(Part 2) Best political ideologies books according to redditors
We found 1,622 Reddit comments discussing the best political ideologies books. We ranked the 584 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.
“Jonas Nilsson is the author to Anarcho-Fascism Nature Reborn”
Looked the book up on Amazon. The official description is incredibly — purposely — vague, but the reviews make it clear: this dude’s racist as hell.
FWIW, since the 90s the GOP has become more and more a haven for people who score high on authoritarianism. That is partly why (probably mainly why) the GOP gets more and more insane.
People high on authoritarianism keep leaving the democrats and becoming republican. People low on authoritarianism keep leaving the republicans and becoming democrats.
People who score high on authoritarianism also tend to be dogmatic, aggressive, intolerant, irrational, and oppressive.
https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/10/how-authoritarianism-is-shaping-american-politics-and-its-not-just-about-trump/?utm_term=.6df3096aa889
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.
Not only that, but Jonas Nilsson, the narrator and producer of that "documentary" is a well-known alt-right lunatic and author of Anarcho-Fascism: Nature Reborn.
This "professor" also wrote a book expounding the virtues of Venezuelan socialism. I wonder how much debt in student loans have gone to support this nutbar.
Edit: found the book on Amazon, the reviews are hilarious: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238
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
Studies like this one Politico published have shown that Trump supporters share views that align with traditional authoritarian views: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533
​
There are a few books and studies that show a correlation between conservative viewpoints and authoritarian viewpoints. This one from Hetherington and Weiler is one of them: https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X In short, American conservatives and authoritarians both value obedience, an adherence to traditional norms in behavior and speech, as well as deference to elders and positions of power. American Democrats, obviously, have a strain of this but are far more likely to value individuality and personal choices at this point.
​
I don't, unfortunately, have time to pull psychology studies on the issue (psychology is mostly my area of expertise). These were google searches of existing knowledge, and hopefully acceptable to this sub. If y'all have to pull this post down I'll understand - still new to this.
His commie books are taking a hit on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238
"In Venezuela, poor barrio residents arose in a mass rebellion against neoliberalism, ushering in a government that institutionalized the communes already forming organically. In Building the Commune, George Ciccariello-Maher travels through these radical experiments, speaking to a broad range of community members, workers, students and government officials. Assessing the projects’ successes and failures, Building the Commune provides lessons and inspiration for the radical movements of today."
Relevant: this fucking book I found on Amazon today.
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.
Good next up:
http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409/
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/
I seem to recall similar claims four years ago. James Carville talked about a permanent majority. I'll believe it when I see it.
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.
https://thelibertarianideal.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/the-ancient-future-anarcho-feudalism/
Anarcho-Fascism: Nature Reborn https://www.amazon.com/dp/9188667200/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_R-zxCbWTJB38B
And you thought i was joking
This is a caricature built to fit a fictional worldview you and the protesters have formulated. They want to blame President Obama for violating the promise he made to those who voted for him -- but they're too afraid to do so, and perhaps rightfully so.
Wall Street trembled when President Obama was elected. The DJIA -- which is not a good indicator of the economy as a whole, but is a great indicator of the health of the banking industry -- tumbled for days after he was elected. Obama, the populist candidate, was not very likely to continue their bailouts. Instead, it was windfall taxes on the horizon. Bad news for banks.
But of course, that didn't happen. It didn't happen because President Obama lacked the courage to do it after pushing through his health care agenda. It didn't happen the GOP-controlled Senate is uncompromising. It didn't happen because the banks threw millions at lobbyists etc. in hopes of preventing it. It didn't happen because many economists thought that the problem was a liquidity crisis, which requires strong banks to fix. It didn't happen for a bundle of reasons.
Republicans are typically in two or three camps. The first one -- Perry/Palin/Bachmann one -- don't really give a rat's ass about the economy. They trot out the belief that the banks aren't the problem, but rather, Federal spending is, but really, they don't care about spending. They'll spend on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and if it were GWB in the White House, Libya too); on rounding up immigrants and sticking them on a boat; and on anything else which pushes their social agenda. They'd bail out banks if it were politically prudent -- it just isn't right now. But they want to cut NPR because it's "too expensive." Garbage.
The second one -- the Paul/Johnson camp -- is honestly anti-spending, and wouldn't have bailed out banks, even if it were the right move. The ideology is low taxes, low spending. They aren't in the bank's pocket, but come off as such because their ideology would allow for a rampant, unchecked banking system.
(Who knows where Mitt Romney sits; only the wind, I'd say, knows for sure.)
The problem for the protestors is simple: they want to point the finger at President Obama and the Democratic leadership -- but they can't, because the GOP alternatives are worse. They want to be able to say, hey, President Obama, when we voted for you, when we donated to your campaign, when we were the grassroots amplifiers which got you elected, we did so because you promised us you'd change things. Hope. Change we can believe in. Can we get there? Yes we can. How? He asked us to believe in our ability to bring change, with him as the vessel.
And he failed.
