(Part 2) Top products from r/politics

Jump to the top 20

We found 357 product mentions on r/politics. We ranked the 5,501 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.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/politics:

u/poli_ticks · 1 pointr/politics

> It will send the message that a large portion of the American public want a more extreme version of the corpocracy they already have.

This is probably the key point on which we disagree. I believe you think this as a result of Democratic party propaganda and brainwashing. E.g. "Deregulation=good for Big Business."

The truth is a bit more complex than that:

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL-1SIUOL_w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc9J4JNfLKU

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/adamsmith.txt

In short, I believe the propaganda system has leveraged, hijacked, coopted Free Market rhetoric to sell to the Conservative boo-boosie some very bad hokum. That Free Market policies mean we have to let Big Businesses thrive and rake in profits. Whereas in fact, the original Free Marketeers that we supposedly look to for guidance - Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, David Ricardo - urged Free Market policies in order to pit producers (aka Corporations, in today's world) against each other, in brutal free market competition, reducing their profits to something close to zero.

So the problem here is not so much Free Market ideology per se, which aims for outcomes that even a liberal would not find very objectionable - but corruption. I.e. that a pack of sell-out politicians whored themselves out to Big Businesses and the rich, and used Free Market rhetoric to justify/rationalize what they were doing.

Coincidentally, this is not so different from what the Democratic party does. Only these guys use Socialist critiques of Free Market Capitalism as cover, rationale, justification for intervening in the market and setting up corporate welfare schemes. Again, because they're corrupt scumbags, just like the GOP.

Finally, I think you have to assess the impact of Ron Paul's message from the perspective of the GOP base, which clearly is wired very differently from you, and diagnoses the problems facing us very differently from you. This is the reality of Divide and Rule. I think you're completely unqualified to assess what it is that "the other" hears when they hear Ron Paul speak.

> But one without fetters of a public political arena to hinder it.

Alas, here you're simply on unsound ground, both from a RW or a LW perspective. Here is a LW'er on "public political arena."

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/10/preach-it-peter.html

> You are saying that you want a country that endorses private military forces conducting private wars for private benefit.

Like I said, I think you've fallen victim to "Divide and Rule" - one symptom of which is paranoid fears about what horrors will befall us if "the other" win or get more of what they want (doesn't this remind you of how Christian fundies think about the muslim menace? "They're going to re-establisht the Caliphate and take back Al-Andalus and besiege Vienna!"). This is yet one more example of this. Note that our wars are already for private benefit. And the situation is even better for corporate than if they had to wage wars via private military forces, because right now the cost of those wars are socialized - levied on society as a whole. In short, right now corporate gets all the benefits, without having to bear any of the costs. How profitable would Iraq have been for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, if they had had to pay the $1trillion all by themselves?

> His rhetoric does not mean what you think it means.

Well yes. It means different things to you, and the the red demographic. I'm saying what it means to you doesn't matter. I'm actually not that worried about the Liberal demographic - they can be talked out of imperialism and war relatively easily by someone like Kucinich or Nader. Now, the Red demographic - that's a different matter. Here someone like Ron Paul is a godsend.

So what matters is what the Red demographic hears.

You people don't need to hear Ron Paul. You need more Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Goldman.

> He truly believes that what is good for the super rich is good for all America.

Actually, this is not correct.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread780018/pg1

> I would be interested to know if you think I have made any valid points. Peace and best wishes.

Thank you very much for putting in the time and effort to write this. I very much appreciate the sincerity. Sorry if some of the stuff I say sounds less than diplomatic. I thought this was going to be a rather long response, so I wrote it in a hurry. You have to understand that I started out from a position, an understanding of politics pretty close to where I think you're coming from (i.e. a moderate mainstream liberal), so pretty much all the concerns you have and raise, I had myself, and I had to think long and hard about how so much of the stuff I was hearing from the Paulist camp just didn't jive with the mainstream explanation of politics (e.g. Ron Paul actually does run around worrying publicly about how our system benefits Banks and Big Corporations - rather an odd thing for a libertarian to be saying, no?).

