is criminal. Simple as that. The executives were knowingly selling those products (and there were many) should be in jail.
Here's a fuller list of selections I can recommend from a reading list at TooBigHasFailed.org. Any of these sources are good for learning what was going on leading up to the crash.
Podcasts
NPR: The Giant Pool of Money |
NPR: Return to the Giant Pool of Money |
NPR: Another Frightening Show about the Economy |
EconTalk interview w/ Simon Johnson
Documentaries
Addendum to Inside Job |
PBS: Money, Power, & Wall Street |
Aljazeera: Meltdown |
60 Minutes: The Speed Traders |
Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street
Books
I.O.U. - John Lanchester |
Griftopia - Matt Taibbi |
Infectious Greed - Frank Partnoy |
All the Devils are Here - Joe Nocera & Bethany McLean |
Traders, Guns, and Money - Satyajit Das |
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report
ETA: I see that a moderator here is requesting academic sources. Here are three good ones: Fault Lines - Raghuram Rajan | Republic, Lost - Lawrence Lessig | This Time Is Different - Reinhart & Rogoff
To be honest, most of the academic sources I've read don't focus on criminality on Wall Street. I'd love to find more that do, though.
Here's the opinion from a few experts who have written books on it.
Kurt Eichenwald
500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D1G86BU/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_ap_am_us?ie=UTF8
http://vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal
>Now, anyone who discusses this process without also mentioning minimization procedures is also either very uninformed or intentionally hyping the story. Minimization is a term of art in the world of NSA intercepts which essentially means “stay out of American citizen’s business.” If information about specific Americans (or even foreigners inside the United States) is captured, those details must be removed from all records and cannot be shared with any other entity in the government unless it is necessary to understand and interpret related foreign intelligence or to protect lives from criminal threats. But passing intelligence information to criminal investigators requires several layers of review and is not easily approved; minimization procedures are meant to insure that information collected by the NSA isn’t used in routine criminal investigations.
https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/347888405981569025
>Sigh. These last 2 stories have been little more than boilerplate recitation of Sec 702. I doubt ill persuade u, but so be it... are anonymized, meaning the info has been run through an algorithm that spits out an anonymous designator, such as XDSVC...
Marc Anbinder
Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1118146689/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_ap_am_us?ie=UTF8
https://twitter.com/marcambinder/status/348144189378281472
>as I said, I think the programs are good. Transparency by/ trust in USG lacking
Joshua Foust
http://prospect.org/article/three-guiding-principles-nsa-reform
>Yet, to even begin the discussion of reform, we have to grapple with why things got to where they are. One document published in the Guardian shows a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court order for Verizon, the telecommunications giant, to hand over phone metadata (telephone numbers, call length, and location). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the Fourth Amendment does not protect such metadata. Similarly, the PRISM data-mining program, which automates access to Internet company databases, was, misreporting aside, publicly discussed as a software platform used by the military and intelligence community for many years
http://joshuafoust.com/can-the-nsa-search-for-americans-who-knows
>The Committee report says the IC and DOJ requested additional queries authorities, which the Committee considered then rejected while studies of existing capabilities were finished. While Marcy is correct that this passage shows the Intelligence Community requested the ability to search on this data, the text of the report also shows that the Committee rejected that request and made the Intelligence Community and Department of Justice reaffirm that any queries adhere to the letter of the law and not circumvent “the general requirement to obtain a court order.
Bob Cesca
http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2013/06/greenwalds-latest-snowden-leak.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=greenwalds-latest-snowden-leak
>But here’s the most revealing part of Greenwald’s article: the program was stopped by the Obama administration in 2011. As Charles Johnson tweeted yesterday, the article’s headline could actually be “Obama discontinued NSA email program started under Bush.”
>Furthermore, Greenwald wrote: “It did not include the content of emails.” The NSA only collected metadata, authorized by bulk FISA court warrants. The program, like everything else, sought overseas communications, and those communications might have inadvertently included some data from US persons connected with the overseas emails. And, again, reminder: any data from US persons that’s inadvertently collected is anonymized, encrypted and destroyed. It’s only decrypted with an individual warrant.
And from the comments of the last:
>Just before that article went up, Glenn and Ackermann had another one go up, "How the NSA is still harvesting your online data". Now when you read that you instantly think any email we send here in the U.S. is going to the NSA. Well there's nothing but speculation in that article about that, but the kicker they are focusing on is that the NSA bragged about processing their "trillionth" piece of metadata in 2012. In 2009 it was estimated the 294 billion emails were sent globally every single day, so that trillion is hardly anything, when you consider that 294 billion per day translates to about 90 trillion PER YEAR.
Another Edit:
Just found a great AMA!
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1h6r3v/iama_former_nsa_agent_turned_educatorauthor_amaa/
Also FYI I have posted this comment multiple times because I think there is a lot of misinformation out there.
Disclosure I also work on the helpdesk for a gov agency that is no way affiliated with anything military etc....
Believe it or not, there are books that can help you.
Start here:
https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Dummies-Ann-DeLaney/dp/0764508873
Looks like a really good book.
Go here and watch some videos. This channel has playlists for US history (which you will need to know to understand politics) and civics/government/politics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK90u3DQIK0&list=PLSQl0a2vh4HAmesA2mzILc6gghrr4jl5L
I'm not sure I'm getting through to you, son. I'll try one last time. The left is being hypocrites about Trump pulling troops out of Syria. They've wanted to pull out troops from Syria for a long time. Trump did it. They should be happy but aren't because Trump. They obviously think it's the correct move due to their defiance of their beloved president who deployed the troops in the first place.
It's pretty straightforward. I might suggest some intro reading if you're still confused because that's as plain English as I can lay out for you, sorry.