And that's what the protestors want to say. They want to say "Didn't you promise us an end to Iraq and Afghanistan?," for example, but they can't, because they know if they start pushing at Obama, he'll weaken, and they do not want to help Rick Perry become the next inhabitant of the White House. So instead, they find a scapegoat: Wall Street and big corporations.
It's not the banks fault here -- at least, no more than anyone else's. And if anything, at least the banks are being honest in their self-servicing acts -- no one among them claims that they're doing anything more than rent seeking. I do not think you can say that for our politicians.
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
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.
His whole gimmick is about how terrible liberals are. He even wrote this book about it. I have no doubt that he has nothing for disdain for people like me.
Ben Shapiro embodies everything I am trying to say in this thread. He has no respect for liberals and he only wants to prove himself right. Conservatives need better representatives for their movement. Even Antonin Scalia, as you mentioned, had at least a modicum of respect for the other side.
But when the conservatives that come to universities are like Ben Shapiro, I am not remotely interested in hearing their ideas.
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)
Yes. The "democracy" agenda does.
 
btw, the title is about human rights.
The guy you want is William Blum.
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Deadliest-Export-Democracy-Everything/dp/1783601671/
See also his books Killing Hope and Rogue State.
>
>
>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!"
Bill Burr was right. Most of these people are just the arrival of the everyone gets a trophy generation. They stand on their soapbox, high on their self-perceived virtue. Meanwhile, they are shutting down free speech and rational, open discourse.
The 'students' (if you want to call them that) need to read their history or try these books to give them some better insight:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
This book chronicles the overall nature, roots, and definition of Fascism. The definition one may find in the dictionary is not what you may find it to be, within the context of history and reality. It documents the popularity of fascism within communities of the arts (screenplay, music, acting, etc.) and how it was widely accepted specifically within counter-culture movements, which I think is ironic.
Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans
> it's not something Jeremy Hunt made up on a spot.
Well, it's not as if he co-authored a book on privatising the NHS.... wait what?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
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.
My go to reading list,
Killing Hope, by William Blum
America's Deadliest Export Democracy, by William Blum
Who is William Blum?
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner
Enemies: The History of the FBI, by Tim Wiener
Who is Tim Weiner?
The Secret History of the American Empire: The Truth about Economic Hitmen, Jackals, and How to Change the World by John Perkins
Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins
Who is John Perkins?
The same Jeremy Hunt who co-authored an instruction guide on privatising the NHS?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
Apparently he's also a fan of homepathy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9520269/Jeremy-Hunt-is-controversial-appointment-as-Health-Secretary.html
And should we also ignore this governments attempts to piss off as many people in the employ of the NHS as possible? To sabotage the growth of our nursing staff by cutting bursaries? To continue to discourage young doctors who are desperately needed in an understaffed and overworked health service, that still costs less per capita for a higher standard of care than many other countries in the world? To continue to make real-term cuts to frontline services?
>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.
That's interesting. I might want to pick up those for entertainment because a lot of previous election proposals have been really hard to find.
Edit: Obama 2008 for example seems to have one. Romney 2012 (although this seems much worse quality -- little snippets from speeches and stuff)
Yes although it was a book not a pamphlet.
'book'.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
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.
I recently read Building the Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela because of content creators I discovered through Destiny.
All the helping each other they discuss sounds terrible. It is no way to base a society. I mean where's the exploitation!?
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
Thomas J. Dilorenzo literally says that socialism also includes whenever the government does stuff like in the US with social security, the post office, and fire departments! He literally misunderstands why the USSR at one point had to have capitalist sectors of its agricultural economy as it was transitioning from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and claims it was because, "Socialism couldn't provide food for the Soviet people during Stalin's regime!"
​
Dilorezo also appeared on Fox News to promote his book!
​
The worst part about it is this is that Thomas J. DiLorenzo is a professor of economics at Loyola University and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute! He literally is so ignorant he somehow got a professorship in economics but he doesn't even fundamentally understand anything about socialism and communism! I doubt Dilorezo even read any Marxist literature at all!
​
Here's the book! You can listen to the audiobook too!
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
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.
Here is a good book on the Bullying in social justice and more
Read Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank for the full history. The abbreviated version is that the professional, managerial class sympathetic to corporate interests took over the party about 50 years ago and decided to ignore and even antagonize the party's traditional labor base, assuming (rightly) they would have nowhere else to go and could be placated by being threatened to keep voting Democrat or things would be worse under Republicans. Bill and Hillary are the culmination of this transformation of the party
> MRA (Men's Rights Activist) - Noun - Ehm-ARRR!-Aye: These are men and women that work toward alleviating over-conviction of males, men's custody rights, raising male sexual assault awareness, etc. These aren't anti-feminists, or red-pillers, or channers.
Any definition of the modern men's right's movement that puts a specific caveat of "these aren't anti-feminists" is really, really bad. At the very least, highly inaccurate to reality.