Anyhow, I hope you can overlook the less than diplomatic bits, and hope you find the remaining substantive bits thought-provoking. Peace out.

u/libfascists · 1 pointr/politics

A couple of books that buttress these findings:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0029166500

("Progressive" regulations are a myth. Most such regulations were actually implemented at the behest of big business interests, to reduce destructive (to their profits) competition and to set up de facto cartels)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226243176

(The policy outcomes the political system produces are a result of special interest and business groups investing in the political system)

Why such outcomes:

Most libs focus almost exclusively on campaign financing, donations, and super-PACs. The problem is possibly even worse than that. We have an extremely sophisticated system of bribery, where political favors are rewarded later:

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/

(This focuses exclusively on lobbyists, but there is nothing stopping something similar being done by hiring ex-politicians as consultants, corporate officers, giving them seats on corporate boards. Similar things can be done with advisers and staff members to politicians - see how Robert Rubin and Larry Summers were rewarded by Wall Street after the Clinton admin. And you can hire them first, then have them go back to politics, and back and forth - see Dick Cheney and Halliburton)

As far as campaign donations, super-PACs, etc, are concerned, my own $0.02. Note a billionaire who gives $1m to a party, or a partisan political organization, etc, is going to be rewarded with access, attention, and influence. On the other hand, if you and 30,000 "little people" friends of yours each chip in $100 to give to a campaign or a party, do you know what you will get? Spam.

The whole system is rife, shot through with asymmetries like this. Consider that just by being wealthy and successful, rich people (or their agents, like Summers, Rubin, Greenspan, etc) are rewarded with the presumption that they're experts and specially knowledgeable about their fields. Few stop to consider the way their incentive system is set up, and the systemic consequences of political action to "help" their industry thrive.

So. The study is undoubtedly right. The conclusions are supported not just by empirical observations and data, but also by careful consideration of the nitty-gritty details of how the political system works.

Implications: the real problem people are NOT the voters and the bases of the two parties. They are the rich, and the politicians themselves, who are to a man corrupt. I.e. it is not the Tea Partiers. It is people like Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc, whose incentive structures, after all, are wired EXACTLY like people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner's.

Despite the obvious logic of this, the two parties' bases continue to focus on each other. See e.g. the constant non-stop hate directed at Tea Partiers and conservatives by liberals. This is a product of manipulation by the two parties' propaganda systems - I repeat, if you hate Tea Partiers, and think they're the problem, not that Obama and the Democrats are venal and self-serving just like Republican politicians, and that you got stupidly scammed by Obama and the Democrats, then you're a victim of brainwashing and propaganda.

How this propaganda system works is actually excellently illustrated by r/politics. The constant stream of anti-GOP, anti-conservative, anti-Tea Party posts and articles works like "Two Minute Hate" from 1984. Remember, the best, sophisticated propaganda works not at the knowledge/information level, but at the emotional level - you can see this in how, e.g.corporate advertising has advanced from mainly information based in the late 19th/early 20th century, to more lifestyle/identity/emotional appeal and manipulation today. I repeat, the real problem with the propaganda system is not the torrent of false information being fed to Tea Party rubes (although to be sure, that is harmful and dangerous as well), it is in how your emotions, how you relate to leaders and institutions and organizations like Barack Obama, the Democratic or Republican party, liberal democracy, capitalism, the US government, the United States, the UN, etc, are shaped and manipulated.

Finally, the obvious impossibility of making a politico-economic system like ours work acceptably, democratically, in a way that produces rational responses to changing conditions (rather than corrupt rent-extraction policies to benefit whichever special interest group's turn it is at the trough) suggests that liberalism is not a legitimate, real ideology. Rather just like mainstream conservatism, an artifact of the propaganda system, a series of lies and conditioning designed to constrain people's political behavior within acceptable norms, and to shape, channel their reaction and anger at constantly deteriorating conditions and injustices in a direction that is safe and acceptable to the system, the establishment, and the ruling class.

u/tob_krean · 4 pointsr/politics

You aren't going to change his mind, but for your own peace of mind, here is a start off the top of my head:

> He didn't even know about it...