For younger folks interested in politics, I highly recommend the book, Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch. It will help you to understand where we are today as Reagan ushered in the Neocons. It's a fairly quick easy read.
https://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Right-Wing/dp/1416597638
This guy called the 2016 vote in early 2016...good read for someone interested in gerrymandering. The GOP has been working this and planning it since 2010.
https://smile.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Your-Doesnt-Count/dp/1631493213/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
I have no idea how you managed to get that from that presentation.
I actually know exactly where you can find Trump's plan, don't tell the fucking idiot media tho, wouldn't want to strain their brains doing any deep investigative journalism like this
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479089165&sr=8-1&keywords=gen+flynn+book
Well he did write a book called Neckbeard Uprising so he definitely self-identifies with the tribe.
http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Story-Skull-Press/dp/1593764278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368251410&sr=1-1&keywords=noam+chomsky+how+the+world+works
When you say "Radicalized" do you mean, like UKIP, because if so I highly recomend Revolt on the Right.
I assumed you meant non-fiction, but if you meant fiction, perhaps you'd like House of Cards.
Other than that, books are usually released at the end of a particular era in politics such as Tony Blair's Premiership, although I haven't read it. One of the political memoirs of either himself or Alastair Campbell.
Hope this helps.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441
Educate yourself
This is the list I have right now, but I might take something off before tomorrow.
Walden – Henry David Thoreau
The Blind Watchmaker – Richard Dawkins
The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains – Nicholas Carr
Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – John J. Mearsheimer
Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster – Svetlana Alexievich
False
> less a marxist and more of lacanian psychoanalysist
>Peterson probably should argue with an actual marxist.
But old school Marxism was dead and splintered into a thousand factions long ago. The 'post-modern neo Marxists' are Peterson's main targets.
Philosopher Roger Roger Scruton wrote a book on that whole philosophical tendency long before the modern culture war with Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left. Zizek is right there in the last chapter of the latest edition. I have not gotten around to reading it properly yet but a scan of that chapter would seem to fit well with Peterson's themes. The main critique seems to be something like that Zizek uses his Lacanian framework to opt out of the morality of real consequences (such as human suffering) to a morality of ideas based on intention. Scrution quotes Zizek saying that the difference between the Russian Gulag and the Nazi concentration camp is the difference between civilisation and barbarism. With the gulag on the virtuous side. Given Peterson's moral philosophy is based on suffering as evil in itself and his thought influenced by reflecting on the gulag, I am sure there was the potential for some proper metapysical fireworks, which seems to have been missed.
LTG Flynn's book - I've just started and find it very readable and plainspoken truth of the challenges to destroying ISIS and radical islamic terror.
The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies
It comes highly recommended by the Intelligence community and Gov't Officials, for example:
****
"General Flynn's The Field of Fight is as good an introduction to the long war we are in as any I have read. It is also a sobering and indeed frightening indictment of the intellectual dishonesty which has blocked our leaders from winning this war." --Newt Gingrich
>My issue is that I don't understand why or how things got so polarized on this side.
I highly recommend It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. Two respected and moderate political scientists go into the specifics of why American politics have become so polarized. I think we're just seeing that polarization on an intra-party level on the Democrat side more recently, though.
The forgotten false flag of 2001....The Feds didn't nab anybody, a suspect supposedly killed himself after being hounded by FBI.
Bruce Ivins certainly did not mail the anthrax. There is no way the sample sent to Congress came from his lab as confirmed by multiple studies which are reviewed in McQueen's
The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0986073121/ref=cm_sw_r_other_awd_EwW4wbDGJF0VK
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has a $158 billion question for the wealthiest person in the world. “Jeff Bezos and his company, Amazon, make huge profits by paying their employees wages that are so inadequate that many of them need public assistance just to get by,” the senator says. “How absurd is that?” But try to ask Sanders why he’s set to sell his upcoming book, “Where We Go from Here,” on Amazon and you won’t get an answer.
What a terrible article. So because Bernie wants Amazon and other companies like them to pay their employees a fair wage and not rely on public assistance, he's not allowed to use their platform? He never said Amazon should not exist. This is absurd.
It's like saying Democrats or Republicans want to change the minimum wage - yet they still eat at restaurants paying their servers a different minimum than their proposal? Gotcha!!!! Checkmate for the low effort thinkers.
Like... generally or lately? I'm fairly involved in politics and haven't really seen anyone beyond the usual few calling for impeachment.
Generally speaking, some people say his executive actions are too overreaching. There's also been a lot of questionable events under his watch, from the IRS scandal, the EPA scandal, Benghazi, and intentionally sabotaging Fox's and employees. They are exacerbated further by intense stonewalling and uncooperative.
The layman's explanation is abuse of power, multiple scandals, and lying. It's an oversimplification, but close enough.
This book summary does a decent job in my opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/The-People-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138
If anyone reading hasn't read Flynn's book yet, go buy it.