MRAs are not "all people who advocate for men." They're a specific ideology of advocating for men, consisting of places like /r/mensrights, websites like A Voice for Men, and a good chunk of much worse places that don't really need to be mentioned. Anti-feminism is quite literally a tenant of the MRA movement, quite possibly the single most unifying belief among their constituency. Of course, this predates the Internet, but real-life MRA organizations are few and far between. Of the few MRA political parties out there, they tend to be, uncoincidentally, antifeminist (ex). Or you can read the guy from AVfM who started his own political party. Note the URL, particularly feminism/government-tyranny. This is the same guy who wrote this book.
This isn't to say that there aren't pro-feminist MRAs, because given how many people are involved, there could be at least a couple. But the dominant frame of the movement is a reaction to feminism gone too far.
> 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
Hi there. This post has a little reading but please feel free to skip to the recommendations closer to the bottom. While I do waffle a bit, it's just because I get ridiculously excited about bringing peopleinto politics because democracy is a passion of mine. Don't be intimidated by politics. Everyone, even experienced professors like Waleed Aly wander in the dark a lot when it comes to some issues.
I have a degree in politics and international relations and have been active in the Liberals before.
Having declared by colours let me tell you straight up that you are on the right track by both committing to learn and rejecting whaty ou are fed offhand. If you wanna really get into the meat of politics it's really handy to have an understanding of ideology -that's the groupings of belief systems in politics.
In short; politics is the study of power and how to justly manage it. Understanding the basic ideas behind liberalism, conservatism, and socialism which are the three really dominant ideas in the modern era will really help you understand the news in a whole new light.
So I would suggest you invest in a text book that first year politics students might end up studying and reading it. These kinds of books usually spend a fair bit of time explaining how the system works, and also what ideologies are what, their sub-groups (and there are many) and try and really make the whole thing less confusing.
---
Reccomendations If you want to learn more about politics I highly recommend Andrew Heywoods "Political Ideologies" -this is a first year book that was given to me at the beginning of my degree and is a fantastic, easy to understand book all about how the world works. Here is its amazon page.
Now it is a text book, it can seem a bit bland, but you don't have to read it cover to cover. It's more like a little bible you can refer to when you want to understand something. If you hear words you don't get, or have an inclination to look into something specific, you can check it for more information.
I'll add, in terms of learning about current issues and opinions specifically you need to 'equip' yourself. What does that mean? It means that you are a very vulnerable person at first. You are vulnerable to pre-packaged soundbytes, to partisan tribalism, to deceptive or disingenuous or misleading arguments and to being lead to an opinion without experiencing the alternative points of view. You don't need to avoid the media but do keep your distrust healthy. Read or listen to high quality news sources, and from a few sources instead of one.
I can recommend several that I use that I don't think will try and lure you into any kind of agenda or ideology and let you approach it for yourself. Grattan Institute is a public policy think tank and you can always trust them to be very in depth. Monocle is an International publication and if you read them you will learn a lot about more than just Australia, and they also have a 24/7 radio station which churns out some awesome programs. I listen to their Asia podcast at least once or twice a week, it's fantastic but region focused not Australia, so depends on what you want. Lastly, watch ABC24 or SBS News programs. ABC is a little bit pro-labor, unfortunately, but if you stay aware of that it's not a problem. Their news is higher quality, is less plastic and sold-out, and very much in depth.
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People-ebook/dp/B012N992EK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494879664&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+frank
https://www.amazon.com/Pity-Billionaire-Hard-Times-Unlikely-Comeback-ebook/dp/B005FWPMV0/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1494879664&sr=8-6&keywords=thomas+frank
https://www.amazon.com/Wrecking-Crew-How-Conservatives-Rule-ebook/dp/B001ANYDLI/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1494879664&sr=8-4&keywords=thomas+frank
https://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth-ebook/dp/B00EBRUB02/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1494879723&sr=8-2&keywords=taibbi
https://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America-ebook/dp/B003F3FJS2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1494879723&sr=8-3&keywords=taibbi
>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.
Ben Shapiro wrote a book about this.
https://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476710007
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.
Force all your lefty friends to read this
https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Socialism-Thomas-DiLorenzo/dp/1621575896
I know what you're referring to, but that's not what I meant. This Reason article sums it up nicely, and this book by Marc Hetherington also address this, from a time well before Trump and this idea that only R's are that way.
From my own personal experience with liberal or conservative friends, there are some on both sides who like this tough approach. It does tend to be more obvious on the Right, but that's more due to age I think. It seems most younger people of any political affiliation - in my experience - tend to reject authoritarianism. YMMV of course
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 book is now an amazon editor's pick for the "best books of the month".
http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Ugly-Truth-Mike-Buchanan-ebook/dp/B00795BPEO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421944751&sr=8-1&keywords=mike+buchanan&pebp=1421944755300&peasin=B00795BPEO
I'm not even going to read it, but damn this backfired for the campaigners...
Bill was the master deregulator. Sure, while they are in office it might seem fine on the surface. Thomas Frank briefly goes over it a bit here if you are interested: https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People-ebook/dp/B012N992EK Kept seeing this in amazon and bought it recently.