Then tell him he is literally living under a rock. It is listed in 10,000+ plus articles via Google news at the moment. While it is not likely to receive proper treatment in the conventional media, it has reached critical mass, they can no longer ignore it. And for the people who are there, they can verify that it is people from all walks of life, and now in cities all around the country. This just in as an example of senior protesters

> He says all the protesters don't have jobs because they made poor career choices with their lives.

Ask him to prove this (hint: he can't). Don't let him slide on sweeping generalization. There are people protesting across the spectrum including those who have jobs. They aren't protesting unemployment, but rather greed and corruption. While the unemployed might have more time to occupy, its not simply the unemployed who are there.

Edit: In fact, you can meet some of them in this article

Ask him if people in the Tea Party had jobs. Because while they aren't identical people, both movements have some similar populist origins. Also ask him if he smeared the Tea Party in the same way he is OWS. Because before they were corrupted by corporate interests, while I didn't agree with part of their message, at the time I could applaud their original effort. Look up various populist movements through US history and quiz him on them and draw parallels.

Also ask him why people are allowed or even celebrated in making poor choices when they are rich, but are condemned if they actually don't make bad choices (or even if they are human and make some) but get screwed by the system. Ask him if it is right that the class you are born into is a stronger indicator of upward mobility than education. (I can't find the link right now, but here is one and here is another one that can perhaps point you in the right direction.

> He says they're all to lazy to go find jobs.

Really? Then ask him about the number of places that make HAVING A JOB a REQUIREMENT for getting a job.

Ask him if he understands the law of supply and demand and can understand that The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies and then ask him if he knows something that a majority of economists don't know (because that's what they said in the survey referenced).

Edit: Also this self post looked pretty good regarding addressing that question

> He says they're all socialists looking for entitlements

Ask him if he likes weekends off, an 8-hour workday, minimum wage, or even just not dying while at his job then he can thank a socialist.

Check out the condensed version of The "S" Word and the book

Also for good measure, check out A People's History of The United States to find a lot of things neither he, nor probably you (no offense, just sayin'), would have learned in school.

Even though he may not like it, the current quality of life he enjoys was fought for by progressives, socialists, even anarchists and him denying that fact doesn't make it not true.

> He says they do not represent the 99% but the deadbeat 5% who can't do anything with their lives.

Tell him that both they, and he, whether he likes it or not, ARE part of the 99% percent unless he is tucking away millions that he hasn't told you about because this is what inequity looks like in numbers Also via NPR and this explains a lot in 11 graphs. You can also take a peek at 2012

> Talking to him is like talking to O'Reily...

But remember that there are people who can stand their ground with him, like Jon Stewart, or even Marylin Manson.

If Marylin Manson can do it, so can you. Don't sell yourself short, stand your ground! (I know it makes Thanksgiving and Christmas difficult, but if he is not an idiot, it still can be worth it in the long run).

> OH and he said that I'm messed up in the head cause I go on socialist websites...like Reddit

Ask him to define the word socialist. If he gets it wrong, ask him how his education failed him. Ask him if he thinks most of the other industrialized countries in the world are "socialist" too, and if so why are the leading in many quality of life metrics, health care, and general happiness? Ask him why our life expectancy is shorter or why we are working ourselves to death with other countries being able to have several weeks of vacation with people here who may not take any.

> OH OH and then he and my little brother then come in and say, "Is that gonna be your excuse when you can't find a job?" (I'm a college sophmore.)

Tell him that perhaps someone sold you and your brother a bill of goods
that "working hard" is the key to the American Dream while the banksters are offloading it out the backdoor. Ask him if it is called the American dream because you must be asleep to believe it

Ask him why your education costs 1000's and others abroad may not cost anything at all.

Ask him why teachers are treated as scum in recent sentiments when they agree to concessions but want to preserve their right to assemble and bargain as a group yet CEO's get paid for failure based on a peer system and half the country is lead to believe that the richest group of all are the "victims".

Ask him why foreign companies like Toyota can make products in America, but "Made in America" brands like Ford may be made in Mexico.

