(Part 2) Best political humor books according to redditors
We found 465 Reddit comments discussing the best political humor books. We ranked the 153 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
The last time a major political party died was the Whigs in the lead up to the Civil War. The Whig Party broke apart on the question of slavery. Northern factions became more anti-slavery, while Southern factions refused to abandon slavery. The Party could not contain these contradictory ideas, so it lost support and quickly found its members deserting the Whig Party for alternatives.
As the former Whigs began to abandon their party, new political parties appeared to take them in. Those parties included: the Free Soil Party, the American Party (sometimes known as the 'know-nothing' party) and the Republican Party. By the election of 1856, the Whigs were gone.
Interestingly enough, the Democratic Party also split on the issue of slavery in 1860, with Northern and Southern factions emerging to nominate their own candidates. However, the Democrats were able to recover after the Civil War and continue to be a major party to this day (of course).
The other major parties that died (The Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, National Republicans kinda) weren't really political parties in the sense that we understand them. They were more alliances of elites competing against each other, as opposed to mass mobilizing voters. The Federalists died largely as a result of the total victory of the Democratic-Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans also died largely as a result of their victory, leading to the somewhat party-less period known as the 'Era of Good Feelings.'
All the other parties you mention were minor parties that were either formed as result of a brief split from the major parties (Southern Democrats) or as a the result of a single influential man creating the party as a platform to run on (the Progressive Party).
In a sense the only true major political party that has died was the Whig Party.
So now comes the real question, why has there not been another party collapse in the 150 or so years after the Civil War? Why have we stuck to the Democrat/Republican divide, even as those parties have changed radically both in supporters and in issues?
The answer is that absent an issue so divisive as that it literally led to civil war, parties are pretty damn durable. Every time a major challenger to the two parties has emerged (such as the Progressive Party in 1912), one or both of the two parties have adjusted themselves and their issues to try to be welcoming to those voters and issues. Thus the Democratic Party moves from being a small government party in the 19th century, to being a progressive party in the early 20th to being the party of the New Deal in the mid-20th century.
In America's two party system, which is reinforced by our first-past-the-post system of elections, parties should be viewed less as solid ideological actors and more as alliances of disparate interests that come together in order to seek political advantage. Thus you have labor and environmentalists largely in the same party, not because those two views are immediately reconcilable, but because it is an advantageous political alliance. When those alliances break down, groups may switch from one party to another (something called 'realignment'). Thus the two parties survive, even as supporters and issues may change.
This is quickly veering into the realm of a political science discussion, so I'll just end here with a few quick answers to your questions.
Sources:
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/019516895X
https://www.amazon.com/John-Quincy-Adams-American-Visionary/dp/0061915416/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
https://www.amazon.com/Bully-Pulpit-Theodore-Roosevelt-Journalism-ebook/dp/B00BAWHPX2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468985270&sr=1-1&keywords=bully+pulpit+doris+kearns+goodwin#nav-subnav
https://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Campaigns-George-Washington-Bush/dp/0195167163
This is one of them but if you search amazon for “Donald Trump Children’s Book” you’ll find a lot more.
Donald Drains the Swamp (Donald the Caveman) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621579387/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_MpeWDbAZA801R
Let me start by saying that I come from a family that embraces a variety of political flavors- my mother and I bleed blue, my brother is a centrist working on a graduate degree in paralegal studies, and also recently completed an internship for Pat Quinn's office (the point here being that he knows his shit), and my father is a rock-hard Republican who might as well set up a shrine to Reagan in his backyard. I spend more of my day than I should researching politics, but I emphasize my focus on Romney and the Republican Party because I'm fascinated as to how a major societal institution can be so seemingly contemptuous towards the progress of American society or even humanity as a whole. I've found that there are two types of rationale about Obama's failures:
Disappointment- this is more popular among moderate conservatives, especially Obamacons, and those who favor objectivity by stepping outside of their respective echo chambers. It's no secret that Obama broke promises. While many are disappointed with the deficit and the unemployment rate, the biggest disappointment was Obama's promise to change the tone in Washington. Politifact rates this promise as "in the works" but those who are frustrated aren't buying it. The debate over the integrity of this broken promise comes down to whether you believe that the fault lies with the half of Congress that has been acting in a manner similar to a 5-yr-old's temper-tantrum or that other presidents have faced obstructionist Congress' before and that Obama is just making excuses.
