(Part 2) Best political leader biographies according to redditors
We found 1,412 Reddit comments discussing the best political leader biographies. We ranked the 499 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 Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party
You could start here, first published in 1993 by Harry Hurt III, when trump was already disgustingly well-established in the tabloid press as an unapologetic con, creep, and unconscionable cad. By his own hand!
And then he went pro. . . .
http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/hillary-told-obama-to-call-off-his-f-king-dogs-involved-in-email-probe-new-book-says/
From the book http://www.amazon.com/Unlikeable-Problem-Hillary-Edward-Klein/dp/1621573788?tag=nypost-20
Apparently he just gave a lot of free publicity to the author of his unflattering biography
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941
Everyone needs to read Breitbart's Righteous Indignation. You've been lied to about this guy. He's a true hero, that's why he was murdered (look into it).
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526992910&sr=8-1&keywords=righteous+indignation+andrew+breitbart
"The left" is extremely broad. If there are any particular subjects you're interested in I'm sure you could find leftist writing them. That said, if I had to suggest a list of general leftist readings that provide a good framework for the ideas on economics, journalism, history, race, and sexuality expressed in the Chapo-verse I would say:
Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention_without_trial#United_States
> On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014. The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2016.
Obviously if people are detained without trial there's a much higher chance that they're innocent. One such case is a German resident who was detained and abused at Guantanamo for more than 5 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz — He wrote a book about it called "Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo".
Read some of these reviews. They are hilarious!
https://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Together-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-ebook/dp/B01JMECLZQ/
I recently finished reading Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign which I highly recommend for anyone interested in the 2016 election. Here are the paragraphs I highlighted on my Kindle.
on her decision to run
>Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her. In fact, the more people she assigned to the task of setting the tone for her campaign, the more muddled her message became.
On her script team struggling to put together her opening speech
>All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it. Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale. “I would have had a reason for running,” one of her top aides said, “or I wouldn’t have run.”
On the power structure
>Much of this infighting might have been avoided had someone been given the authority to have the final say on matters large and small. But Hillary distributed power so broadly that none of her aides or advisers had control of the whole apparatus.
On the attacks on Clinton
>For both sides, Hillary was the perfect symbol of everything wrong with America. At times, Trump and Sanders would act as the right and left speakers on a stereo blaring a chorus on repeat: Hillary’s a corrupt insider who has helped rig the political and economic systems in favor of the powerful.
On Clinton's decision who to grant an exclusive interview with about her emails
>Palmieri asked Abedin to find out which newscaster Hillary would prefer, and the answer that came back was “Brianna.” That meant CNN’s Brianna Keilar, and Palmieri worked to set up a live interview on CNN. Only it turned out that Hillary had said “Bianna”—as in Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, the wife of former Clinton administration economic aide Peter Orszag. By the time the mistake was realized, it was too late to pull back.
On coverage during the email scandal
>“The press covered Donald Trump to the complete exclusion of the other twenty-seven dwarves in that stupid clown bus the Republicans have,” one longtime Hillary pal said. “Her coverage was just as much, but it was only about one thing—the e-mails.”
On loyalty after her failed 2008 campaign
>After the 2008 campaign, two of her aides, Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod, had toiled to assign loyalty scores to members of Congress, ranging from one for the most loyal to seven for those who had committed the most egregious acts of treachery. Bill Clinton had campaigned against some of the sevens in subsequent primary elections, helping to knock them out of office. The fear of retribution was not lost on the remaining sevens, some of whom rushed to endorse Hillary early in the 2016 cycle.
On Robby Mook, the campaign manager who based all his decisions on data
>To Buell, the precocious campaign manager was frustratingly left-brained. You get so lost chasing the numbers, she thought. They’re like your gauge. You’re distracted from your emotions. You just get driven to increase numbers. The campaign’s inability to reveal Hillary’s authenticity—and its ham-fisted effort to manufacture a false version of it—was infuriating. The Hillary Buell knew, foulmouthed and fun, didn’t need a bunch of political operatives inventing a more genuine persona for her. She needed them to help her drop the armor built up over decades that shielded her most human traits.
...
>Bill thought the campaign manager was a capable operative but worried that the next-gen Mook was too invested in data to the exclusion of politics. Neither a traditional poll nor Mook’s preferred analytics—voter-behavior models based on surveys and demographic data—were as finely tuned as his own sense of political winds, Bill thought. They were an important part of a modern campaign but not the only part. “You couldn’t place all of your eggs in the data/polling basket,” one of Bill’s confidants said of his thinking. “He had the ability to sort of figure out what’s going on around him, to sort of take everyone’s feedback and synthesize it and measure [it] along with his experience and then report back.”
...
>Mook thought critics like Renteria didn’t understand his strategy. The plan for Super Tuesday relied on heavy doses of earned media, meaning television, digital, and print stories that would amplify Hillary’s message without forcing the campaign to spend precious dollars on paid organizing staff that couldn’t tilt a race by more than a few points. Mook was looking to make the most efficient expenditures possible, and sometimes that meant the campaign would look absent both on the ground and on the airwaves. In his view, for example, it was a waste of money to pay for expensive ads in Houston and Dallas, where most voters were inclined to go with Hillary in the primary.
On Bernie
>Bernie would portray her as out of touch with progressive values. Hillary thought he was out of touch with the realities of governance. It frustrated her no end that Bernie would promise the moon without offering a plan to get there.
...
>She was the one who had been absorbing his ever-heightening broadsides—and she was pissed that the news media always portrayed him as running a positive campaign on the issues. Bullshit, she thought. Bernie’s entire campaign was a character assassination—a moral-high-ground argument that she was less pure than he was. Of course, that was true in the sense that she believed in moving forward by building political coalitions. Bernie didn’t work with anyone. He didn’t do it in the House. He didn’t do it in the Senate. His “coalition” on the campaign trail was almost entirely white and disproportionately male. Hell, he was only competitive in states where just a handful of people showed up for caucuses or large portions of the electorate were independents, not Democrats.
On the Benghazi hearing
>Republicans had inadvertently staged an eleven-hour infomercial testament to her competence, soundness of mind, compassion for the victims of the Benghazi attack, and serenity in a crisis. It was worse than a waste of time for congressional Republicans; it was the high-water mark of Hillary’s campaign so far. She looked presidential in comparison to her adversaries.
On who Robby Mook's data targeted vs Bill Clinton
>From that Milwaukee [primary] debate through the end of the campaign, Hillary would never stray from the African American base that provided her sustenance in key primary states and numbers in November battlegrounds. But there was a trade-off. “Our failure to reach out to white voters, like literally from the New Hampshire primary on, it never changed,” said one campaign official.
...
>It was not only what she was doing on the ground but part and parcel of the narrative her advisers pushed to the press: she would win the nomination by collecting big majorities among minorities. The political strategy worked to complicate Sanders’s path, but it also began to alienate the very white voters who had picked her over Obama in 2008. The more she became a candidate of minority voters, the less affinity whites had for her—particularly those whites who had little or no allegiance to the Democratic Party. Amazingly, after having been the candidate of the white working class in a 2008 race against a black opponent, she was becoming anathema to them. Even more astounding, the wife of the president who had won on an “It’s the economy, stupid” mantra was ignoring the core of the Clinton brand—robust growth that touched every American. Why am I not talking to the foundation of what the Clinton brand is about? she thought, time and again, throughout the campaign.
...
>Where she had misunderstood the importance of delegate accumulation in 2008, she was now so driven by math—and the message that she would win by sheer numerical force—that she couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see that she was doing nothing to inspire the poor, rural, and working-class white voters who had so identified with her husband. She was aware of the problem, but she didn’t act effectively to fix it. After all, she was racking up delegates.