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.
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.
> Capitalism has been consistently proven to raise the standards of living wherever it has been tried.
Google the word neoliberalism sometime, and spend a day researching it.
> Meanwhile, every single attempt at socialism - the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba - has resulted in disaster, and has lowered the standards of living wherever it has been tried.
In what sense are these socialist, apart from what they call themselves in name? An anarcho-capitalist can have some actual, justified criticisms against socialism in practice (I've seen many), but when people like you plow forward with such an elementary misunderstanding, believe me when I say you look bad, even to your own camp.
The Zapatistas? The Paris Commune? The Ukrainian Free Territories? Revolutionary Catalonia? The Israeli Kibbutzim? That is your actual target.
> There is a reason why every single country that was once considered communist has transitioned towards capitalism...
Because they were bombed to hell in the interest of the capitalist class?
> ... and it should be no surprise to anyone that the standard of living has raised in these areas.
Like the four asian tigers did through State intervention? (And like the US did, also). Nothing even close to a free market prescription, albeit a quasi-capitalist one nevertheless.
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by Roger Scruton
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'political books' but I'm going to assume that you're looking for books that help explain the current political situation and current events. Maybe I'm wrong.
Fiasco and the follow up by Thomas Ricks The Gamble. These are fantastic books that put the Iraq war in perspective.
Looming Tower. A great book about the lead-up to 9/11.
For stuff about torture and Bush's policies therein I'd start with Dark Side but Torture Team is better, just more legalistic and possibly drier.
For understanding the politics right now I think it's really good to know about authoritarianism. It's completely changed how I've viewed politics. This is a new book on the subject that I have on my shelf but haven't gotten around to reading.
If this is the type of stuff you're looking for, I'm happy to provide other recommendations, but I think that's a good place to start.
EDIT: formatting
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.
The masses in Venezuela ARE smack in the middle of a revolution, which is exactly why the "international community" and capitalist press (not to mention the national bourgeoisie) have been so ruthless with them.
It's a little bit outdated but this is the best book I know on Venezuela. Also recommend following the news at www.venezuelanalysis.com
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
Gotta step in here, as I'm currently writing a quantitative article on authoritarianism in this election. Altemeyers work is super outdated. His measurement schemes actually conflate authoritarianism and conservatism. You should check out Stanley Felman, Karen Stenner, Marc Hetherington and Johnathan Weiler's updated work on this topic. It's got some differences to Altemeyer and some similarities. They conceptualize authoritarianism as having two components that must interact: a personality predisposition that favors conformity over autonomy and a perceived threat. When those two things are both present, people start acting authoritarian, which DOES often manifest itself in wanting to punish others, specifically people who caused the perceived threat (often minorities, people who break norms, people who disrupt the social order). Super interesting!
https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X
Wikipedia is decent enough for an overview. Have a look at that and you could come back with any more specific questions. You could also check out a book like Political Ideologies: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood.
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!
You can start here. Then move onto here to address what you just said. For fun you can then move onto here. Once you've got all that under your belt you can learn how politics really works by reading this.
Good luck! But I urge you not make comments like "Nazis were left wing" until you've combated your ignorance with those books! Don't do it for me, do it for yourself and your country!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
Have a look at this book and who the authors/co-authors are or were.
It's not unreasonable to assume that a majority Conservative government would move away from the NHS as we know it. Ideologically they don't believe in it. There are pros and cons to doing so, but I'm not personally convinced that the Conservatives, particularly cabinet ministers, are sufficiently honest about their position in a public fourm.
It's also not unreasonable to believe that American based firms would benefit from such a transition away from the current national health service model.
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.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307460452/
Come on, you were asking for it! ;)
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.
Andrew Heywood's "Politics" and "Ideologies" are great introductions.
Ben Shapiro disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/People-Vs-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138
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
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.
Some of Mises' work on this topic would perhaps be more informative, but for something shorter/simpler, consider the following: [Tom DiLorenzo's The Problem With Socialism]
(https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Socialism-Thomas-DiLorenzo/dp/1621575896/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475195162&sr=1-1&keywords=the+problem+with+socialism)
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
Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise
I'll read it if you read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Where-We-Go-Here-Resistance/dp/1250163269
Providing a Community Safe from TITrCJ's Sexual Advances Since October 2015.
Snapshots:
^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
https://www.amazon.com/Anarcho-Fascism-Nature-Reborn-Jonas-Nilsson/dp/9188667200
Here are some I suggest for you!
1
2
3
4
Political Ideologies: An Introduction https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0230367259/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Ws35CbX9JGGMT
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
>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.
> But a number of Tories including the Jeremy Hunt advocate a denationalisation of the NHS and introducing an insurance market system. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801 I disagree with this but you can take it up with the Tories that co authored the book
shoehorn much? Irrelevant.
The fuck? Obama released a book two months before the election in 08. Hillary released a book in 2016 two moths before the election. People release books before elections. It’s a thing. You see what I mean about reaching?