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222
The most solid stuff is on the 9/11 Anthrax case and it is done by Graeme Macqueen.
https://www.amazon.com/2001-Anthrax-Deception-Domestic-Conspiracy/dp/0986073121
If you want to go down the road of how the schools the 9.11 hijackers, were trained at, are connected to intelligence agencies, and drug smuggling.
https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673
In this line there is Gary Webb's Dark Alliance.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Alliance-Contras-Cocaine-Explosion/dp/1522694390
On Deep Politics you can't go wrong with Peter Dale Scott, and he can be a nice introduction to JFK, 9.11 and CIA drug smuggling.
https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Oil-War-Afghanistan-Indochina/dp/0742525228/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525397454&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Drugs%2C+Oil%2C+and+War%3A+The+United+States+in+Afghanistan%2C+Columbia%2C+and+Indochina
If you want to understand the politics around surveillance and the intelligence agencies and their abuses, then you have to read the primary documents from the Church and Pike commissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
Reports:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/contents.htm
Pike committee which was much more damning, and almost caused a constitutional crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_Committee
Pike reports:
https://archive.org/details/PikeCommitteeReports
An excerpt from the NSA document:
>-14 Operation SHAMROCK the code name under which the cable companies made most of their international telecommunications traffic available to the NSA and to a lesser extent to the FBI was terminated by the Secretary of Defense in May 1975 a date coinciding with the Church Committee's first demonstration of interest in the program.-The "take from Operation SHAMROCK and from other NSA intercept operations was used by the NSA in the 1960s and early 1970s to compile files on American citizens NSA maintained a "watch-list of names of individuals and organizations against which the "take was sorted
In this vein, there is project called 'Forgotten Bookshelf' that is attempting to resurrect some really good titles, that were on the margins.
https://openroadmedia.com/the-forbidden-bookshelf
Here is a book written by a doctor about it. There are lots of other books & articles too.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/0977956318
I recommend Why leaders lie. The truth about international politics.
It's a great, fast read from insiders that talk about how leaders, to each other, privately, are brutality honest. It's only to their people, to drum up support, or continue a narrative, etc, do they lie.
It's why Israel and Saudi Arabia can have financial and even intelligence cooperation while publicly condemning each other.
It's why the US and Russia can "hate" each other. While working in the UN and with space programs and on intel sharing against various entities.
I heard if you buy online books you can bypass the background check.
Can anyone confirm? Want to buy This based book
But I don't want to end up on a list and on my way to the Pentagon basement.
To pander to you ill give you the first, trump really said "i hope you can let this go," the president is free to fire the Director of the FBI even if he has no "valid" reason. Here is a source i know you trust:
http://www.newsweek.com/can-president-fire-fbi-director-trump-comey-594716
and again there is nothing illegal about firing the director of the FBI even during a pending investigation...you will find ZERO evidence of that
instead i recommend you reading a good book that will help you understand why leaders lie and it might help with your level of sensitivity
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510688764&sr=8-1&keywords=why+leaders+lie&dpID=41RLA4I3lKL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
For $10 you can get Liberty Defined which is everything you're looking for and more.
Israel is a country. This was done by individuals. And it was done in America. Perhaps you should try looking at what we actually know. https://digwithin.net/
His book: Another Nineteen
And MacQueen's excellent book: The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy
Israel did 911 (even if some Israelis were involved) is for simple-minded people unable to distinguish between the particular and the general and functions (in the minds of reasonable people) as disinformation by mischaracterizating 911 Truth.
I also recommend It's Even Worse Than It Looks.
I wanna give a shout out to one of my favorite books and the last book I read as a polisci undergrad before a graduated a few years back. It's Even Worse Than It Looks by Mann and Ornstein. It's a breakdown of congressional politics and asymmetric polarization, and how we've come to such a hellish political gridlock today.
It was the last polisci book I read in college and it really brought together a lot of ideas and trends I noticed and studied, and prepared me to identify the causes at the root of Trump's rise.
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by Roger Scruton
I got the political statements from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Right-Wing/dp/1416597638
It goes into more detail about how much Lee Atwater was doing for Reagan by the end of his administration. Having said that it also messes up a Gorbachev quote by having him say "Karl Rove" instead of "Lee Atwater" and I quoted it wrong for years because of that book until a reddit user corrected me. However generally it has a good reputation and that quote was corrected. So I think he just wrote it down wrong at some point or an editor messed it up before publication.
His book, liberty defined would be a great starting place.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333121760&sr=8-1
for opposition, maybe any books written by the other candidates.
I enjoy critiques of intellectuals and learning relations between them. You should also check out The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism by him. Mark Lilla is very similar, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals and Politics and The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction Of course philosophers and politics would be very lacking without Isaiah Berlin Also Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: The Thinkers of The New Left is very good. Lastly The Opium of Intellectuals of Raymon Aron is a must-read classic.
Where We Go from Here by Bernie Sanders https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250163269/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_NCGIBbTZ3T60A via @amazon
Edit: at least you can get a look at the cover.
What does that even mean? That’s ‘taking’
So what?
Edit: look, here is Bernie enriching Bezos. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend Bernie isn’t also involved in the system.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269
Great! I'd start with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350675&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+the+revolution
and then follow up with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350707&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+liberty+defined
> Political ratfuckery is a fun way to describe this.
> Looks like I know what I'm reading up on today in my free time.
Hey look, two birds with one stone!
This is a good start, though not all encompassing on this topic, obviously. Here is an interesting excerpt from his book Chomsky on Anarchism. I would really reccomend picking up a copy of How The World Works which is a short compilation of a broad range of his ideas and analysis. It's taken from interviews, so it's a quicker read then most of his stuff. If you need any more pointing, just ask!
And I wonder if this rejoinder will appear in Arabic-language newspapers tomorrow? How many in the ME will hear this news? Or will they just hear what Assad said and just blame the US?
I wonder if John Mearsheimer's 'Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying In International Politics' has something to say about it. And once again, the ME is being fed lies by their local shit media.
Here you go - Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left
> From one of the leading critics of leftist orientations comes a study of the thinkers who have most influenced the attitudes of the New Left. Beginning with a ruthless analysis of New Leftism and concluding with a critique of the key strands in its thinking, Roger Scruton conducts a reappraisal of such major left-wing thinkers as E. P. Thompson, Ronald Dworkin, R. D. Laing, Jurgen Habermas, Gyorgy Lukacs, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Žižek, Ralph Milliband, and Eric Hobsbawm. In addition to assessments of these thinkers' philosophical and political contributions, the book contains a biographical and bibliographical section summarizing their careers and most important writings.