...
>Throughout the primary, [Bill would] report back from the field on what he was hearing at campaign events and from friends across the country. Mook’s response was always a variation on the same analysis: the data run counter to your anecdotes. Bill liked data, but he believed it was insufficient. To him, politics wasn’t just about finding people who agreed with you and getting them to the polls. He felt that it was important to talk to voters individually and get a real sense for what they were feeling. He also believed that a candidate could persuade voters with the right argument.
Bernie BTFO
>Browne, a slim, balding Pulitzer Prize winner with about forty years logged at the paper, tried to nail [Bernie] down on a basic question that had eluded most of the media for the entirety of the campaign. Bernie liked to say that he would break up the big banks. In the interview, Sanders acknowledged two important substantive matters that undermined his favorite talking point: he didn’t have a plan for what to do with the banks once they were broken up, and there was already existing authority under the Dodd-Frank law to wind down banks that posed too much risk to the system. He was calling for new authority that already existed! And beyond that, he couldn’t say what would happen to all of the assets once a bank was required to break apart. He was flirting with increasing the risk to consumers, rather than decreasing it. It was a demonstration of exactly what Hillary had been saying about him: his plans weren’t real.
> Why do they hate the Clintons, and have been trying to lock them up for 25 years, but not Obama?
If you're asking a rhetorical question, then never mind. If you're really asking why, then:
The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative
And if you don't think they have been going tooth and nail - or hammer and chisel - after Obama since he first ran for President, you haven't been paying attention.
Mirrorshades are absolutely cyberpunk.
I once knew this as "the Walter Block argument", which I used to find convincing, but now regard as a bit obtuse.*
Our legal traditions have long recognized that parents have legal obligations to their children. More generally, we recognize that the present self can bind the future self - we can incur debts, which we then cannot be rid of later by asserting our autonomy. There are in fact many circumstances in which the law compels people to support someone else over their protest.
Excepting situations of rape, the unborn are in their situation because two people engaged in conduct that they knew had the possibility of creating new life. It is not a stowaway that just appeared. If one sees the fetus as a rights-bearing entity, it is not much of a leap to think that it holds a claim on the parent that was consensually entered into.
As an analogy, to the opposing side, someone defending abortion on the grounds of absolute control over her body is like someone refusing to pay a debt on the grounds that she has absolute control over her wallet. They don't disagree that she has control of her wallet by default, but having rights implies the ability to cede a portion of that control in interacting with other rights-bearing entities. Many would regard a willing pregnancy as consenting to a debt, and debts do not go away because someone changes their mind.
The way you stake your position is like a property rights maximalist arguing that they have the absolute right to throw anyone they want out the airlock at any moment, because it's my spaceship, darn it!. It's possible to disagree with that view without framing it as being opposed to the owner's autonomy as such.
-----
* I was impressed with this argument about a decade ago when I first read Block make it in his book. It's kinda clever in that it tries to render itself valid along every point on the "does a fetus have rights" spectrum, via an a priori logic orthogonal to that whole mess. Why, said Block, people have rights too, but what human has the right to live as a parasite off of another? After all, does a landlord not have the right to evict an unwanted tenant? I thought this a handy dodge, and spent years eagerly showing people how clever libertarian ethics were by having this escape hatch that bypassed the complex question and yielded a categorical answer.
Later on I was able to get my head out of those rigid, "point-in-time" ethical toy models, and realized, wait, we do actually have lots of legal circumstances in which we compel landlords to tolerate tenants, and leases are a thing, and so are bonds, and maybe that answer was just too convenient. Eventually I realized that maybe landlord-tenant law was a poor analogy for the sensitive abortion question, and perhaps I shouldn't be taking my ethical pointers from authors that weren't entirely sure whether it should be a crime to starve or sell your own child.
I feel this has been a blessing to them and their country. It has shaken up the elites and engaged the masses like never before. It has blown open the lid of secrecy around how the leaders of their nation are picked and exposed how truly stacked it is against the American citizen. And it comes at a time that I feel is desperately needed. Their government is beyond dysfunctional, their people are suffering from mass unemployment (though their numbers are fudged to never reflect this), race baiting everywhere, PC culture, and massive numbers of illegals are flooding their borders. People are furious as they watch their country turn into a disaster.
I don't think either of them is fucked. This is what they need to clean up their act before its too late. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
It's more than just water boarding, and it's not just some people. This book is a really good account. As is this book.
Gitmo isn't nicer, the dimensions of a typical holding cell in gitmo are smaller than the legal minimum for holding a dog. Plus the torture. Dude I WISH they could have sent them to a prison here in the US. They wouldn't be tortured and they could actually be tried for their alleged crimes as enemy combatants. Instead, they are held for years without contact with the outside world or their families. Many of the people in the prison have done nothing, and there are hundreds of pages of records on most of the detainees finding that there is no evidence to convict them of anything.
My alternative? Treat the alleged foreign combatants from Afghanistan and Iraq as prisoners of war. Return the Germans, Brits, Aussies, etc. back to their governments for a fair fucking trial. Give the American citizens (especially the one's who have been picked up from their homes) a fair fucking trial. There's this thing called the constitution. If you leave your principles behind in the blind frenzy to destroy your enemies, there is nothing that differentiates you from him.
Why didn't Bush do that in the first place? I don't know. But my guess is that he wanted to be able to say "We have 500 + enemy combatants in custody. Look how many scary Mozlems were out there, waiting to eat your babies!" If there were fair trials in the US rather than just torturing confessions out of people (<--also failed), people would see that almost all of those blood-thirsty Mozlems were innocent. Whoops!
Comes out on Tuesday
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Congressman-X/dp/1634139739/
anyone read this?.
I've had it recommended but haven't read it yet
Trump was advertising some stupid book called Unlikeable on Twitter. Of course the cover has an unflattering picture of Hillary looking "shrill."
"Likeability" is a word used for gender baiting, as any women learns when she tries to assertive. To be unlikeable is to be unfeminine, according to traditional attitudes toward women, so when I hear about polls where people were asked if Hillary was likeable, it's the same as asking if she's being feminine.
The comments and customer images are brutal
https://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Together-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-ebook/dp/B01JMECLZQ/ref=pd_sim_351_3?ie=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B01JMECLZQ&amp;pd_rd_r=8P0C4YN3Q3M6579FY68H&amp;pd_rd_w=ENTyE&amp;pd_rd_wg=q2VZx&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=8P0C4YN3Q3M6579FY68H
The only thing I think that qualifies is a scandal was getting the FBI to investigate the travel office. What else would you say qualifies?
The Clintons were subjected to unprecedented scrutiny based largely on lies (and marital infidelity, which is not a high crime). I recommend a book like this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign/dp/0312273193
It's reassuring to me that you are out there. Please dear god do your best to show your friends the truth. I didn't stand up for what I believed in when I was your age and fell into the bitter Marxist ideology and it set my career back years (Im 31 now).
If you aren't aware of Dennis Prager yet, please check out his book Still the Best Hope. Also check out Andrew Breitbart's book Righteous Indignation. They are so important.
And since you also seem to be interested in conspiracy, make sure you know all about WILLIAM COOPER! He wrote the conspiracy bible BEHOLD A PALE HORSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdPhOnfwfXc&amp;t=160s
> SOCJUS had nothing to do with Trump getting the Rust Belt
It did, in a very literal sense. Hillary went after Hispanics and Blacks while everyone was saying that she was not engaging working class whites in the same way and she figured she could pick up centrist republicans to stanch those losses while picking up the 'diversity' vote. It failed.