Edit: here’s the links to the books. Check the release dates
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307460452/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_mnCBCbRMJ0BDC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1501161733/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_5oCBCb0V3QJDE
> This is how the pro state side dominate social discourse. Our side of the argument is not pro active (or insincere) enough to waste our time going out of our way to attack and put down opposing view points. The statist side though, always finds the time to put down the opposing side of the argument and with much more rudeness and aggression then our side would ever dream of using.
Sounds like you might enjoy Bullies
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.
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
> I just want to know what all those lovely little 'intelligence' agencies did with the money or are they all invested in simply being stupid and inept?
Intelligence agencies are there to control you the public.
Democracy Americas deadliest export
Princeton study - does the state work for the public?
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Here are billions of dollars in energy subsidies, aka when politicians are saying social services need to be cut, they are speaking out both sides of their mouths because they know most people don't look at what companies are getting free handouts from subsidies.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Crisis of democracy
https://youtu.be/glHd_5-9PVs?t=1282
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
> Republicans unfairly benefit from it,
They really don't. In fact, you will normally find the pre-election pump-up-the-democrats news stories to say the opposite - that it favors the DNC because they start with 240 or so EC votes every election for the last few decades... I'll find you an example of that article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-2016-race-an-electoral-college-edge-for-democrats/2015/03/15/855f2792-cb3c-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
>In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats
Ok that one says 212. I guess they slippin.
We also saw that story in 2012 and 2008 and 2004 and 2000... And it was the backbone of that "We are now permanently in charge" narrative that started in 2008 when Democrats won in such a landslide.
>It doesn't make the EC good
The EC is good because it takes into account both the state's locality as important (Giving it 2 EC votes for just being a state) and it takes into account the state's population. (Giving one or more for every 720,000 per person on average, although it varies from state to state.)
That's just like we do it in congress, 2 senators and one or more representatives based on pop.
So yes - that small state that gets 3 EC votes is getting 2 for just being a state, and one for their small population. That is still only 3/270 EC votes or 1/90th the number needed to be president. And there are other small states with a million+ populations that also only get 1 extra EC vote. And so all those small states average somewhere around the same 720,000 per as CA and the big states do.
It's not a dramatic advantage over CA's 55 EC votes.
Whatsmore - the EC is over-weighted in it's ratios. It needs to do that to have a total pool of EC votes to draw from that is 1 less than 270 doubled. EDIT: 2 less - 538 total.
For example, California has 55/270 EC votes or a little more than 1/5th the EC votes needed to win.
With a population of 40 million/320million - or 1/8th of the population... the 20% of votes needed to win the EC is a lot more than their 12% of population. That doesn't even account for the fact that only 9 million in CA voted Hillary, not 40 million.
The EC makes sure the suburban areas have some say, not an unfair amount.
Sorry for my heated reaction.
There was a Study published in 2009 showing what Authoritarian characteristics look like and what political stances they're likely to take.
Trump is the crystallization of their findings.
Here is a 538 article about the book. But the Vox article is vast and much more in depth.
The authoritarian stars aligned and we got Trump.
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
"40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation" - James Carville, 2009
http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898
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".
> Dude, you made non-sequitur and appeals to emotion. Like do you even know what a non-sequitur means? There was no actual argument to avoid.
Ok "dude", I'm not going to "like" waste my time with this "actual" drama. Moving on...
> Your article is riddled with IAT developers that don't believe it is useful for diagnosis and zero in on the one that does.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Please refer to my argument and create a counterargument to my argument, which still stands. Moving on...
> There's literally no argument about why political correctness bad.
I was going to give you a hand-written history lesson on what happened with "political correctness" and what it lead to, but it sounds like you're just trolling, so I'll just refer you to this short video. I'll be surprised if you watch it.
> Did that kid make a bomb I wonder?
I've already made it clear that it's just a clock that he bought, disassembled, put in a suitcase, went to school, said "I'm Muslim, look at this clock that I made in a suitcase (where the teachers knew it was a clock)", refused to follow instructions and instigated problems, and then was arrested.
My point is the following: his family members are terrorists, his friends are terrorists, and he himself is a terrorist. The idea of "political correctness" is what allows him to commit these acts of terror.
In the case of Mohamed v. The Blaze Inc, et. al.:
> The “Clock Boy” issue quickly became the
forum for a societal debate of critical political issues of critical public interest, including both
alleged prejudice against Muslims and the use of claims of prejudice against Muslims to shame
and silence critics of Islamic terrorism within the umbrella of what is sometimes labeled by critics
as “political correctness.” (See Petition, ¶¶ 28-61)
> In his dealings with the press, the family spokesperson was one Alia Salem, Executive
Director for the Dallas-Ft. Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
CAIR is a controversial Islamic activist group that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in
a terrorist trial.