> In Fools, Frauds and Firebrands Scruton asks, What does the Left look like today, and how has it evolved? He charts the transfer of grievances, from the working class to women, gays, and immigrants, asks what we can put in the place of radical egalitarianism, and what explains the continued dominance of antinomian attitudes in the intellectual world. Can there be any foundation for resistance to the leftist agenda without religious faith?
> Writing with great clarity, Scruton delivers a devastating critique of modern left-wing thinking.
Mmmm
I'm not sure if I'd be more disappointed if the people upvoting this article did so based on the title or actually read the article and thought it was worth upvoting.
The first two pages are so euphoric I nearly threw up. DAE manchild and proud??
Read the back story on the patriot act. It's pretty telling.
It was huge but ready to go 45 days after 9/11. Congress didn't have enough time to read it all and were under great pressure to pass it.
The Anthrax Deception goes into quite a few details on that whole period in time.
Pick up a copy of Liberty Defined, Ron Paul has a great short summary in the book.
The basic problem is how government encourages employer based health care through tax incentives. But government even created the employer based health care mess when they had wage caps on labor from FDR through Nixon, so employers started offing healthcare to subsidize for the lower wages government mandated through those years. So there is no real option currently with healthcare, you get the healthcare your employer provides you and that's it. You rarely hear people complaining about their house or car insurance because if their premiums go up to much, they change provider, change their deductible, or change their coverage amounts. This puts the customer in charge of their insurance. But we don't have those options now.
Also, back in the day when Ron Paul was practicing, all the doctor students would sign the Hippocratic Oath which basically stated it was their duty to provide for the poor. They did this in various ways, sometimes discounts, some times payment plans, some times they did work pro bono. But once medicare/medicaid were introduced, this whole practice disappeared.
Another problem is price transparency. There is one surgery clinic in Oklahoma that no longer takes medicare/medicaid patients and is a free market only practice. Since they don't loose money because of government underpaying them for work at the medicare/medicaid pricing, they don't have to jack up the cost for the other patients. The result is costs that are 1/5 to 1/10 of the prices insurance would pay in other hospitals. Almost every surgery they offer is less than $12K, the most expensive is some penis surgery that is 15k.
I kind of lost my train of thought, but what America has now is no where near the Free Market system and hasn't been for many many decades. Probably the last time it was free market was the last time no one was complaining about the system and before government got involved.
https://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457
Feel free to try to get it pulled, Amazon has been selling it for over a decade now.
Ben Shapiro disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/People-Vs-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138
Check this out.
> Oh Hell. Post-Gaddafi Benghazi was a huge supply depot for Syrian war. Various and sundry Sunnis had all the supply destinations in their own hands. There was no control over the destinations of these arms. The US thrives on creating chaos and Hillary Clinton is the Queen of Chaos: https://www.amazon.ca/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765
The proxy wars were definitely a part of it. Iran-Contra for one, Afghanistan for another. Reagan backed the mujahideen in order to "fight" Russia, but these are the same people who then became al Qaeda.
He lowered the tax on the wealthiest from 70% to 50%, then to 28%, reducing the Federal revenue and more than doubling the national debt. The US went from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world under his administration. The average Americans wages have never recovered. While he made the corporate class richer, he did nothing to prevent the massive offshoring of jobs to other countries.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
He was a homophobic bigot who deliberately ignored the AIDS crisis, the crack epidemic, and anything else that didn't directly affect white "Christian" Americans.
He escalated Nixon's "War on Drugs", sold weapons to our enemies, dramatically increased military spending by 35%, feeding the massive military-industrial complex we have today.
I could go in, but I'm on vacation and don't need to get my blood-pressure up over this asshole. Suffice it to say, I have despised Reagan since he was in office, and honestly believe he was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.
If you are interested in reading more from the "anti-Reagan" perspective, give this book a read.
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416597638/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ArxrDbKM8686Y
>So why did you vote for him
I didn't. I campaigned for Bernie, then voted Stein. Trump got elected on Bernie's platforms. Sadly, Trump was lying while Bernie was not. And yes, Hillary is just as corrupt and dishonest as Trump if not more so. Plus she's a real war monger. Look at Libya, her slave selling jihadi run baby. Just think if she had not attempted a rigged, crooked self-coronation, Bernie would be our President not Trump. Hillary cares nothing for the We the People and thinks even less of allowing registered Dems a real choice in their own primary. Hillary is responsible for Trump not the Rooskis. And remember her stamping her foot and saying "never,ever,ever" to universal heathcare during her campaign? She even lacks foresight and vision.
https://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765
> The government now serves the will of the rich lobbyist groups.
You are not the only one to say that!
This book was written in 2012-- have you read it?
Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It
Yes, you are correct. That's a big issue.
I haven't read the book yet, but I really should.
For “House of Cards” fans who can’t get enough of fictional President Frank Underwood and his First Lady Claire, it must be tempting to view Bill and Hillary Clinton as their real-life political doppelgangers.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_%28U.S._TV_series%29]
Certainly there’s fertile ground for those seeking parallels between the main protagonists of this quintessential political soap opera, and our more flesh and blood “heroes.”
Like their imaginary foils, the Clintons’ moral compass is functionally impaired, so much so one suspects the HoC scriptwriters modeled their lead characters on the Democratic Party’s resident “royal couple.”
To be sure, a critical assessment of Hillary Clinton’s fitness for the Oval Office can’t be undertaken absent some reference to the respective roles she and her husband have played in each other’s professional lives.
Many folks will recall their indelible slogan from Bill Clinton’s successful tilt at the top job in 1992, where the campaign pitch to voters was, “Two for the price of one.”