Delusion- this is more popular among people who don't take the time to break down what each side is throwin up. They believe that Obama is an American-hating, anticolonialist, socialist Muslim who is going to ruin the country, and that his biggest failure is the preservation of freedom. Unfortunately, you'd be surprised at how popular this rationale actually is. I have many friends who are college educated who fall for this shit. I have friends and fraternity brothers who read books about such clearly well-informed topics as Obama's war on religious freedom, how Liberalism is a mental disorder, and even why Conservatives hug their children more- all that right-wing propaganda bullshit. Unfortunately, even my own father falls into this category.
Geez...I love all this high horse "both parties are the suck" talk. You know if the Greens didn't do something stupid like nominate crazy whack job Cynthia McKinney and the Libertarians weren't just basically a collection of pot smoking tax dodgers then maybe there'd be a "third choice".
Guess what the Dems/Repubs are all we've got for the foreseeable future.
And to anyone who thinks it's worse now than it was at anytime in the past is delusional. I can guarantee that day after G. Washington was sworn in that someone from the whale oil industry and the National Musket Association (NMA) were knocking on the door. Read Presidential Campaigns by Paul Boller to learn just how clean today's politics is compared to the good ol' days.
You want more good times, in book form? Franken has a shitload of fun reads eviscerating the right wing. He's good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like him.
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/B003IWYKW6/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649/ref=pd_cp_b_0
http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-jokes-Al-Franken/dp/B004JU1SMG/ref=pd_cp_b_1
Also, he can draw a map of the USA from memory, free hand, perfectly, in 90 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-FYyuvrRk
Fanboy out.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/gabrielsanchez/tim-kaine-is-dad-af
https://www.amazon.com/Tim-Kaine-Your-Nice-Dad-ebook/dp/B01JAYCLFS
That second one inspired a book of modernized propaganda posters.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1597775460?pc_redir=1409584917&robot_redir=1
Bill Maher used a modern day variant of this poster in his book, "When you ride ALONE, you ride with bin Laden"
http://www.amazon.com/When-You-Ride-Alone-Laden/dp/1597775134/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209515551&sr=8-3
I've heard both George Bernard Shaw and Henry James (a friend of Wilde's) compared to him in a very positive way. I've never read Henry James but I've read several of Shaw's plays and would agree. I'd recommend getting a collection of his plays. The best ones I've read are "Man and Superman", "Heartbreak House" and "Pygmalion". As for the rest of the authors I'll mention... the similarity to Wilde may vary, some may even have very dark humor, but I find them all just as amusing (though perhaps in different ways).
Mark Twain has as many (maybe more because he was so prolific) hilarious one-liners and is overall filled with mordant observations. I'd recommend reading Huck Finn, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Letters from the Earth and any of numerous collections of his short stories. I'm sure there's more by him to recommend but that's mostly what I've read. If you're fond of irreverence there's also some good collections of his writings about religion that are very amusing, but he pokes fun of every aspect of society.
P.G. Wodehouse is probably one of your favorite author's favorite authors. He's credited as Douglas Adams chief literary inspiration, and Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens have both written essays on how much they love him. I have collection called "The Most of P.G. Wodehouse" which is a great introduction to him, "Right Ho, Jeeves" and "The Code of the Woosters" are his most well known works. Also, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie starred in a show that adapted stories about two of his characters called "Jeeves and Wooster".
H.L. Mencken might be the most controversial one. Kurt Vonnegut said he was the closest America got to a second Mark Twain. Christopher Hitchens called him "a German nationalist, an insecure small-town petit bourgeois, [...] an antihumanist [..], a man prone to the hyperbole and sensationalism he distrusted in others".(replace German with American and I think Hitchens words apply to himself as well) I agree with them both, actually. I don't like his politics and some of what he says is downright cruel... but the guy knows how to write. He's genuinely funny, even when I disagree with him. The best books to start with for him are The Vintage Mencken and Chrestomathy
Others: Voltaire, (a collection of "Candide and other stories" is the best place to start with him), Jonathon Swift (Gulliver's Travels and any collection of his "best" works are the best place to start) Jerome K. Jerome (Three Men in a Boat) Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide series and Dirk Gently series), Joseph Heller (Catch 22), John Kennedy Toole (Confederacy of Dunces), and Kurt Vonnegut (Everything, starting with Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle, and Slaughterhouse 5).
Okay, that was probably a bit more than you were after, but I hope you find some things of value in it.