> As
discussed above, Shapiro had no personal knowledge of Plaintiffs, but he had seen photos of the
device and believed no reasonable person would take such a device to school during a period of
terrorism and school attacks. (Shapiro Aff., ¶ 13, p. 44) He also knew that school officials and the
police had reacted to the device as if they believed it to be potentially dangerous. (Shapiro Aff., ¶
13, p. 44) He knew the family had a connection to CAIR, an organization the federal government
had linked to terrorist supporters. (Shapiro Aff., ¶ 12, p. 44) He knew the family had associated
with Sudan’s bloody dictator. (Shapiro Aff., ¶ 12, p. 44) Shapiro also understood that a tactic of
activists was to manufacture controversies in order to gain media attention, and he knew the family
had sought media attention both during this event and previously. (Shapiro Aff., ¶ 12, p. 44) In
short, Shapiro knew multiple facts that supported his opinion that this entire controversy was a
hoax set up to support the Mohameds’ political narrative, and he knew of no credible facts—the
only other evidence being Plaintiffs’ denials, which Shapiro found self-serving and not credible—
that led him to any other conclusion.
> E. Plaintiffs Cannot Show That Shapiro’s Statements Were False
> 13 Neil MacFarquharaug, Muslim Groups Oppose a List of ‘Co-Conspirators’, NEW YORK TIMES, August 16, 2007
avail. at. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/us/16charity.html, attached hereto as Exhibit L. p. 135 (“The
unindicted co-conspirators were named in the case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development,
which opened July 16. The charity and five of its officers are accused of providing material support for terrorism by...
> February 15, 2015 (DALLAS, TEXAS) – One of the dozen contenders in Sudan’s presidential
elections pledged that he will work with the US administration to lift the decadelong economic
sanctions imposed on the country and remove it from the list of states that sponsor terrorism.
> Sudan is also on the US list of states that sponsor terrorism since 1993 even though the two
countries have strengthened their counterterrorism cooperation since September 2001 attacks on
Washington and New York.
> The Internet is his refuge — and his attacker. He reads every story and long, rambling conspiracy theory about him. Countless
blogs and videos have been dedicated to proving Ahmed’s clock was just a RadioShack clock he put in a new box. (It was
partially made of RadioShack parts, but the design was all his own, he says.) Others insist that this was all a stunt
masterminded by Mohamed to get attention. (“He can’t plan the reaction. And why would he want me to get arrested?” Ahmed
says.) Still more have proclaimed that the Mohameds are terrorist sympathizers because they once owned a company called
Twin Towers Transportation. (They did own a company by that name, because their offices were housed in a Dallas office
building called the Twin Towers.)
The court affirmed that Shapiro's statements could not be proven false, and for since Ahmed the terrorist didn't have a case, the court's decision was that Ahmed had to pay Shapiro a total of $58,189.38.
> Per the affidavits, Shapiro should be awarded $58,189.38, representing the total amount
of attorneys’ fees and recoverable costs expended defending this lawsuit. (Exhibits R-S, pp. 162-
171; Schlichter Aff., ¶¶ 2-15, pp. 48-51; Gober Aff., ¶¶12-19, pp. 55-56)
Conclusion: Ahmed cannot, and refuses, to disprove the allegations that he is a terrorist, considering his ties to terrorism.
> Do you know what communism is? socialism?
Yes, and I can write about this for hours, but you didn't read anything I wrote, so I'm not going to reply to this. Go back and read, quote what I wrote, and reply to the quote. I challenge you. If you can't do this, I will assume that you don't have the intelligence to figure out what needs to be done in order to copy-and-paste.
I almost feel bad wasting my time talking to you, since you obviously can't hold a rational argument and you're bigoted. I used to be a democrat, and I used to advocate social justice. I, however, actually have an open mind and collect raw information before making decisions.
It's really ironic how predictable you are.. You just have the same argument over and over again, character assassination followed by character assassination. I've read nearly all of your comments: they're all the same.
Dude, the book is a collection of data featuring the CIA's funding Hussein's rise into power in the first place! The opinion of the writer isn't the point, it's the collected data. But missing the point seems to be your forte.
"JFK was not alive when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq." Um yes, that's the fucking point you blithering idiot liberal. He HELPED Hussein gain power BEFORE he had it. How are you this incapable? The US supported (president after president) Hussein, all the way up until the point he wanted to nationalise resources, and ONLY then did the US recognise his "crimes against humanity".
Liberals are excellent at flitting about, chanting platitudes and telling minorities to wait for a better time to protest - when push comes to shove they side with the reactionaries. Liberal internationalists may very well oppose the war (when it suits), but they still blindly support a system which inevitably exploits.
​
A.N.S.W.E.R were the largest anti-war group after Iraq, liberals wouldn't help or join them because they were leftist and "too radical". The majority of anti-Vietnam protestors were LEFTISTS, not liberals.
If you had even read any article from your google search; "The movement against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began small - among peace activists and leftist intellectuals on college campuses - but gained national prominence in 1965, after the United States began bombing North Vietnam in earnest."
"Though the vast majority of the American population still supported the administration policy in Vietnam, a small but outspoken leftist minority was making its voice heard by the end of 1965".