Ask him if he knows what NAFTA is and why it was bad (and do your homework to learn more, and surprise him by suggesting that Clinton was wrong to support it -- so he can't say you just cheerlead for one party -- but tell him that both he AND a Republican congress are at fault for screwing up our banking sector by repealing Glass-Stegall under Republican pressure, but at least Clinton at least is man enough to open regret the decision)

Ask him why it is right for people to do all these things, to make inequity on par with the 20's before the stock market crash, yet when people stand up to fight that he has nothing but ridicule.

> Edit: As for what to discuss, can anyone put together a clear and irrefutable counterargument? I'm sick of his condescending attitude.

There is not magic bullet. Even this list here is simply a stream of consciousness off the top of my head. But your best friend is true education and enlightenment. It means not accepting the status quo, not relying on only domestic, conventional sources for news and information. It means digging into history with true historians.

In the long run you may not win the battle, but you will be more prepared to try and win the war, even if its not with him. (P.S. I may add more links later if I have the time.)

Good Luck!

u/WhyYouAreVeryWrong · 1 pointr/politics

> I see where you're coming from, but with Trump now at over 40% in polls against 12 or 13 other candidates, I'd say it's the GOP's loyalties that aren't in line with the party.

I'd agree, but generally, when such situations happen, the party elites generally have more sway than the general public. That's the general thesis of this book. There are tons of situations where the poll-leader ended up losing the nomination.

Basically, the party can act as a biased referee in a sports match. They have a lot of ability to manipulate how decisions are made or adjust schedules or scenarios to essentially penalize candidates they don't like, and donate money to PACs for or against candidates.

That's the reason people like McCain and Romney usually end up winning. They're more appealing to the establishment, for lack of a better term. Trump isn't as appealing because he is unlikely to keep in line for the sake of the party or the benefits of the higher ups in the party.

Trump actually winning would be very unprecedented and the first time really in modern history that such an upset happened. The party clearly wanted Bush or Christie, and Rubio is kind of controversial as a backup as he leans toward Tea Party. Trump might end up happening because party elites seem more focused on stopping Cruz than Trump and can't decide on a candidate.

u/DemNutters · 5 pointsr/politics

> You do realize we're living in the economic fallout of regulations slashed in the name of "small, ineffective government", right?

No, I don't realize that at all.

First of all, you can't talk about "regulations" like that in blanket terms. You have to ask, regulations for whom, and deregulation for whom? It's a little bit like talking about "free markets." It's not quite correct to say our problem is "free markets" run amock. It's actually more like "brutal free market competition for poor and workers, corporate welfare and socialism for corporations (especially big ones) and plutocrats."

I.e., not enough regulations holding big corporations in check? But on the other hand, tons of regulations protecting big business and corporations from competition from little guys.

So, ultimately the question is why is it that the regulations we do have are for the benefit of corporations and the rich? To set up monopolies and cartels for their benefit? Why is that the socialism and welfare we do have is for the benefit of corporations and the rich?

And that, of course, brings us to the question of who actually controls government, and why. And thence to "what exactly is the nature of this government thing, anyhow?"

Edit: also, pretty damn remarkable that liberals think we have small, ineffective government, when it soaks up, what, like 30% of GDP. And ineffective? It's highly effective at the stuff it does want to do. Imperialism, militarism, domestic police/surveillance state, imprisoning young black males, bailing out and enriching Wall Street bankers, etc etc etc.

In fact, there are plenty of data points that point to the conclusion that the government is HUGE, has enormous resources, and is remarkably efficient and effective at the things it wants to do and wants to be effective at.

So again, perhaps the problem here is that you liberals are incapable of getting over that propaganda lie of what the government is and is supposed to be doing, and just taking at face value the reality of what it does, and is. Cause that reality is... not very pleasant.

u/zpedv · 0 pointsr/politics

I've been saying from the beginning that the process, that the party insiders have the opportunity to ultimately control who gets the nomination, is wholly undemocratic. I'm not using it now as an convenient excuse to explain Bernie's loss.

If you want to increase voter turnout, you have to instill some confidence in the American people that their vote actually counts and that they have a say in the outcome.

In the last general election, 25% of the people who didn't vote had said they did not vote because they felt that their vote would not matter. A majority of Democrats said that the 2016 primaries had not been a good way of determining the best-qualified nominees.