I can VERY much recommend "52 Time Britain Was a Bellend", which includes a section on the Partition of India.
Personally I had quiote a lot of catching up to do.
I am emphatically not trying to start a political debate here, so /u/peasantcore please feel free to censor this comment if need be, but without commenting one way or another on his Luther biography, I think that including Metaxas on our reading list might cause problems because of his recent forays into overt American political commentary over the past few years (examples here and here). Rightly or wrongly, seeing his name on the list will likely be interpreted by many people as an endorsement of his political views.
Again, I'm not arguing one way or another that that's right or fair. Just pointing out that I could easily see it causing controversy.
Denise Dresser es una gran académica, periodista, y activista. Se graduó de Colegio de México y luego obtuvo su Ph.D. en Política por la universidad de Princeton. Enseño en Georgetown University y University of California Berkeley. Es Senior Fellow en en la escuela de políticas públicas de University of California Los Angeles. Por mencionar algunos de sus logros académicos.
Como periodista, ha publicado artículos en numerosos journals de renombre como Harvard Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics y Foreign Policy. Escribe regularmente en Reforma y La Jornada, y es editor asociada en Los Angeles Times y The New York Times. También está en el board de asociaciones como Human Rights Watch y el Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Como activista, es una constante crítica de la clase política Mexicana así como los monopolistas en México (Carlos Slim, Emilio Azcárraga, Ricardo Salinas Pliego etc...) Esto lo pueden observar en sus libros El País de Uno y México: Lo que todo ciudadano (no) quisiera saber de su patria. Personalmente, ya leí sus dos libros y me parecen excelentes. Quizá su estilo, a veces intenso, no me encanta pero su mensaje es contundente.
Si bien no concuerdo en algunas cosas con Denise, como el voto nulo, es alguien que respeto profundamente. Porque es una persona abierta a debatir, cambiar de opinión, y buscar el mejor camino. No tengo duda de su honradez y capacidad como líder. Creo que sería una gran política y temo por el pobre iluso que se enfrente en un debate con Denise.
I really wish someone other than Vox day would, effectively, re-write this book. His name has so much baggage that you can't just hand a copy out to normies.
​
Looking at his related books... (Holy shit, linking these are a nightmare due to Amazon's tracking buillshit in the URLs)
https://smile.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-ebook/dp/B00L9B7IRC/
https://smile.amazon.com/How-Trump-SJWs-Alinskys-Radicals-ebook/dp/B01JFOM1LM/
https://smile.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Warrior-Handbook-Millennials-ebook/dp/B074N6968P/
https://smile.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans-ebook/dp/B008GULMDK/
https://smile.amazon.com/New-Church-Ladies-Extremely-Uptight-ebook/dp/B06VVHV1DX/
​
Nothing short and to the point, but some good stuff there for normies to read.
Republicans have always talked about the liberal media (Nixon did too). The facts don't support that (Lies by Al Franken has a lot about this). But then why did Regan and company get rid of the fairness doctrine? Never made sense to me.
I always suggest in these type of threads:
"The racist guide to the people of South Africa" by Simon Kilpatrick
It is an funny and easy read that boils down all the stereotypes of all the different people in South Africa. It is not a racist book, it is just very observant of all the major local cultures here. Like all stereotypes, not everybody is like that but you will spot the observations here and there. What I love about the book is that it is very innocent in it's approach and doesn't hold back with the observations. I was offended with Afrikaners section, but on a second thought I was laughing on how the author nailed it.
For those interested in this kind of Russian Humour throughout the modern day age of Russia I can highly recommend this book Its written in a fun style and has mostly interesting jokes and the history behind them.
Tucker appears to have taken the Tedpill.
A relevant book from the same author.
Mark Steel's Viva la Revolution: A Stand Up History of the French Revolution I absolutely loved it. For someone who doesn't read history very often this was a very palatable and entertaining read. They guys a comedian too so it's a pretty funny book too.
For those interested, Hammer & Tickle is a documentary about Soviet/Russian political jokes. The director also wrote a book with the same title.
For anyone interested, there's a good book that details some of the factors involved in this rural oddity of voting against ones own interests. It's called Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from Americas Class War.
Bill Maher did a take on this.
These are probably bots. And those who direct them are the lying liars Al Franken warned us about.
When You Ride Alone You Ride with Bin Laden
I did one of the illustrations for this book.
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.
You can start by finding out who your representatives are here.
Learn about what each office does and what they are responsible for.