Source:
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
https://www.amazon.ca/Shattered-Inside-Hillary-Clintons-Campaign-ebook/dp/B01JWDWP6W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496094451&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=shattered
Please start your education early with the books that they will never introduce you to!! Here's a good start:
With this knowledge, no liberal will be able to fuck with you!
>Clinton knew it was happening, and didn't even really make a big deal about it until she lost.
That's a lie. She talked about it often and even brought it up in the debates. Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66xBDiGrvi8
>I don't think we can truly say we know that Bernie Sanders held a personal grudge against Clinton
Maybe not, but it sure looks that way.
>I think policy matters more than anything in a candidate.
That's why I backed Hillary. She had an ENTIRE BOOK of policy whereas Sanders complained about problems, said we should fix them, but then never gave anyone any plans. After visiting Bernie's campaign website during the primaries and seeing that all his "policy proposals" were actually just a long rant that defined the problem + one line offering a vague solution I knew I couldn't back him.
Here is the desktop version of your link
For more information on the darker side of lobbying I suggest you pick up Jack Abramoff's new book Capital Punishment wherein he outlines many of the techniques used by sleazy lobbyists such as himself.
For instance he could never directly give money or gifts to a congressman, but if you take that congressman to dinner and hand him two checks, then it can be classified as a fundraiser event. And no, generally lobbyists don't write the legislation themselves - that's what the people they're working for do, haha.
I would pick up the seminal Mirrorshades anthology of cyberpunk, and follow up on the authors you like in there.
Then I would try to find a copy of The Fortunate Fall, which is considered by more than a few critics to be the absolute, bar-none, best cyberpunk novel. (disclaimer: I haven't read it, yet - though I've decided to nominate it for next month's r/SF_Book_Club)
“It does not help leftist causes to make people think government is full of poltroons and charlatans.”
The only problem with Barnie Frank is he defends the indefensible. Granted the Democrats deserve a lot less scorn than Republicans, but they ALL roll around in the Washington filth, caring more about raising money for their next election, than the people's business. Probably 90% of the legislation signed into law since Bernie Sanders arrived in congress has been written by lobbyists on behalf of corporations. But don't take my word for it...
> Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of ho
Is from Shattered by Johnathon Allen link. It's a center-left journo's interpretation of why HRC lost before the left became obsessed with the Putin Prison wife narrative, so it's probably the most accurate even though it was published immediately after the election. These same two authors had written the official campaign bio of Hillary, so it's not like they were oppo reporters. They're sympathizers.
Edit lol, it's about ten bucks cheaper on kindle than it was when I bought it. These books have a very short price halflife.
http://gawker.com/the-time-donald-trumps-ex-wife-accused-him-of-brutally-1721129617
and
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941
oh wait.. you said convictions. Because thats the only form of proof we can accept to the veracity of criminal complaints... OJ didn't do it.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941
I think the bigger problem here is that when people can run campaigns financed by such a select few donors, they don't need much popular support for their positions to get elected. They don't need party support. They don't need to compromise politically. They're entirely dependent on a small few people who they can please by holding the line on a small few positions. Hence, the stalemate and political warmongering we see in Washington.
(I'm not one of the experts here, just an independent blogger with opinions.)
Mirror Shades Anthology
If I had to choose one single book to recommend about Vietnam it would be Neil Sheehan's superb A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam
Also essential:
Hope this helps!
I am pretty sure our current legislators have never read legislation either (Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost). Also judging by our trade deals I don't think they know how to negotiate either. That's the whole point of Trump.
I know how Trump built his empire. You sound upset about corrupt politicians, if only there was someone currently running that can't be bought because he is funding his own campaign.
Now go back to Bernie.
Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense during most of the Vietnam War, put out a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Retrospect-Tragedy-Lessons-Vietnam/dp/0679767495/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1309825009&amp;sr=8-2
David Haberstram put out a book about how America got involved in the Vietnam War:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Brightest-David-Halberstam/dp/0449908704/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1309825076&amp;sr=1-1
>Where is this revealed?
This book, written by Hillary campaign staffers.
Nice! was hoping to get something recomended that i hadn't read but i have and they are all great!
If you want good short stories go for the collection, Mirrorshades, some sick af stories in there. Also if you are into post-cyberpunk go for rewired. :)
Dato che parli di anti establishment e mi sembri una persona ragionevole, ti faccio qualche appunto che magari serve come spunto di riflessione in futuro.
La parola anti-establishment è una parola completamente vuota. Chi promette di abbattere l'establishment lo fa perché vuole diventarlo esso stesso.
Il punto è che molte delle sovrastrutture governative non sono costrutti artificiosi fatti per succhiare potere, ma conseguenze necessarie e spesso machiaveliche per scaricare le tensioni e mettere d'accordo decine di stati con molteplici interessi contrastanti. Se hai idea di quanto sia complicato fare una riunione di condominio, puoi immaginare come sia divertente accordare decine di stati nazionali.
Ciò non significa che persone in malafede aplrofittino della complessità di queste istituzioni per instaurare strutture di potere. Ma risolvere questo va nella direzione opposta al distruggere l'establishment.
Altro problema. Non è che lo spazio lasciato libero da un establishment che se ne va rimane vuoto. Bensì, come un gas qualcuno arriverà a riempirlo. Solitamente a riempire questi spazi sono suoerpotenze estere (Russia, USA, Cina) o corporazioni private (come nel caso dell'Africa, la cui frammentazione in decine di stati in conflitto è sicuramente incoraggiata dall'occiddente e fa da terreno fertile per società private che de facto sono stati negli stati).
L'UE ad esempio è il bersaglio classico di establishment per molti partiti. Anche se è vero che la commissione europea è poco rappresentativa degli stati e andrebbe riformata, L'UE è l'unica massa critica in grado di giocare ad armi quasi pari con gli altri elementi in gioco. Quando qualcuno parla di eliminarla chiediti sempre "a chi gioverebbe?".
Detto questo, ho fatto un pippone OT da cellulare. Solo perché la macro politica e la teoria dei giochi mi piace parecchio e mi piace parlarne in modo non convenzionale :D.
Magari quando torno a casa edito e aggiungo link a un paio di libri al riguardo.
EDIT: Ecco il promesso angolo dei libri!
Direi che per ora basta. Se devi cominciare da qualche parte, consiglio il primo e l'ultimo. Sono più brevi, densi e divulgativi.
Most of these are very early cyberpunk, the progenitors of the genre if you will. As such I'm not sure if they can be described as necessarily obscure but I don't see many of them mentioned that often (admittedly I'm somewhat new to /r/cyberpunk so you guys might talk about them all the time, in which case please disregard). As a final note not all of these are available on the Kindle market. Nevertheless here's a few that leap to mind -
Judge for yourself. :)
Don't know what you like to read so I'm going to go a few ways, but these are good ''stuck in bed'' books. By Author (because thats how i like to read):
Haruki Murakami:
Hunter S Thompson (and related):*
Manuel Puig (these are shorter):
Not by same authors, but would be good together:
Favorites
Feel Better!
The other book there looks amazing & it's in stock
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0312273193/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=TXPND9DTK5EDQ8W29Q4H
Here's a review:
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT documents a sickness at the very center of this nation's soul. A few people, convinced of their exclusive ownership of the truth, proved willing to tell any lie, despoil our nation's institutions and traditions, and break laws in order to displace from power a man they hated. The assault on the president is a challenge as serious as Watergate to our nation's ability to self-government, but in this case, the cancer is on the judicial system, metastasized to the press and the Congress.