President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)
Again, one not unlike the mantra the Underwoods might concoct for voters.
One wonders why the Clintons have not retooled that hoary old refrain for 2016, and here I’m thinking, “Buy one, get one free” might fit the bill.
The Clintons then (cue Frank and Claire again) are the consummate political “chancers” (British slang for “opportunists”), with style overwhelming substance, ruthlessness eclipsing truthfulness, and political expediency supplanting personal integrity. Occupying their own “house of cards” is a long, yet not so illustrious history of deception, malice, corruption, duplicity, careerism, avarice, turpitude, warmongering, hubris, incompetence, arrogance, media manipulation, venality, hypocrisy, influence touting, and everything in between that the ugly, sleazy side of politics has on offer.
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/03/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-resume-what-the-record-shows/]
This reality was first underscored most notably when — in what must be the modern American narrative’s most indelible “stand by your man” moment — the then “Tammy Wynette” of U.S. politics vigorously defended her husband against allegations of unbridled lechery and sexual predation.
These allegations, along with many others in her view, were invented by what she later defined as a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” one that was unscrupulously trying to take them down and out.
[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-the-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-is-even-better-funded-now/]
But irrespective of whether this much touted “conspiracy” was actually a reality (the Clintons surely had powerful and well-heeled enemies), a product of Mrs. Clinton’s penchant for self-aggrandizing delusion, or simply dirty politics (the perfect tautology if there is one), it is now safe to say it was going to take much more than a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to stop the Clinton juggernaut in its tracks.
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/25/hillaryclinton.uselections2008]
Powerful Juggernaut
That this “juggernaut” shows few signs of losing steam is evident; at the same time it continues to showcase all that’s wrong about Establishment politics — Republican or Democrat.
And whilst we can say now the accusations against her husband contained more than a grain of truth (at least those related to womanizing and self-aggrandizement), both Bill and Hillary were in for the long haul.
That she tendered her impassioned denials in the full knowledge that many were true is difficult to refute, and if nothing else, says much about the candidate’s capacity to deny reality in the service of a larger ambition.
And without placing too fine a point on it, this is one area where given the prevailing zeitgeist in Washington – in both neoliberal and neoconservative circles – Hillary Clinton is most definitely qualified as both the preferred candidate of Democratic insiders and the Establishment’s choice for president (including a number of erstwhile Republicans).
In any event, the Clintons themselves are no slouches when it comes to playing “dirty politics,” for whom we might say all’s fair in love, war and their chosen vocation.
They embody moreover, raw political ambition at its hard-core finest, steeled by narcissistic megalomania, all of it unencumbered by accountability, transparency, humility, ethics, honesty, scruples or altruism.
Her seemingly inevitable selection as the 2016 Democratic flag-bearer — and from there most likely the presidency — is ample indication of that “long haul” ambition.
To their credit as political survivors, they’ve been effectively dodging political snipers ever since they parachuted into public consciousness during the 1992 campaign.
And if the current contest is any guide, the Clintons have not lost their innate talent in this regard.
As for Hillary Clinton, one suspects even her most zealous detractors could not help but admire — if begrudgingly — the mix of chutzpah and resilience that have been key to her longevity, with her not always subtle campaign “trump” cards: “It’s my turn!”
Even without playing the “elect me as your first woman president” card, the palpable sense of quasi-regal entitlement becomes icing on the Clinton cake!
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/trump-hillary-clinton-woman-card/480129/]
We might argue that given the weight of mounting evidence against her fitness for office — a modicum of which would deep-six most politicians’ career ambitions — they have become ever more adept at keeping their political ducks flying in a row, and well out of the range of the shooters.
Not that they’ve achieved this all on their own.
In this the Clintons have been ably served by the mainstream media (MSM), who’ve generally eschewed the forensic analysis — whether political, policy or personal — vital to objectively evaluating her fitness as the Democratic nominee (and therefore president).
[http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/28/new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide-hawk/]
Mistress of Malevolent Mayhem
The prospect then of another Clinton presidency should make all right-thinking Americans increasingly concerned – even afraid – about the direction in which their country is heading. I know I am, and I’m not even an American!
Like many of America’s key allies over recent years, our country Australia is no different in that more and more Aussies are harboring anxious — one might say existential — fears about the respective agendas of the U.S. neoconservative and neoliberal establishments.
And notwithstanding her blandly reassuring campaign rhetoric on both counts, Clinton hasn’t just aligned herself with these agendas; it’s increasingly clear she’s the preferred standard bearer of the authors.
With this in mind, outside of her aforementioned Tammy Wynette moment, we should explore a little more of the aspiring president’s résumé.
In an excellent book, aptly titled Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, Diana Johnstone does just this.
[http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765]
The author chronicles in a clear-eyed manner her subject’s back story in excruciating detail.
What makes Johnstone’s tome all the more remarkable and essential is the depth and breadth of her narrative, one that goes way beyond the outwardly narrow focus suggested by the book’s title.
For Johnstone, Clinton’s “misadventures” aren’t simply a reflection of the warmongering misadventures of the country she aspires to lead and whose dubious “virtues” Clinton obsequiously and glibly extols at every turn...
More: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/21/hillary-clintons-house-of-cards/
Anyone interested in the waste and nepotism mentioned above should see the movie The Pentagon Wars, or read the book of the same name by retired USAF Colonel James G. Burton.
It's Burton's story of his 14 years stationed at the Pentagon, centred around the development of the Bradley fighting vehicle, whose development required 17 years and $14 billion, not including the purchase of the actual production vehicles.