What issues are you most concerned with? Taxes? Healthcare? Unemployment? etc. How has your represented responded to these issues (i.e. voting record)?
If you're a student in university, it may be helpful to take an intro political science class. If not, hopefully, some redditors can suggest some good reading for you.
Some websites or news programs that I find helpful in getting some info are NPR, BBC Worldnews, Al-Jazeera and Euronews. I'm not a fan of local news programming. I read a lot online for the local stuff.
You may enjoy The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report. They're comedy shows but they tend to show the absurdities of it all. You can a learn a lot too. Sometimes, I enjoy the roundtable discussions on Real Time with Bill Maher. I've gone as far as to purchase some books based on the discussions they've had.
I can't recommend books for "getting to know politics" per se, but a few in my collection include that I found informative:
The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria
The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein
Ghost Wars by Steve Coll
The Boys on the Bus by Timothy Crouse
Politics of the Veil by Joan Wallach Scott
Voices of Freedom vol. 1 & 2 by Eric Foner
Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken
The Parliament of Man by Paul Kennedy
I found them enlightening and some gave me a clearer look at the workings of government and politics in America. Some stuff you have to take with a grain of salt. Checking the references from anything you read is helpful imo. Hope this helps a little.
>Giving men the ability to walk away from parental responsibility would shift the burden of raising children entirely upon women. That is inequitable. The current system enforces a shared burden. That is equitable.
The current system enforces women's whim rather than anything equitable, sorry. There is nothing wrong with women being the only one taking responsibility if she's the only one who wants to have a child. Enslaving men who are unwilling fathers in a day and age when women have a ton of reproductive rights and that having sex doesn't reasonably lead to pregnancy due to the amount of contraception and other options available is quite simply wrong.
You are stuck in a loop of cognitive dissonance here where you believe women should have all of these rights and none of the responsibilities but those who have no rights should be stuck with all responsibility. You believe this to be equality because you are feminist who has no idea what the word even means. You are like any religious true believer out there. You won't let logic or facts sway you.
>I am trying to explain the rational basis behind the woman's right to choose. The reason for explaining that is to help you understand that it is not a matter of control over men. The "control" that you deplore is a result of that policy, not the impetus behind it.
Women's rights to choose have to do with her body. Not what happens after prengnacy. You would have women's right to choose what occurs to her body during prengnacy stay as they are extended to the right to exercise control over another human and being and enslave unwilling men who do not want children. You are amoral.
>For the sake of the child, society has deemed the man makes his decision by engaging in sexual relations. It is not optimal. It is not perfect. It is, however, the most equitable possible and least worst option. Everything you argue for puts the responsibility for the cost and effort of raising children upon women.
No, society hasn't. Feminists and politicians who wish to kowtow to female voting majority have. This is only "equitable" to you because you are not a man and do not have to shoulder the multitude of injustice and inequity that men are forced to under pain of prison.
Feminists demanded that biology doesn't equal destiny for women, but here you are demanding that it DOES for men. Pathetic.
>Do you really want a society of women raised by single mothers with no man in their life? The problems and inequities you whine about will only get worse. A generation of children raised by women will come to see men as nothing more than sperm donors and completely expendable. It will only lead to the further marginalization of males as society decides that men are irrelevant and probably unnecessary except to donate sperm.
NEWSFLASH: THIS HAS ALL ALREADY HAPPENED UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, WHAT WORLD ARE YOU LIVING IN? NOT THE REAL ONE I DO
Men are already seen by women as walking ATMs to be exploited in this matter because they have no reproductive rights. "Oops" pregnancies and coercion are regularly employed against men who have absolutely no rights in this arena-- and you wish to keep it that way. There are already feminists who are more open about their hatred for men than you, such as one who recently wrote a book entitled "Are Men Necessary"?
Women are already all too happy to have children and sponge off of whoever they can get money from, even if it isn't actually the father due to the state's enforcement of bogus child support orders again under pain of prison even in cases where a DNA test excludes a man as the father.
We even have public assistance systems that demand that women kick the man out before she receive it-- and that's men who actually want to be fathers. Our society incentivizes single motherhood and exploiting the biased family courts for female financial gain at the expense of men
By the way, rhetorical question here but how willing a father figure do you think a guy who doesn't even want children and is coerced into paying by the current system is going to be?
>Why not just pick the best male for that and kill the rest?