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT shows that the anti-democratic activity originated at very high levels, probably including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, members of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and other officers of the court. These sworn guardians of justice perverted the principles of equity to turn the court system into their instrumentality to grasp political power. For example, the book exposes serious lies in Paula Jones' case, lies at which Judge Susan Wright winked as she judged the president solely guilty of contempt. Also, in the process of using the courts for political purposes, very basic rights guaranteed in our Constitution, including the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, have been damaged. Grand jury secrecy has been turned into a mockery, and reporters turned into informants for the prosecution. The power of money may have been used to buy testimony. The press itself is used not to report news but to influence opinion. These developments are frighteningly similar to what occurred in the Soviet Union as it slid into dictatorship.
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT shows that elected officials are not exempt from blame, either. The shame with which Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Alfonse D'Amato, Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth covered themselves is well-known, but even sadder is the participation in misdeeds by nominally independent and fair-minded Republicans such as Jim Leach. Leach used his congressional position and committee chairmanship to let now-exposed liars spin fables about Mena and Madison Guaranty. Will Leach and others ever accept that they have done terrible damage to our democratic republic and repair the breach they have opened?
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT also traces how a vast web of tax-exempt foundations (e.g., Coors, e.g., Bradley) are routinely used for partisan purposes, thereby effectively siphoning money from the Treasury, combining it with private wealth from men like Scaife and using it to betray democracy. Saddest of all, THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT shows that the name of Jesus Christ has been used to spread slanders and false testimony by televangelists like Jerry Falwell and false messiahs like Sun Myung Moon.
The answer to Counsel Welch's question to the extremists exemplified in Senator Joe McCarthy, "Have you at last no shame, sir?" has been answered by THE HUNTING. We now know that these extremists have no shame. An always-vigilant citizenry, dedicated to fairness and openness of process, is the only defense against them
What if I told you the loonies were running the nuthouse?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1595230904?pc_redir=1409149628&amp;robot_redir=1
http://www.amazon.com/Sarah-Palin/e/B002QW385O
http://www.amazon.com/Patrick-J.-Buchanan/e/B001H6O8KY
I firmly believe that party is in deep shit with the lunatic fringe
Are blacks finally starting to realize that Democrats have lead them along all that time, promising free shit for votes?
Lt me quote few paragraphs from a book I am reading:
>Democrats made the black leaders a tempting offer. In effect, the Democrats said to them: You may now be free, but what does freedom really amount to? Life for the free black means unemployment and insecurity. This is the “freedom” the Republicans are offering you.
...
> Remember life on the plantation? True, the work was excruciating and unending and you didn’t get paid for it. But in other respects, it wasn’t so bad. We (edit: Democrats) gave you food and a place to live. If you got sick, we called the doctor. We looked after you in your old age. We took care of the children, even when they were too young to work. Plantation life wasn’t much, to be sure, but it was better than living in starvation and fear.
> So here’s our (edit: Democrats) deal. We’ll give you a living, and you don’t even have to work for it. In fact, we’d prefer you didn’t work. If you worked and earned money, we’d have to stop paying you. We’d rather have you dependent on us. We’ll look after you, and have other people pay for it. We just want one thing in exchange. You must keep voting for us so that we can keep getting you stuff for free. What do you say?
>The answer was yes. This is why blacks—many of them deeply reluctant to leave the party of Lincoln and join the party of the Ku Klux Klan—became Democrats. The black leadership made a Faustian bargain—they sold their souls to the progressives for cash benefits. They traded emancipation and freedom—the right to determine one’s own destiny—for secure dependence on the progressive state. Blacks returned to a new type of plantation run by the same people who used to run the old ones.
(source: Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party
This also is a memoir of a CIA case officer
According to one of their own, they're the guys who grease palms to get shit done buy the US government.
Amazon?
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Congressman-X/dp/1634139739/
Have you all heard about this 86 page book that was just announced, in which an anonymous congressman addresses all kinds of information about how absolutely broken our congress has become? It's called "The Confessions of Congressman X" there was a thread about it yesterday, I believe, but I dunno how many people actually saw it out of everyone.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Congressman-X/dp/1634139739
The Other Big Surprise of 2016 Is the Return of Democratic Socialism
Lawrence Wittner - May 25, 2016
Democratic socialism used to be a vibrant force in American life. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the Socialist Party of America, headed by the charismatic union leader, Eugene V. Debs, grew rapidly, much like its sister parties in Europe and elsewhere: the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Australian Labor Party, and dozens of similar parties that voters chose to govern their countries.
[http://www.amazon.com/Socialist-Party-America-History/dp/B0000CJD9I/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1463446052&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=the+socialist+party+of+america%2C+shannon]
Publicizing its ideas through articles, lectures, rallies, and hundreds of party newspapers, America’s Socialist Party elected an estimated 1,200 public officials, including 79 mayors, in 340 cities, as well as numerous members of state legislatures and two members of Congress.
Once in office, the party implemented a broad range of social reforms designed to curb corporate abuses, democratize the economy, and improve the lives of working class Americans.
Even on the national level, the Socialist Party became a major player in American politics.
In 1912, when Woodrow Wilson’s six million votes gave him the presidency, Debs―his Socialist Party opponent―drew vast, adoring crowds and garnered nearly a million.
[http://depts.washington.edu/moves/SP_intro.shtml]
This promising beginning, however, abruptly came to an end.
[http://www.amazon.com/Socialist-Party-America-History/dp/B0000CJD9I/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1463445006&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=David+shannon%2C+the+socialist+party+of+america]
Socialist Party criticism of World War I led to a ferocious government crackdown on the party, including raids on its offices, censorship of its newspapers, and imprisonment of its leaders, including Debs.
In addition, when Bolshevik revolutionaries seized power in Russia and established the Soviet Union, they denounced democratic socialist parties and established rival Communist parties under Soviet control to spark revolutions. In the United States, the Socialists fiercely rejected this Communist model.
But the advent of Communism sharply divided the American Left and, worse yet, confused many Americans about the differences between Socialists and Communists.
Although the Socialist Party lingered on during the 1920s and 1930s, many individual Socialists simply moved into the Democratic Party, particularly after its New Deal programs began to steal the Socialist thunder.
The Socialist Party’s situation grew even more desperate during the Cold War.
With the Communists serving as cheerleaders for the Soviet Union, Americans often viewed them as, at best, apologists for a dictatorship or, at worst, subversives and traitors.
And the Socialists were often mistakenly viewed the same way.
By the 1970s, the once-thriving Socialist Party was almost non-existent.
Some of its remaining activists, led by Michael Harrington, broke away and organized the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which later morphed into Democratic Socialists of America―a group that dropped third party campaigns, called attention to the value of democratic socialist programs, and worked with progressive forces in the Democratic party to secure them. But, for several decades, it made little headway.
[http://www.dsausa.org/a_brief_history_of_the_american_left]
And, then, remarkably, democratic socialism began to revive.
Of course, it had never entirely disappeared, and occasional polls found small-scale support for it.
[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/16/ben-carson/ben-carson-says-number-americans-who-believe-socia/]
But, in December 2011, a startling 31 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center said that they had a positive reaction to the word “socialism,” with young people, Blacks, and Hispanics showing the greatest enthusiasm.
[http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/]
In November 2012, a Gallup survey found that 39 percent of Americans had a positive reaction to “socialism,” including 53 percent of Democrats.
[http://www.gallup.com/poll/158978/democrats-republicans-diverge-capitalism-federal-gov.aspx]
Why the rising tide of support for socialism in recent years?
One key factor was certainly a popular backlash against the growing economic instability and inequality in America fostered by brazen corporate greed, exploitation, and control of public policy.