"The anti-war movement began mostly on college campuses, as members of the leftist organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)" You liberals don't get to do nothing, and then claim the actions of leftists. Sorry. Not happening anymore.
https://depts.washington.edu/moves/antiwar_intro.shtml The majority of anti-Vietnam (New Left) protestors wanted to be rid of the democratic and republican parties, while the liberals (you) blindly followed/follow the democrats no matter what they do; just like the reactionaries blindly follow the republicans.
​
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1960s-america/a/the-student-movement-and-the-antiwar-movement
​
"71% of US citizens supported the decision to use military force, while just 22% said it was the wrong decision". The majority of liberals are NOT anti-war. https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-moore-on-the-iraq-war-the-liberals-backed-it where are you guys on your anti-war stance whenever someone questions dem leaders warmongering? Opps that's right; too busy asking if everyone is Russian.
http://crookedtimber.org/2013/03/25/why-did-liberals-suppor-the-iraq-war/ Liberals have been nothing but a thorn in the side of leftists, nothing. They not only never challenge the status quo, there is always a better time for the revolution. There is always a better way to act, a better way to be "angry" and a better way for minorities to get "justice" - protest is only "good" for a liberal as long as it's all within the confines of the system. Because we wouldn't want to rock the boat, would we? How do you feel about the black panthers, were they "too radical" should they have tried to be more "demure"? That's all I've heard from the liberal mouthpiece.
​
Ask any neoliberal what they think of the "conflict in the middle east" and actually listen. Complicity in western intervention is a liberal past time. https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/
https://themarxistminx.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/marxs-critique-of-liberalism/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU&pbjreload=10 Liberals in a fucking nutshell.
​
“weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky, technocratic and condescending to the working class … pious about diversity but ready to abandon any belief at the slightest drop in poll numbers”.
https://chomsky.info/20161214/ You don't even seem to understand what a fucking liberal is. Do you even know what economic liberalism entails? You seem to think liberals are social reformers when liberals have done nothing but sit on their arses, wait for leftists to actually do something, then claim they were there all along; how is neoliberalism anything but right wing? How is market theory that advocates free trade and the pursuit of material self-interest "revolutionary"? Fuck off liberal. And stop, claiming the work of leftists.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People-ebook/dp/B012N992EK
https://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898
Rather than respond to individuals in this thread, a reasoned argument is Thomas Frank "Listen Liberal."
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.
>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
WOW... I think /r/conservative really might be the actual closest thing to an actual circlejerk as reddit has ever seen. The entire GOP suffers from extreme confirmation bias to the most extreme levels it's absolutely astounding. Since FOX took serious steps to go extremely right wing (I am talking about 2006'ish, to the point of extreme hyperbole) that party has drifted further and further from reality. The so called "Republican base" has shifted off a cliff to the right, so far that right that they refuse to consider people like McCain and Romney true conservatives. They force their candidates to pander to the "conservative base" meaning they have to pick up people like Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin, people with views so far from reality independent voters are scared off. They continue to pigeon hole themselves into smaller and smaller corners with more narrowly defined extreme views while including less and less Americans under their umbrella. They probably didn't stand much of chance of winning in 2008 but given the state of the country right now and the electorate's complete lack of ability to actually follow issues, it shouldn't have been too hard to trot up any candidate against Obama and win. But yet again, republicans are tripping all over themselves to point out all Romney's flaws and say he's not a "true conservative" .......
I'ts looking like another blood bath is headed our way in early November and I am beginning to believe in James Carville's 40 More Years prophecy.
I've always suggested Andrew Heywood's: political ideologies because it gives a nice overview of all political ideologies.
Yeah read it about 10 years ago dude. Its a 600 page book, kinda hard to go through 600 pages on a reddit comment. If you are pressed for time however, read Mises' 90 page essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Common Wealth," or listen to Dr. Joepsh Salerno's lecture "Calculation and Socialism."
Mises' primary argument involves calculation of the price system however. He described the nature of the price system under capitalism and described how individual subjective values are translated into the objective information (prices) necessary for the rational allocation of resources. Mises argued that the pricing systems in socialist economies are deficient because if a public entity owned all the means of production, no rational economic inputs could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers and not “objects of exchange.” As socialized industries have no genuine economic inputs – that is to say, no objective money prices as determined voluntarily on the open market established by how much individuals are willing to pay for such “services” – government is unable to properly discern, relative to demand, if what it is engaged in is of overall benefit to society. Systems of private property and voluntary exchange however, enable consumers to compare – via a medium of exchange (money) – the costs of goods and services without having to obtain knowledge of their underlying factors of production.
As consumers rely on their own personal cost-benefit analysis – prices develop – which are contingent on how much voluntary paying consumers are willing to pay. The resulting price system therefore, promotes the economically efficient deployment of resources relative to demand. This is called the signalling function of prices, as well as the rationing function which prevents over-use of any resource. Without this market process to fulfill such comparisons, Mises argued, there is no way to compare different goods and services and/or rationally calculate profits and losses. Absent this feedback, socialized industries like policing lack the means to relate consumer satisfaction to economic activity – which ultimately leads to surpluses and shortages and disables governments ability to properly ascertain how to deploy resources optimally.