Again, another shitty reductio ad absurdum from someone who can't argue points logically. Even the idiots who write these clearly unequal policies and laws already know that civilization doesn't run without the male workers at the very bottom of society producing and doing the dangerous shitwork that women, the modern day aristocracy, by and large refuse to do.
Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1501183664/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Bh2uDbEZRJ6K6
This book is due to be released later this month and is bound to have a chapter or 2 about Ireland. 52 Times Britain was a Bellend: The History You Didn't Get Taught At School
Direct Amazon link
The Vintage Mencken
Brain Rules
The Road
If you like sports at all Friday Night Lights, Ball Four and Moneyball are amazing reads. World War Z and Zombie Survival Guide is pretty interesting. Michael Crichton's Pirate Latitudes is an awesomely fun read set in the golden age of piracy, and if you like noir/hard boiled detective stuff, Richard Stark's Parker series, starting with The Hunter, is outstanding.
I would probably get you "52 Times Britain was a Bellend"
plus extra bits depending on your awnsers to the Secret Santa questions.
https://www.amazon.com/Tim-Kaine-Your-Nice-Dad-ebook/dp/B01JAYCLFS
Nothing. I didn't say I had solutions. I've read enough books that have left me with nothing but disdain for our democracy. I see no solution to it. Read Parliament of Whores or the Vintage Mencken if you want insight into how someone can feel this way about our political system.
I'm proud to call Al Franken my Senator. Also he is hilarious.
Without a border wall we're at risk for a much larger number of terrorists to cross the border. Hundreds could get it. They don't fly to Canada because Canada is a first world country with intelligence services and the whole works. It's easier to get into Mexico where even the cleanest politicians are more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. Mexico is not a good place. It's also easier to cross the Mexican border outside of established entry points. The U.S.-Canada border has more natural barriers. You're also not addressing the number one reason for the wall and that is to reduce illegal border crossings by people coming here looking for handouts from Bernie Sanders.
You can't find a source on my statistic because Google's algorithm won't let you.
Here is the source: https://www.amazon.com/Makers-Takers-conservatives-generously-materialistic/dp/038551350X/
“Academic studies have found that those on the political left are five times more likely to use marijuana and cocaine . . . Another survey found that Democrats were five times more likely to use marijuana than Republicans . . .
“A study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that among heavy drug users, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 8-to-1.”
Yet another survey found a “direct and linear relationship” between liberalism and the use of any illicit drug.
Just thought of another: Vive la Revolution: A Stand-up History of the French Revolution by Mark Steel. His radio lectures and TV documentaries on historical figures are funny too.
Este: https://www.amazon.com/Mexico-ciudadano-quisiera-saber-patria/dp/9707704012
Chistoso e informativo a la vez.
Tl;Dr Maybe this is too much of a meta-reccomendation, but I think for historical comprehension meta dealings are of invaluable worth.
For my bachelor thesis I did research on satire and found some interesting material, which I think is especially important for the 'structionalist' grand narrative scholars here who tend to forget singular impact. First of all, there is quite an amusing little book by Lewis, called Hammer and Tickle (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hammer-And-Tickle-Communism-Communist/dp/0753825821), dealing with the kind of humour that exists even during the most ardent of times.
Then you could continue on to a more in-depth book on what the types of criticisms are in Frye's 'Anatomy of criticism' http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Criticism-Essays-Northrop-Frye/dp/0691069999. Frye's book is some terribly harsh reading, but if you can get yourself to continue past the hardship of this, then there are a lot of insights to get from his arguing. What I especially like about Frye is that he is in himself a philosopher as were the ones we study through a lot of history.
When done with those just sploosh yourself in the archives of your local library, cultural depot, or university and try to find things that are out of the normal way. This will naturally open up ways that you would not think of otherwise.
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I rate this link 3 out of 5 stars, "it was ok" ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Sorry, I must have forgotten, only white people can be racist right?
>ChaosOpen, we should never brand an entire community or race of people for the acts of one or a few.
Captain obvious is here to tell us all what we already know.
>Trump talks in general terms with the sentence that Mexico is sending people here who're rapists and smuggling drugs etc.
From what I can tell the progressive left has pretty much said all males are rapist, which is why I had to attend a "consent class" where I was told that I was an awful human being who is waiting for an opportunity to rape a poor innocent woman.
>And Trump also talks about this Mexican guy who supposedly killed ( i think it was an accident as he the gun went off as soon as picked the gun wrapped up in a towel and left by a federal agent)the American woman in San Fransisco pier .