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/29/why-are-there-suddenly-millions-of-socialists-in-america]
In addition, college-educated young people―saddled with enormous tuition debt, often under-employed, and with little recollection of the Soviet nightmare―began to discover the great untold political story of the postwar years, the remarkable success of European social democracy.
[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/16/ben-carson/ben-carson-says-number-americans-who-believe-socia/]
Of course, Bernie Sanders played an important role in this public reappraisal of democratic socialism.
[http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Bernie-Sanders-Vision-America/dp/1603586679/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=0EVNJBM695E9B7Z5V6M9]
Once a member of the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth group of the old Socialist Party, Sanders forged a successful political career as an independent, serving as a popular mayor of Burlington, Vermont, a U.S. Congressman, and, eventually, a U.S. Senator.
During these years he consistently attacked the greed of the wealthy and their corporations, assailed economic and social inequality, and stood up for workers and other ordinary Americans.
For many on the American Left, he provided a shining example of the continued relevance of democratic socialism in America.
Sanders’s plunge into the Democratic presidential primaries, though, drew the attention of a much larger audience―and, as it turned out, a surprisingly sympathetic one.
Although the communications media were quick to point out that he was a socialist, a fact that many assumed would marginalize him, he didn’t run away from the label.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/bernie-sanders-makes-his-pitch-for-socialism/416913/]
Perhaps most important, he presented a democratic socialist program in tune with the views of many Americans: universal healthcare (Medicare for All); tuition-free public college; a $15/hour minimum wage; increased Social Security benefits; higher taxes on the wealthy; big money out of politics; and a less militaristic foreign policy.
This sounded good to large numbers of voters.
In June 2015, shortly after Sanders launched his campaign, a Gallup poll found that 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of independents, and 26 percent of Republicans were willing to support a socialist if he were the candidate of their party.
[http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx]
This included 69 percent of Americans 18 to 29 years of age and 50 percent of those between 30 and 49 years of age.
To the shock (and frequent dismay) of the political pundits, Sanders’s poll numbers rose steadily until they rivaled those of Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee, and he won 20 of the Democratic state primaries and caucuses conducted so far.
[http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary]
Indeed, polls showed that, if he became the Democratic nominee, he would win a landslide victory in the race for president.
[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html]
But whether or not Sanders reaches the White House, it’s clear that democratic socialism has made a comeback in American life.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/25/other-big-surprise-2016-return-democratic-socialism
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail
The Amazon reviews on Hillary's new book "Stronger Together" are amazing.
Theory of Continuous Groups by Loewner. This book is based on lecture notes which Loewner was planning to turn into a larger book. Unfortunately he passed away before getting much done so some of his colleagues edited and compiled the notes into this book. I'm only quarter of the way in but so far it's given me a really unique perspective into group actions. I'm loving it but it doesn't hold my attention for long spans of time.
Geometry of Polynomials by Marden. Marden is my idol, and I plan to devote my life to studying the zeros of functions. That said, this book is the hardest goddamn book I have ever read. Hell, some of the exercises he gives were actual topics of published research 60 years ago. That seems a little mean to me. Anyway I still love this shit.
Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by Gamow. Alternates between stories about a character transplanted into hypothetical worlds where particular laws of physics are exaggerated and semi-rigorous lectures about the physics itself. The section on gravity as curvature of space was especially enlightening. The author uses the idea of a merry-go-round spinning at relativistic speed, so that straight lines on the surface (i.e. geodesics) are in fact curved to outside observers. You can then imagine that the merry-go-round is walled off from the outside, so that on the inside the centrifugal force can be thought of as gravity toward the edge. This is the concept of acceleration of reference frame being equivalent to gravity. For a non-physicist this kind of explanation is AWESOME.
Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein. My first Heinlein, just started it but I'm enjoying it so far. I honestly confused him with Haldeman... I loved The Forever War and I wanted to get another book by the author. Oh well.
Yeah so what I'm a nerd.
I do see what you mean. However, going by your definition, many wouldn't consider Hillary Clinton a feminist.
The only thing worse than an ignoramus is a willful, proud ignoramus. I know using Google and actually reading is an issue for you but you have completely embarrassed yourself at this point and it’s obvious you’re not interested in any truth that negates your poorly constructed worldview.
https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign-Destroy/dp/0312273193
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/hillary-clinton-defeat-republicans-trump-comey
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/30/judicial-watch-pursuing-the-clintons-like-inspector-javert-since-before-the-millennium/?utm_term=.cf91a19098fa
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
https://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/
None of this is a secret or conspiracy theory and should be common knowledge to anyone who’s paid an iota of attention since the 90s.
Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives Of Donald J. Trump
If you are open to non-fiction, David Halberstam and Robert Caro are highly recommended. Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" is a wonderful history of US policy during the Vietnam war and Caro's massive four-part biography of Lyndon Johnson will help you understand how the US government works. Both authors write about conservative politicians and principles without the smug, holier-than-thou idiom adopted by most pundits on both sides of the political spectrum today.
If you ever want to know more about Case Officers, I recommend the book 'See No Evil' by Robert Baer
You don't need to wait for the campaign to send you the book. Buy it here http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Bernie-Sanders-Vision-America/dp/1603586679
I keep giving away my Bernie books to people who are on the fence then buying new ones. Expensive, but so far effective (The last one I gave was to a lifetime Republican who read it cover to cover actually).
Wat.
OK, I get the misunderstanding. I meant Andrew Breitbart's red pilling.
Book here btw, highly recommended - https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572837
In my limited searching I could not find Blocks stmt. If I remember right, he talked about it in his book Defending the Undefendable.
>I'm not entirely sure if this is a general comment or directed at me. If directed at me, I'm not sure how you can garner regressive political leanings as I've never made my political orientation clear anywhere. I'm also not sure what is meant by regressive.
I was joking, mostly.
>I think this probably at the core of our discussion. I'm a trained natural scientist, which bleeds into other areas of life. Gravity is the same no matter what you believe for example. You jump off a bridge, you're not going to fly even if you believe so, you're going to go splat. So I struggle with the idea of moral relativism because I believe there are some things that universally apply and are universal truths so to say no matter what your values or what you choose to believe. It isn't necessarily politically or religiously motivated(for some people it is) It is just how I observe the world.
And didn't you ever read Mr. Tompkins in paper back?
I could swear there was something in the natural sciences relating to gravity and things being relative to the perspective of the observer... what was that again... the Heisenberg uncertainty principal... no no that's not it... planck's constant.... the second law of thermodynamic... never mind... I'm sure it will come to me...
>Is there an objective standard when it comes to the human condition? I do think there is, but it may be far more complicated than either of us can understand. I'm guessing that you would say there isn't an objective standard beyond what you've outlined due to your stance as a moral relativist.
Well the moral relativism was the product of a logical inquiry in to various differences in the ethical systems I observed in the world around me.
People have thought about all of these things before, Rousseau, Voltaire, Adam Smith, David Hume, John Locke, Plato. These are not new thoughts.
Basically the best we've come up with for a personal ethical standard is to not harm other unless they consent to be harmed. But not everyone is aware of that standard so it's difficult to impose it upon others.
It would look quite different indeed. For the best overview I've ever encountered, you should read Mr. Tompkins by noted (now dead) physicist George Gamow. The first chapter concerns moving through a town where the speed of light is about 15 mph. Each chapter takes some physical constant or other and renders it macroscopic, to highlight the effects for the edification of you ( the reader), and the main character, Mr. Tompkins (a somewhat bemused British banker).
They're not literally undefendable. It's just an expression that I picked up from the book defending the undefendable.