Also read Hayek's essay "The Use Of Knowledge In Society" for information on the "knowledge problem" relating to socialism. His primary argument is that while in centrally planned economies an individual or a select group of individuals must determine the distribution of resources, these planners will never have enough information to carry out the allocation reliably. Within capitalism, the overall plan for production is composed of individual plans from capitalists in large and small enterprises. Since capitalists purchase labor and capital out of the same common pool of available, but scarce labor and capital, it is essential that their plans fit together in at least a semi-coherent fashion.
Hayek defined an efficient planning process as one where all decision makers form plans that contain relevant data from the plans from others. Entrepreneurs acquire data on the plans from others through the price system which forms an indispensable communications network for plan coordination among entrepreneurs. Increases and decreases in prices inform entrepreneurs about the general economic situation, to which they must adjust their own plans. Hayek asserted that a centrally planned industry could never match the efficiency of the open market because any individual knows only a small fraction of all which is known collectively. A decentralized economy thus complements the dispersed nature of information spread throughout society.
Government planners simply do not have the information available to the them to successfully determine how to deploy resources without price signals. To illustrate this, imagine a gas shortage. When gas is in short supply, prices go up. In these situations, entrepreneurs are quickly derided by government as “price gougers.” The state then usually steps in and fixes prices, disabling the price mechanism from properly functioning. This has disastrous effects. The aforementioned rationing function of prices that serve to preserve scarce resources has now been interfered with – meaning shortages of gas are likely on the way. When the government sets the price of gas, you don’t get cheap gas, you get no gas.
Bureaucrats simply do not posses the collective information contained within the market economy. Instead, they must rely on mere whim in determining how to deploy resources.
Thoms Dilorenzo has put together a good couple hundred pages that includes Mises and Hayeks primary arguments, as well as others in his new book "The Problem With Socialism." If pressed for time, check out his recent lecture, Ten Things Millennials Should Know About Socialism.
Here is the mobile version of your link
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=
They just wanted change that we can believe in.
It’s a very real possibility that in a 4 year election cycle we will have gone from a Democratic supermajority and presidency to Republican control of the White House, Senate, and House.
This book by James Carville, which was written only 2 years ago, seems like a joke today.
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.
I do not understand what you mean by short term?
This debate has been going on since the inception of the Argentinean country and well before either of us were born. While short term is relative you are using in it in quite an unusual way.
"Spurious"
Which specific argument are you referring to here?
My suggestion undermines the social contract?
Only suggestion I made was to offer the citizens of Falkland large sums of money and a home in England in return for whatever holdings they have in the Falklands. You may have a point your trying to make but you need think it through and get it in writing.
Extend my argument.. What use is Hull...
Again see what i wrote above. But also I never advocated that it would be compulsory, you did that in your own head. However the CPOs do exist.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11487/147639.pdf
The government can take your land and compensate you for it. Happens when railways, roads, etc are built.
Public services..
Again this is an argument that you are making, not me. But a number of Tories including the Jeremy Hunt advocate a denationalisation of the NHS and introducing an insurance market system.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Direct-Democracy-Agenda-Model-Party/dp/0955059801
I disagree with this but you can take it up with the Tories that co authored the book
Defending the interests of British citizens
Unless we discuss what their interests are how can we defend them? It may well be in their interest to move to England with large sums of money. But crucially it may well be in the interests of the British citizens who live in Britain.
Bowing to diplomatic pressure
We don't really have a great deal of diplomatic pressure here so clearly I am not advocating that. What we do have is a great deal of ill will in the Americas.
It does however paint Britain as weak that we do not have the ability to end a blockade on our overseas territory. It highlights our lack of perceived strength in the USA, when we let our soldiers die for the USA, we let our image be tarnished by our unwavering support for the USA. That the USA then does not feel the need to at least support our sovereignty shows that we are not the world power we once were. Even China defies our right to sovereignty over the Falklands on paper at least, supporting the Argentinean claim.
By allowing the Falklands issue to remain unresolved we are allowing are international standing to diminish.
Have another attempt at explaining your views. This time think it through a bit more.
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 ^[?]
^^ttumblrbots ^^will ^^be ^^shutting ^^down ^^in ^^around ^^a ^^month ^^from ^^now.
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
Sorry for not being more clear. I was referring to the popular far-right platform of diversity of race in Europe, the US, or Canda, being tantamount to the genocide of white people in those places.
Check with put the reviews for a book that Jonas Nilsson, the person that made this film, wrote.
He's a blatant white nationalist
>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
The Problem with Socialism
By Thomas DiLorenzo
I was a hardcore Bernie fan and this book opened my eyes and I eventually became a conservative. Very nice and short book that everyone should read. No fluff just substance.
The Problem with Socialism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621575896/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_HukQAbXC2HMK5