Yes, and he was an illegal immigrant, if he was never in the country then that never would have happened. One of the few crimes that could have been prevented but wasn't because people were too busy biting their tongues lest they be called a racist.
>a majority of them are just trying to find work in America and not bad people at all.
I feel bad but the law is the law. They are here illegally and no matter the rationalization, they are breaking the law.
>The same goes for one Muslim couple who killed 14 people in San Barnardino in California and Trump wants to bar the entire Muslim people from coming to America "until we find out what's going on".
Al Jazeera, one of the largest media outlets in the middle east, did a poll of all of its viewers, turns out 81% support ISIS and what its trying to accomplish. How do you plan on sorting out the 19% of muslims who don't support ISIS from the 81% who do?
>We never stopped and searched all the White men going to the Black churches after Dylan Roof killed nine Black parishioners in a Black church in South Carolina.
The "white men" are American citizens, the 81% of ISIS supporters from the middle east are not. Also, we haven't stopped black people from doing anything, despite the fact that a blacks kill far more black people than white people do.
>We also never searched all the White people even after an idiot like Timothy Mcveigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma. So why should we stop and search and suspect every Black people (like in New York) just because one Black man called John Allen Mohammad killed 10 people and injured 3 people in D.c. area in 1995
So, the fact that blacks make up 34% of the prison population but only 13% of the population of the US is irrelevant to police, it's all that single case is it?
>Same way why we should stop all the Syrians coming to U.S.A. just because some I.S.I.S. killers are killing innocent civilians in Syria and Iraq
Because the Syrian refugees are raping, murdering, and beating the native inhabitants of Denmark, Norway, Germany, Sweden, etc.
>Either we should generalize everybody and punish all the communities for the actions of one or few individuals or we should stop this collective punishment of entire Black communities or Latin American communities or the Muslim communities just because one or a handful people are doing horrible things. We should treat everybody like we're treating the White communities, that is with a kid glove.
What ever happened to "we should never brand an entire community or race of people for the acts of one or a few?" Are you one of those who scream "white privilege" because you read about it on liberal news outlets? Here is a fun read for you: http://www.amazon.com/Race-Pimping-Multi-Trillion-Business-Liberalism/dp/1619339528
And after a google search here is a relatively decent article with the references of where he got his numbers debunking a few of the claims you have heard: http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/crime-expert-releases-shocking-new-statistics-about-black-men-killed-by-cops/
There is no systematic racism, Trump is trying to keep illegal immigrants out, he doesn't hate Latinos. He is trying to keep radical Islam out, he doesn't hate Arabs. And police are trying to protect victims from black-on-black crime, which is the real problem that needs to be addressed. Stop trying to protect the lawbreakers from police searches and try petitioning for better policing of high crime areas(whether the inhabitants be white, black, or Latino).
If there is a problem with the police and blacks, it is that the police have given up on protecting the law abiding blacks so that they don't "appear racist" because it has somehow become more PC to protect the perpetrator than the victim. For some reason it seems the single black mother who works 40-50 hours a week has less of a right to safety than her killer, a sad but all too common story in the high crime areas liberals are telling police to stay out of or get labeled as racist.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Men-Rise-Women/dp/B00D9TA4VY
http://www.amazon.com/Are-Men-Necessary-Sexes-Collide/dp/B0057DCG48
These are a few examples. I haven't read them so I don't know what they mean exactly.
Alveda King doesn't think that Trump is a RACIST. Ben Carson doesn't think that Trump is a RACIST.
MSNBC - race pimps. Progressives - race pimps.
Race Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism: Kevin Jackson: 9781619339521: Amazon.com: Book
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Pimping-Multi-Trillion-Business-Liberalism/dp/1619339528
https://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594038414/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4HZDQ3GP21ZDWD2GVYHS
Progressives are the sort of people who obsessively call other people racist right after they imply black Americans are too stupid, poor and lazy to get voter ID like everyone else in America. Racists here, racists there, racists everywhere. Racist, racist, racist.
If you recall correctly? Can you find an article or something about that guest on SNL? That's the first I heard of it. Google's having trouble too.
The other one is more than a little suspect given Franken's history with right wing talk show hosts and the photographic evidence showing him not groping her.
imho, Franken resigned because he was pressured by the female Democratic senators who needed to please their base lest their party (his party) lose any more seats after the Trump era. He wanted there to be a full investigation, but no. That's not how politics works.