I find them undefendable on the basis that it is very easy to frame the issue as a bunch of trigger happy, paranoid, Christian right wing extremists, and this leaves me to play Devil's Advocate by proclaiming that said trigger happy, paranoid, Christian right wingers should still be allowed to keep their firearms as stated in the 2nd amendment. It's possible, but it's not easy.
As for myself, I'll probably be arrested for some form of hard drug use.
Definitely not my book, but I can highly recommend the Essential Bernie Saners and His Vision to America to all Bernie supporters. It's an excellent, really well-written book, and it's especially great for people who like having conversations with others about Bernie. Reading this will boost your knowledge and help you discuss Bernie's vision with others.
Best of all, you can pick it up for $10 on Amazon right now.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Tycoon-Lives-Donald-Trump/dp/1626543941
https://www.amazon.com/False-Choices-Feminism-Hillary-Clinton/dp/1784784613
Dont be a sucker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash
This will be a movie soon as well.
https://www.amazon.com/Unlikeable-Problem-Hillary-Edward-Klein/dp/1621573788/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1466294143&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=unlikeable
This is what I meant, mixed up the Clinton Problem with that title.
Also the books by Dick Morris who worked with the Clintons for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris.
Point is this is not just a Roger Stone thing and I find it hard to think that all these people who previously worked with the Clinton's in some capacity are all part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" to bring them down. These people (Stone and Morris in particular) were formerly Democrats who helped the Clintons rise to power...
> Sometimes, in order to end a conflict quickly and decisively (with the lowest death toll) you need to be willing to do some pretty bad things.[...] but if you're going to go to war or declare a "war on terror" then you need to be willing to do what it takes to get the job done.
I'll simply say that the end doesn't justifies the means, and Law of war.
> Terrorists state that their goal is to go kill or convert as many infidels as possible, this has nothing to do with a war, this is there stated reason for existing.
The goal of a terrorist is to kill people? No, they kill people as a mean.
Thats not the goal of a terrorist, each terrorist group has differents goals (political, religious, etc).
> Please don't try to equate someone willing to do bad things to bad people in the same vein as indiscriminate killing.
They kill people as a tool to get their goals.
You said that you will kill people to get information, so you kill people as a tool to get your goal.
Difference? Zero
> As to your murderer point, by your definition all soldiers are murderers
No, i was speaking about killing in cold blood, not in the battlefront, thats why we have international laws about POWs
> Before torture was ordered on an individual then there would need to be some pretty strong ties/leads that they know something.
Like in Guantanamo? Murat Kurnaz would like to talk to you about that
> Sometimes it takes one monster to defeat another. That is the essence of all wars and conflicts, and why they are terrible and should be avoided at all costs. The people who "take the higher ground" usually end up dead, and history is written to suit the victor.
You said that: "Sometimes, in order to end a conflict quickly and decisively (with the lowest death toll) you need to be willing to do some pretty bad things", so will you become a terrorist to win the war? will you become a terrorist to find and kill terrorists?
What you're saying that it's OK to murder terrorist (i'm not talking about killing them during an operation or similar stuff) and hold a cognitive dissonance in equating this murders with the ones performed by the terrorist.
Why is one right and the other anathema?
> Sometimes it takes one monster to defeat another
No, just no. in that case your goverment and you are like the terrorist.
This is not about being naive or to play internet hero, it's about human lives, ethics and legality. "Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus" (“Let there be justice, though the world perish.”)
A terrorist is someone who thinks that an end justifies any means, thats why they don't hesitate in killing people. You think that in order to obtain information is allowed to torture and kill terrorist, so you think that the end justifies the means, then, you are not better than a terrorist.
> I think having the site in Cuba is a way to push it out of the minds of the American people.
It was placed there to allow the rights of those held there to be in limbo, also to avoid difficulties that arise when you are held within the United States legal jurisdiction.
> Even KSM is a sort of dubious figure now, they had to waterboard him hundreds of times to get to where they are, and if KSM is so important then why do they keep him in this public embarrassment instead of at a CIA black site?
When KSM was caught he wanted the world to know what he did and what he didn't do, and he then began confessing to what he did. He confused to an FBI interrogator, who was also a Muslim and they both were seen having tea and observing their religious duties. It wasn't until a CIA agent came in and told him that they were going to "Fuck his mother" did imprisonment for KSM turn sour making the majority of his confession illegitimate. Read more here
> If we moved Gitmo to the US it might help to bring them in proximity and humanize them, and the few that are released might actually be among the American public, non-supervillian serial killers that they are.
If Gitmo was closed and they were put into the American Prison system over 95% of them would be found innocent instantly. There is a massive collection of literature on the subject of how the majority that are being held in Gitmo are there simply because they were picked up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most of the men there being held are still being held because they are innocent and were simply picked up after 9/11 due to the army paying for people that fit a generic "terrorist description".
Here is one story of a man who went to Pakistan to learn about the Muslim faith because he was set to marry a Muslim woman due to an arranged marriage and he wanted it to be a happy one. It is a rather sad story that is all too common within Gitmo. Click here
http://www.amazon.com/Core-Conviction-Story-Michele-Bachmann/dp/1595230904
/s
LOL
Upvote this so more people can see the ridiculousness of some parents.
From the Youtube description (written by the mother):
>Video of Michele Bachmann trying to get her photo op in with my 8 year old son
No. You came to her to what is obviously a book signing. Bachmann is at a table. There are copies of her books behind her. It's clearly a book signing. You were clearly approaching her under the guise of getting a photo or an autograph. Saying she was trying to get a photo with your son is a LIE. You are a liar.
>It's hard to hear but he leans in
Unbelievable. YOUR OWN VIDEO SHOWS BACHMANN LEANING OVER THE ENTIRE TABLE TO LISTEN TO YOUR CHILD!
>and tells her that his mom is gay and she doesn't need fixing. GO ELIJAH!
Your son clearly felt uncomfortable repeating the line you told him to say. That's why he was barely audible. That fact that you don't seem to recognize this (and even encourage him) says a lot about your parenting ability.
And, yes, I'm questioning your ability to be a good mother. You're really congratulating him ("GO ELIJAH!") at blindly repeating what you told him to say? That's pathetic. That's not any better than those stupid, stupid participation trophies they give for 20th place.
>Love that look of shock she gets.
It wasn't a look of shock. It was her realizing that this poor kid was being used by his mom. Bachmann gave you a pretty icy look at the end. What did you expect her to do? Have a debate with your son clarifying her position on gay marriage? Did you expect her to go off on you in front of her son? No. She politely waved good-bye to your child and moved on.
--
Parents like this need to grow up. If your principles and beliefs are truly correct and good, you shouldn't need a child to make a point. The point should stand on its own.
@realDonaldTrump:
>2016-05-24 14:35:32 UTC
>A great new book has been written about Crooked Hillary. Read it &amp; you will never be able to vote for her. @Ed_Klein amazon.com
----
[^[Mistake?]](/message/compose/?to=TweetPoster&subject=Error%20Report&message=/4ku2j5%0A%0APlease leave above link unaltered.)
^[Suggestion]
^[FAQ]
^[Code]
^[Issues]
The Confessions of Congressman X
From the horse's mouth
Passport likely a CIA case worker hanging out in Georgia. Reminds me of Robert Baer's book about his days in the CIA.
EDIT: Originally linked to wikipedia page, but the URL couldn't be parsed correctly.
I think I found it.
Check out Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology for an awesome collection of short stories related to AI, VR, and grungy future worlds dominated by mega corporations. If this kind of stuff is up your alley I would also highly recommend Burning Chrome by William Gibson.