Burton characterizes the Pentagon's spending of the public's money as a dirty business, one that too often has nothing to do with national defense, one in which secrecy and deception are valuable currencies. "Sadly, I have seen program managers lie to high-level review boards, generals lie to civilians, civilians lie to generals, and both lie to Congress and the American public. Seldom is anyone held accountable. On the contrary, many are rewarded for their behaviour."
Could you link the original studies here? I'd love to take a look since I spent a ton of my undergrad researching this exact topic. One variable I noticed that was interesting was education (I.e. eurosceptic in France for example were overwhelmingly the most educated (Masters/Phd's by in large. I also would reccomend these two books, i've read both and while they are focused primarily on Britain and UKIP the first is a good primer while the second is riddled with data, graphs, number sets, trends, and scatter graphs!
1)Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy)Mar 18, 2014
by Robert Ford and Matthew J Goodwin
http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Right-Explaining-Extremism-Democracy/dp/0415661501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462988605&sr=8-1&keywords=revolt+on+the+right
2) UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics 1st Edition
by Matthew Goodwin (Author), Caitlin Milazzo (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/UKIP-Inside-Campaign-British-Politics/dp/0198736118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462988668&sr=8-1&keywords=ukip
What exactly has Hillary achieved that has impressed you?
As far as I'm concerned, she is a garden variety crony politician who has sold her influence to anyone who has the money (very successfully).
She was the one who pushed to go to war with Libya and the US economy has been stagnant under Obama and I presume her if president. She brings no new ideas to the table.
There are multiple books written about the Clintons and their corruption,
https://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462121390&sr=1-1&keywords=queen+of+chaos
If you guys agree with this and want a little more insight into Al Qaeda and the Jihadist Resistance in general I encourage you to read " edited by Bruce Lawrence. It's amazingly enlightening. You can preview it here.
http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457
I had to read it for a class I took and it changed how I look at a lot of things. It's definitely worth the time.
Are you serious? I was of the idea that he is a lefty that was trying to work out the details of communism. The person who informed me about him was from the r/Anarchism101 subreddit. Can you link a source where he was transphobic? He mentioned in one of his videos that he is writing a book titled How the World Works which is the same title as this Chomsky book idk if they are even tangentially related, but I had a preconceived image of him that sounds like it’s not true based of your response.
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
You should check out Tear Down This Myth if you want a really great break-down on the subject that's told in an interesting way.
Does he like to read? Maybe you could get in a subtly political informational book. Maybe his lack of interest roots from lack of knowledge about the matter.
Or you could go right for the kill
https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-History-Political-Social-Science/dp/0486478505
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_O3gnDbK18SCMD
Thanks, Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count
I'll read it if you read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269
Hmm... Try contacting the office of your state rep to confirm, or the state AG's office. That's pretty shady, considering how REDMAP and other private firms have been able to get their hands on all the registrations.
Also I highly recommend the book Ratfucked if you want to really learn about REDMAP and the other scams.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/0977956318
Are we really gonna get up in arms about an easy to come by simile?
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, THE KEKISTANI PEOPLE MUST BE FREE! ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
>What have they been accused of that is worse, provide your evidence.
https://www.amazon.ca/People-Vs-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138/ref=asc_df_1476765138/?tag=googlemobshop-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312349107987&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15953338993469219971&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001161&hvtargid=pla-568140332126&psc=1
Read this book ^^^ if you really want to know.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2018/politics/news/trump-press-war-obama-administration-reporters-1202782264/amp/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/six-reasons-why-barack-obama-is-the-worst-president-in-history/
A simple Google search will give you the full story if you're willing to do the research.
Hillary
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-benghazi-hillary-clinton-obama-rhodes-edit-0629-jm-20160628-story,amp.html
I don't want to do anymore research but the emails. You'll say Ivanka. Well Hillary had over 30,000 emails with highly classified information, from an illegal server, that was destroyed and bleached when subpoenaed. That isn't an issue for you? Ivanka did none of this.
She harrassed credible accusers that accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. You name it, she's done it. But I bet you'll just ignore it all and think that the orange man bad.
All benefits go really rich people and corporations.
Why? Because really rich people and corporations are getting better and better at buying off our political system. (Link.)
https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450
copy paste reply:
Read this book because my argument is pretty much straight out of it. You're calling me delusion when I'm just repeating the information I gained from reading this book written by an expert. You may disagree with what I say, but calling me delusion is just proving me right when I said that you guys throw a temper tantrum and start name calling whenever somebody doesn't agree with you.
well if your really interested but uh yeah that will definitely get you on a list.
It broadly breaks down like this. Bin laden believed non islamic influence was responsible for everything wrong with the world, that there was a global conspiracy against Islam. To fix this he wanted to drive out what he called the 'Crusader-Zionist-Hindu' conspiracy from Muslim controlled regions.
Once that was done these nations free from non Islamic influence and following the "true" teachings of Islam would establish a single unified caliphate which would herald the coming of one last holy war.
9/11 wasn't about starting the end times, Bin Laden believed the world was already in the end times hence the necessity to resurrect the Caliphate to fight against the romans.
Ratfucking is like political subterfuge. Nowadays it usually refers to super gerrymandered districts. David Daley, the EiC of Salon, wrote a book with the same title. Good book, if disheartening, but it was the first time I had ever heard the term. Not sure how widespread it is.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269
It came from selling this.
More utterly transparent Republican projection. "We don't steal, THEY steal!"
Way less
Recommended reading for those interested
Per the Constitution, states control the way they arrive at their districts. Most states leave it up to the legislature with occasional governor input (Wisconsin). The legislatures even gerrymander the legislature's districts. That's why you have supermajorities in states that aren't really that partisan. To combat this, there are several means.