We desperately need a (preferably) non-violent revolution in this country. I highly recommend everyone having a look at this book. No matter what you think of the author (Russell Brand) or his beliefs. It is beyond time. We have crossed the threshold.
REVOLUTION
Thomas Jefferson
> because it doesn't seek to be and overall ideology
I think that's a really remarkable thing to say.
> it helps people as individuals identify where they want to go, why and the path to get there
Sure, within the extremely narrow constraints of dialectical materialism. Later strains of Marxism famously don't prescribe alternative societies, and it was something that Adorno, Foucault and others were strongly criticised for. More broadly, I don't think utopian, teleological ideologies are a good thing. Amartya Sen has a great critique of this in his response to John Rawls.
> They weren't Marxists, they were being agitated, inspired and led by Marxists.
By a new breed of demagogue. I don't think that construction is productive, as it gives as much credence to Trumpian populists as it does to explosive figures like Lenin.
> Ho Chi Mihn? Or the Americans? Or the French? D:
The Best & The Brightest - Halberstam
Why did you use some reference link instead of just using the direct link?
Andrew Breitbart was a leftist until he watched the left defame and destroy the reputation of Clarence Thomas as he was being nominated for SC justice. He went on to be a force for the new right. Check out his book about it. It's great: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538184082&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+breitbart
Social Mobility and Inequality are returning to their 'natural' equilibrium (same as Victorian England before the wars) - 90% of the wealth held by 10% of the population. No one in power is lifting a finger to stop it.
This is the only way out of the downward spiral ;)
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Russell-Brand/dp/1101882913
In most people's reality in this subreddit Hillary Clinton is the ultimate evil in the world. Weird to me. But it's your lucky day because this is my last comment ona Clinton story. But I do advise everyone to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign/dp/0312273193?ie=UTF8&amp;keywords=joe%20conason&amp;qid=1459357973&amp;ref_=sr_1_3&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Unlikeable-Problem-Hillary-Edward-Klein/dp/1621573788
> I'm sure they had their reasons, I'm talking about the campaign itself, not why people voted for her. Though I suspect a big reason why was to vote agaisnt Trump, and I think that was caused by the MSM and the left being ideologues. Not everyone has the time to do research on the subject and keep informed, all of us put faith to some degree into the media whether it be the MSM or the independent media to be honest, it just depends on our personality and political leanings.
You'd suspect wrong. The Clinton campaign published volumes on the issues they perceived were important and they policies they'd pursue to tackle them. They even published those materials. Why is it so unreasonable to think that 10's of millions of Americans thought that these policies presented a favorable vision for the future of our country?
The "media" has got nothing to do with it.
> You're talking about this comment I think, next time please include it for everyone else so you don't look like you're being dishonest.
It was literally two centimeters above my comment in the thread. Save your outrage.
> So for context in this discussion, I have to bring up The Last Night,
That context has nothing to do with my comment.
> u/hadders95 is someone who frequents here very often,
I don't care about your interactions with this person.
> So, am I causing trouble by screaming nonsense?
Yeah. You are.
You're painting a fictitious caricature about why and what Hillary voters cared about. And then you're attacking them based on the beliefs that you've portrayed them as having. You are absolutely misrepresenting people and twisting the facts, which is in and of itself immoral in the sense that you're walling off any chance of engaging with people who likely disagree with you, and for no obvious reason. The very act itself is rude.
Beyond anything else, it's actions like these which are at the core of our country's civic and political dysfunction. Holding such an attitude - that you alone know the true motives and intentions of voters with whom you disagree - is not only counter-productive to healthy dialogue, it kills it entirely. There's no way to engage with you on any of the issues you present, because you've made it clear that you're going to whitewash and ignore and explanations or ideas that others may reply with.
Sorry to put it so bluntly.
Bam https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Indignation-Excuse-While-World/dp/0446572837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498784991&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=righteous+indignation
I think the two main points I took away from this video is that...
Maybe AOC hasn't been subjected to quite the full force of right-wing propaganda (eg, they haven't made full-blown books and movies to smear her yet), but she is receiving a lot more attention from the right (and from the left) than a 29-year-old freshman Representative with no legislative accomplishments should warrant. My right-wing family members post memes about AOC on Facebook every week or so, and they don't even live in her state. AOC is clearly the new target "It Girl" for the GOP.
For some reason, even after reading Meditations and The Obstacle is the Way, Russell Brand's Revolution had me understanding stoicism.
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Russell-Brand/dp/1101882913
Tom Arnold and Noel Casler have made very similar allegations to the anonymous ones, openly and under their own names.
Harry Hurt III wrote about amphetamine abuse in a biography of Trump, published in 1992.
John Connolly also wrote about Trump in Spy magazine, also in 1992.
Don't act like this allegation is coming out of nowhere. We have almost three decades of gossip here, backed up, in Connolly's case, with what appears to be medical records.
Read Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail if you're unfamiliar with George McGovern.
I will begrudgingly take this bait and respond. Better late than never I suppose. Your argument, as I understand it, is that a political system is strengthened when it rebuffs attempts by outsiders to come into it, and that most importantly, that system should not allow these outsiders to bring their influence to bear, so as to avoid distraction from what you call the "actual political issues."
However, there seem to be two flawed premises in your argument. The first involves the reality and desirability of an isolated nation-state. In today's global economy, strict isolationism will only lead to death of the nation-state. Even isolationism limited to immigration bans would be devastating to a national economy. Just last fall, Alabama farmers faced significant crop spoilage when the state passed a very harsh immigration bill (mirrored on SB 1070 but reaching even farther). On the desirability front, you say that our acquiescence to assimilation is based on the "modern religion of equality and tolerance" which leads me to believe that you reject both. The problem with cultures that similarly reject these notions is that historically, this had led to violent conflict and war (i.e., WWII or Rwanda) that inevitably destabilizes the nation-state far more than the disruption caused by a struggle for tolerance through equality. Indeed, this often causes the end of that manifestation of the nation-state.
Your second premise involves what you call "actual political issues." The problem is that what constitutes an "actual political issue" very much depends on whom you ask. I consider a state's treatment of its prisoners and the rights restored to them upon release to be an incredibly important political issue, but others may say that this is not something politicians should debate while our national economy is in the midst of a recession. You state that one such issue is, "Why is there a class of people who, generally speaking, is likely to remain impoverished in our current system, even with such social milestones as affirmative action..." But, in proposing this as an actual issue, you've already answered both of the questions you think are superfluous--"The white man holding the black man down" and "The black man taking welfare handouts from the white man." These three questions cannot be separated so simply. For example, Michelle Alexander recently wrote a book, The New Jim Crow, in which she argues that the nation's drug laws were instituted as a way to replace Jim Crow. She explores all three questions through her book, including offering thoughts about how to solve our current prison population crisis and its effects on largely inner-city minority groups.
The real reason that American politics exist the way they do is a multi-faceted answer with several components (many of which I don't even understand). One component involves the state of lobbying in Washington (Jack Abramoff, one of Washington's most famous lobbyist, just wrote a book about it); another component involves the 24-hour news cycle that give politicians an outlet to quibble things that would not be given space in a daily/weekly periodical. Yet another component has very much to do with the focus of modern American politics on ruling through fear (see David Garland's book, The Culture of Control). There is no single factor that leads to modern American politics, and no single step that will magically transform our democracy toward something resembling Spartan government.
cue, the US has more land area arguments so it's ok for monopolistic companies to be raping us. Every single person who thinks that taxes and rates aren't as high as they are for many products and services should read Capitol Punishment.