The linked tweet was tweeted by @ggreenwald on Mar 20, 2018 11:26:53 UTC
-------------------------------------------------
Many Democrats have been led to believe this term was invented and popularized last year by Sean Hannity to help Trump. It's actually been something that serious foreign policy and government secrecy experts have discussed and analyzed for many years https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Government-Secrecy-Industry/dp/1118146689 https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/976045546946232320
-------------------------------------------------
^• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •
The term originated in Turkey, actually, and has been used a lot by academics. I'm not sure when it first worked its way into US political discourse -- at least by 2013 when this book came out.
This appears to just be the official US Government translations of already public material.
You can buy an English translation of all the publicly released Bin Laden statements up to 2004 with good footnotes from any decent bookstore. It's called Messages to the World
There are a few ways the minority party can hold up change. This is because of the setup of the US system.
Because the House and Senate have to agree on legislation to send it to the President, if both sides vote along party-lines on most issues (as is today) and suck at negotiating (as is today) then there is no way to get the bill into law. That's because the House can simply refuse to vote on a bill passed by the Senate, or vice-versa. This was originally implemented way back when the US Constitution was written, in a compromise. The more populous states wanted the House of Representatives to be the legislature's style, since it is based on the population size of each state (so, for example, California has far more members than most other states, since it's the most populous). Other states with smaller populations didn't want to be left out of the decision-making that could affect them, powerless to stop the majority-populous states who had different needs/wants, so they preferred a system like the Senate (each state has 2 Senators). They were combined to create the bicameral system you see today, with two houses elected differently (Senators statewide with longer terms, House members in their districts) to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" did not take over. That means that a district's wants can still be heard through its House member, and not overruled by the rest of the state.
In this case, the Presidency can stop laws being implemented that they do not like, though this isn't as easy or politically clean. If the House and Senate both pass laws, it gets sent to the President, who can veto the legislation. Initially this was used quite rarely, but over time it has changed from something that Presidents use to dispute the constitutionality of a proposed law or something like that, into something that Presidents use to not implement policies they think are bad (usually, really bad). The House and Senate can override a veto, because the US supports the idea of popular law overriding a single executive (aversion to tyrants and kings and all that), but they need a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate. This is incredibly hard to get on a party-line issue, though it can happen in other cases. Usually it never gets to that, because it would be far too embarrassing for a President, and they'd usually back down first, or the House/Senate wouldn't bother if they know they can't beat a veto.
In this case, the Senate can be held up quite a lot through a procedure called "filibustering", which many people have heard of. Basically, it's a way of stopping the Senate from moving forward, by invoking the need for additional debate. It's been used quite famously by some, including for speeches that last upwards of 10 hours, meant to hold up legislation long enough that a recess has to be called, that legislators simply give up, etc. The filibuster can basically indefinitely hold a bill, and it requires 60 votes to invoke cloture, which means to allow the bill to move on. So basically debate can be extended however long, unless 60 Senators agree to shut it down. The filibuster wasn't used until 1837, a full 30+ years after the Constitution was written, though it was made possible by a rule change in 1806 when the US got rid of what it considered a redundant rule. Cloture was added much later, in the early 1900s, to combat the filibuster tactic, though it needed a 2/3 vote to invoke back then (not 60 as today, which is 3/5). Basically, neither side wants to give up their ability to use a filibuster, no matter how much they hate it.
This is all very different from the system in the UK, you're right. The UK has a much more fluid system, where the ruling party gets to rule outright and just change things. Some have argued that the US needs to implement more parliamentary-style procedures if people will abuse the filibuster and other similar rules. Two authors (on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum) argued this point in a book that was quite interesting.
We can get along this way, but the more polarized the US legislature gets, the more difficult it is to get along. It wasn't always like this. Legislators used to agree on more issues and only have one or two areas of big disagreement that they couldn't work out. It's not working that way anymore, for whatever reason. The system is quite difficult to work in, and the lack of bipartisanship is only making it harder. Not sure how it could be fixed besides playing nicer, unless the people in charge decide to change their own powers, which is quite unlikely. You could imagine the headlines now: "XXXX Party Seizing Power; Abolishing Filibuster/Veto/Other House".
Do you realize Hillary is a joke as far as Secretary of State matters go? She was pretty bad according to this book. http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765
> "Deep State" is Russian talk. Kremlin talk. It didn't exist before it besides on Infowars
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Government-Secrecy-Industry/dp/1118146689
https://web.archive.org/web/20140102073615/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/opinion/sunday/a-wordnado-of-words-in-2013.html
Actually it came from discussions of Egyptian politics and was used by people on the left for years. I must be a Russian shill collecting paycheques from Putin by pointing this out though. Or is the shill joke only funny when liberals are making fun of paranoid morons and not leftists?
You can't prove it definitively without a smoking gun, but there is a mindboggling amount circumstantial evidence that could be proved in a court of law more than enough for a criminal conviction if only given the opportunity.
Graeme MacQueen in his book The Anthrax Deception gives a compelling argument that the people who were responsible for 9/11 were also the people who sent the anthrax starting only one week after 9/11, which were traced to one (and maybe more) of only three labs in the world and they were Department of Defense and CIA labs here in the USA. I would try to tie that in with your essay.
https://www.amazon.com/2001-Anthrax-Deception-Domestic-Conspiracy/dp/0986073121
You can also listen him in an interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE15RSSHHFE
https://www.amazon.ca/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765
— "The Obama Deception"
— "War by Deception" (Israeli connection to 9/11)
— "International Law?" (a critique of globalism)
— "David Icke Live at Oxford Union"
— On Blowback and Interventionism (short; highly recommend)
— On the Prussian Education model: (first short), (second short), (third short)
— "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas Woods (essay summary: here)
— "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul (online PDF version: here)
— "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins (online PDF version: here and here)
Plenty of militaries around the world allow criticism of the inner workings of their procurement strategy. Case in point, the US Army has not been destroyed by the fact that their officers are allowed to write books.
This has essentially been Noam Chomsky's point for decades now. If learning more about this interests you I recommend Media Control , Manufacturing Consent, How the World Works, and most especially Understanding Power. I have read them all and they helped me understand a lot about the world that didn't make sense.
His headline is the same as the one he's posting, he's not really fear mongering, just repeating but that does encourage fear mongering by others.
Fear mongering is when a potential threat is exaggerated without the audiences awareness. Pretty good book that explores fearmongering, quite brief as well,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1381811616&sr=8-3&keywords=mearsheimer
>It is that and worse! I as of now woukd like to stop buying anything from Amazon... I usually buy a fair amount of stuff every month. Bezos should be stoned at his next public appearance. I have already canceled Netflix just due to their unwarented price increases.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269
lol
Liberty Defined by Ron Paul https://smile.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VT8J25TDUGQM&keywords=liberty+defined+ron+paul&qid=1555784579&s=gateway&sprefix=liberty+defined%2Caps%2C140&sr=8-1
I believe it's going to unravel once we get an investigation into the World Trade Center. A new investigation is going to happen. Once the official story is debunked by an actual fact based investigation, the rest of the story is going to unravel.
There is also a lawsuit working its way through the system filed by the 1st Anthrax victims family. He worked for the Sun and was the first person to get sick and die from Anthrax. So far, the Justice Department disputes the story put forward by the FBI saying that Bruce Ivens was a lone wolf terrorist who was solely responsible for the Anthrax attacks. This is a pretty bad g deal because the Justice Department supposedly runs the FBI but more likely, the FBI is run by the Shadow Government. There's an excellent book on the Anthrax Attacks http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0986073121?pc_redir=1414399078&robot_redir=1. Here's an interview with the author. Dr Graeme MacQueen explains the 911 anthrax hoax: http://youtu.be/fPyKO5TnIgs
As he states in the video, the Anthrax attacks are clearly the work of government insiders and if this story falls apart and the people behind it found out, its going to drag 9/11 down with it.
And then there's always the possibility of a whistle blower, a death bed confession, some other sort of this evidence turning up.
I find this to be an excellent paper that tries to debunk postmodern methodologies: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
The philosopher Roger Scruton has written a whole book devoted to critiquing various postmodern thinkers: https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1408187337/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1468857400&sr=8-1
For postmodernism's relation to the field of history, you could try this volume by Richard J. Evans: https://www.amazon.com/Defence-History-Richard-J-Evans/dp/1862073953/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
In its relation to science, you could try this book: https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Which one's were false? Please you took the time to respond, so back it up. Also, does this book among others I've read count?
I'm going to be pessimistic and provide this book by Ford and Goodwin - admittedly, however, books of a similar disposition could be archetypal of all over Europe at the moment, but people coming to the UK (especially from outside of Europe) should definitely give the book more than a passing glance. It's contemporary and, following the 2008 Wall Street crash, it doesn't look like it'll be going away any time soon.
The book is called "Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain", and focuses primarily on the rise of Farage and UKIP into the public conscious - for those unaware (to use a few gross simplifications), UKIP is the UK's "Front National"/"Swiss People's Party"; Farage is the UK's Geert Wilders.
One of the first things I've used my bitcoin for! So cool to pay with my phone and see it instantly verified on the site. Anyways, if you haven't had the chance to read Lessig's book, Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress, I highly recommend getting a copy. I'd consider it one of the most important political books I've ever read. Quick read too!
[here] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Dummies-Ann-DeLaney/dp/0764508873) read this so you can understand what you are saying next time.
Educate yourself boy:
http://www.amazon.com/The-People-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138
And dont make this shit about race because I think Bush should be in jail right now.
>Four Trump Affiliates Spied On
>Thanks to the work of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Americans already learned that the FBI had secured a wiretap on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. That wiretap, which was renewed three times, was already controversial because it was secured in part through using the secretly funded opposition research document created by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. The secret court that grants the wiretap was not told about Hillary Clinton or the DNC when the government applied for the wiretap or its renewals.
>Now we learn that it wasn’t just Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy advisor, and a low-level advisor whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy advisor and future national security advisor — a published critic of Russia — was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.
source
GP wasn’t the only target.
What’s scary is that Loretta Lynch signed the FISA warrants, warrants that were issued based on fake information in the Steele Dossier. Lynch, being the AG, is one degree away from the President of the United States. This is going all the way to the top.
Trump's main surrogate on this point actually has a well-laid out plan for addressing ISIS:
The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Michael Flynn
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222
>"The Field of Fight is a book worth reading by anyone concerned about the future security of America. It is both an engaging personal memoir by a great American soldier and military intelligence officer, General Mike Flynn, and a strategic plan by General Flynn of how to win the global war against radical Islam and its big power supporters. The leaders of the next American administration would benefit from reading The Field of Fight. --Senator Joseph Lieberman"
Read this for Obama's broken laws. It was written by a lawyer.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Vs-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138
>That always gets me because, regardless of what opinions you have about his presidency, you have to admit that Obama is a good man.
>
>No one is perfect, but he seemed like he was just a few steps above many people.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Vs-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138
You do realize it's based on a factually-accurate book, which it follows closely, right?
https://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Wars-Reformers-Challenge-Guard/dp/1612516009
Obviously actors are going to play up the comedic effect, but the main plot is pretty accurate.
Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics
for you
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0764508873/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy shows Reagan in a different light than the mythological conservative the right-wing ideologues are and have been pushing. It's an excoriation of the myth of Ronald Reagan but not necessarily of Reagan himself. You might even sometimes find the book complimentary of Reagan.