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 If you want a fun read that also has a lot of insight into presidential politics.
It's about 40 years old, but this is the most valuable book you'll ever read about politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_on_the_Campaign_Trail_'72
http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Loathing-On-Campaign-Trail/dp/0446698229/ref=sr_1_1
A lot of innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and have since been held without trial. I read a book a while ago which was a real eye-opener, 'Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo' http://www.amazon.com/Five-Years-My-Life-Guantanamo/dp/0230614418
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Bernie-Sanders-Vision-America/dp/1603586679
This one comes highly recommended, haven't read it myself though.
It was pretty good... sunny three of the four days, and I went for a swim on the 4th day anyway. I've only started reading books for pleasure in the last year. I'm trying to work in fiction but even when I was little I was drawn to non-fiction books and that's still true. The last book I finished was Apollo: The Race to the Moon... excellent read, surprisingly compelling. Before that I read Pre-Suasion, a book about influencing people, Roger Ebert's memoir, and a book about Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign.
This reads like a guy who is trying to re-write Defending the Undefendable.
Mirrorshades
It's a short story anthology, edited by Bruce Sterling. William Gibson is also a contributing author. I consider this book to be genre-defining, in part because Bruce Sterling has a long preface where he talks a lot about what the cyberpunk movement is and how it came to be.
Nice! I like that movie, guess I'll get the book... http://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Punishment-Washington-Corruption-Notorious/dp/1936488442
2 entertaining and informative reads by a former CIA Officer, Robert Baer:
He's probably just there to play court jester on these issues. The effect could be positive in piquing the curiosity of those who would otherwise overlook these matters. But negative in that less discerning folks would just react dismissively towards him. Ultimately, if he is drawing more attention to these issues we should jump in and take over from there.
Amazon.com - Revolution by Russell Brand
If any of you already have an amazon account, you could add to the comments in order to counter any trolls or inform the genuinely curious or interested.
George Gamow's Mr. Tompkins books, I particularly recommend the Mr. Tompkins in Paperback collection, which puts together "Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland" and "Mr. Tompkins Explores the Atom." It's my absolute favorite popular exposition of concepts in relativity and quantum theory.
Hijacking top comment to recommend a related book I read written by this man, Murat Kurnaz. He was also detained in Guantanamo without charge. People should know the kind of things that go on there. Fortunately, he got out after 5 years. The Book
As other comments here have made clear, the math that describes speeds of objects is different than what you would intuitively think it would be from your everyday life. Here is a nice illustration from Wikipedia as to how space transforms when you speed up.
Also, Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland is a great book about what the world would be like if the speed of light was much slower (5 km/hr) and how we would perceive it.
The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1936594315
Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0517548232
That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1453857508
Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B001E28SUM
How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1400083311
New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1416592377
Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1933550880
For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1610162641
What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=146997178X
America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=146793481X
Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1933550171
Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1596985879
The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0761526463
The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0226320553
Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0226264211
Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1586485725
Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0979987717
Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0452011876
The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-21&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1634&amp;creative=19450&amp;creativeASIN=0691138737
Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0452273331&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=thmariwi-20
Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0452281253&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=thmariwi-20
There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!
Mr. Thompkins in Paperback
this is the only reason I understand anything about physics.
thanks for the suggestion. by the way, Amazon offers shortened links from their 'share' link: http://amzn.com/140004684X
possible script material for the Hillary followup:
Dinesh D'Souza: Hillary's America: The secret history of the Democratic Party
Louise Fletcher for the lead.
https://www.amazon.com/Hillarys-America-Secret-History-Democratic/dp/1621573478
here's a book you might try
How good or important was it, compared to something like The Best And The Brightest? The library here explained that it didn't carry many books about the Vietnam War "because that was a long time ago."
Read it before you claim to have an opinion. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/140004684X/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1492301301&amp;sr=8-2&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&amp;keywords=robert+baer&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=51UXOxpDUuL&amp;ref=plSrch
What you're seeing is the right waking up to the political war the left has been playing for decades. There hasn't been any 'working together', it's just been people on the right getting barraged with accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia for every position they hold, intimidated into giving in to the left one compromise at the time. Conservatives would always get on the defensive and fold over to the bullying, so you're right, a lot of the appeal to Trump is that he doesn't fold over, but instead goes right in the throat of the people attacking him. He's bold, unapologetic, and brash. In other words, he's exactly what is needed to stand up to the Alinsky inspired left.
I think the best you can do to understand the new right is to understand Andrew Breitbart.
I recently ran across some adjectives to describe Michele Bachmann:
keeping america stupid
unfit for office
revisionist history
lying sack of crap
delusional
liar
crazy eyes
hypocrite
batcrap crazy
beard
fake christian
crazy as a loon
anti-american politician
teabagger
dominionist
married to homosexual
corndog queen
mental illness
recordholding douchecanoe
guano crazy
dominionism
christianist
record douchcanoe
john wayne gacy
advanced syphletic dementia
derp
conservative
republican
conservatism
But you don't have to take my word for it; these are the Customer-provided Tags for her new book, on Amazon...
Yes her emails. Cry all you want, kicking and screaming to you faux protests or whatever it is you guys think will remove Trump from office, but the email scandal was TERRIBLE from an optics point of view. That fact she managed to (barely) win the Iowa caucuses WHILE having this shit on top of her is super impressive and speaks highly of the only good part of the campaign: data analytics.
Agenda posting used to be fun in here. What the fuck is happening. Also, please, for the love of god educate yourselves. This book is hugely anti Trump and anti Sanders and still manages to paint the campaign for the disaster it was. Your queen isn't perfect, she deserved to lose.
This is nothing. This is a rehash of allegations David Hale made to the press. This doesn't actually implicate the Clintons; there are no findings in this document. Here you go.
https://www.amazon.com/False-Choices-Feminism-Hillary-Clinton/dp/1784784613/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1473953170&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=faux+feminism+clinton
> Is this sarcasm?
No. It's history.
> Fox News wasn't even around 25 years ago.
True. Fox didn't join the effort until 1996. But Hillary has been dogged by constant smears and lies from the right since setting foot on the national stage in 1991.
> The current onslaught of never ending bullshit really didn't get super ramped up until Sept 11 2001.
I have no idea what you are referring to here. But you might want to familiarize yourself with the actual history.
> Hillary sucks, that's why people don't like her.
I'm curious: What exactly do you base this on? The opinions you hear from your brethren on the far-right?
Because you could not be more wrong if you tried.
Sure, conservatives, wingnuts, lunatics, and psychopaths don't like Hillary. But she's been the front-runner to win the presidency since the campaign started in early 2015. She remains the favorite to beat Trump. And she has received more popular votes than Trump and every other candidate in the primaries so far.
> She's a bad politician,
I'll grant you she's not a very good campaigner.
> either a murderer
LOL. I see you've been drinking the wingnut / lunatic Kool Aide. Tasty, isn't it!?
> She laughed about the murder of Gaddafi.
Gaddafi may have had some nice policies, but he was also a brutal butcher, tyrant, despot, and dictator -- an authoritarian strongman. In other words, just the kind of person I would expect a conservative to root for.
> Libya had a higher standard of living than Japan or Brazil, and the highest in all of Africa, what a terrible regime.
What has happened in Libya is tragic, but don't pretend it was a peaceful paradise until Hillary showed up. The country was in an active state of revolution, and Gaddafi was going around the country killing civilians en masse. The US didn't do anything to help, but the disaster was well underway before we intervened to prevent some of the killing by Gaddafi.
> You are either one smoothly sarcastic poster or someone in need of a closer examination of real history.
I know the history far better than you do, my friend.