If you want the voters to be more enthusiastic when they vote and that you want them to vote Democratic, we need to ensure that the entire election process is more democratic. Primaries included.

ETA:

In March 2016, WaPo wrote that superdelegates have strong incentive to follow public input. But that didn't happen. In several states you would see that some superdelegates would refuse to be bound with their constituents despite the fact Bernie had won a large majority for that state primary or caucus.



State | Result | Margin | HRC supers | Bernie supers | Total supers
---|---|----|----|----|----
Vermont | 86%-14% | 72% | 5 | 5| 10
Alaska | 80%-20% | 60% | 1 | 1 | 4
Washington | 73%-27% | 46% | 11 | 0 | 17
Hawaii | 70%-30% | 40% | 5 | 2 | 9
Democrats Abroad | 69%-31% | 38% | 2.5 | 0.5 | 3
Kansas | 68%-32% | 36% | 4 | 0 | 4
Maine | 64%-36% | 28% | 4 | 1 | 5
Minnesota | 62%-38% | 24% | 12 | 2 | 16
New Hampshire | 60%-38% | 22% | 6 | 1 | 8
Colorado | 59%-41% | 18% | 9 | 0 | 12
Wisconsin | 57%-43% | 14% | 9 | 1 | 10
Wyoming | 56%-44% | 12% | 4 | 0 | 4

Additional reading - The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform

> Throughout the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, politicians and voters alike worried that the outcome might depend on the preferences of unelected superdelegates. This concern threw into relief the prevailing notion that—such unusually competitive cases notwithstanding—people, rather than parties, should and do control presidential nominations. But for the past several decades, The Party Decides shows, unelected insiders in both major parties have effectively selected candidates long before citizens reached the ballot box.

u/prances_w_sheeple · 1 pointr/politics

> It's a big government that has been purchased and is currently being run by big corporations.

The corporate form is relatively recent (4, 5 centuries?) so let's generalize it to "the rich."

The problem is, if you study history, governments have pretty much always been associated with the rich. It is an institution that is either created by, or controlled by the rich, or in cases where the government is imposed by those who control military force, the guys who control it in very short order become "the rich" and use their control of government to make that state of affairs permanent.

As far as corporations are concerned - don't forget how corporations are created. By a State Charter. I.e. corporations are entities created when the government bends the rules and exempts some rich people from liability laws for some of their investment/business activities.

So there is a case to be made that government supporters are ultimately responsible for the problem of corporations.

> Big corporations that Ron Paul wants to further remove regulations from.

How did those corporations get so big? Who controlled the government when it enacted those regulations? So what purpose do those regulations really serve?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176

> Just as thinking the problem is only democrat or only republican caused

I don't think that. The vast majority of you liberals or Democrats think that. That is a big part of the reason why I yell at you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1i6ac5/wounded_soldier_writes_letter_about_being_forced/cb1mwdd?context=3

> thinking Ron Paul the deregulatory is the solution shows that you just aren't paying attention.

Of course he's not "the solution." But his campaign in 2008 and 2012 were probably the best efforts to back, to make things better.

Because corporate/Wall Street scam #1 is imperialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

And a guy who is speaking out against that, in front of Republican audiences, is pure fucking gold.

> Why do you think Ron Paul is the only "crazy" the media allows to have even a small voice?

The media has to maintain the illusion we're a free country with a free media. So they can't simply ignore a movement of a couple million people. It's the same sort of stuff they do with #OWS or anti-war rallies. They can't completely bury it, so they either play down the numbers (i.e. anti-war rallies with hundreds of thousands of people made to look like it was "only" 50 thousand) or portray them like crazy kooks (Ron Paul, #OWS).

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-ron-paul-media-video-2011-8

u/lostadult · -1 pointsr/politics

> I still think she legitimately cares about the country and wanted to make people's lives better.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but I doubt that she actually cares about people. She clearly cares about some things. However, this doesn't mean that she cares about you even in the abstract, because - let's be honest over here - power doesn't work this way. Here's a quick guide on how it works. Enjoy. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

Edit: Those down voting me should really read the book CGP Grey references and the classics as well. All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again;

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845
https://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140444289

u/DinosaurPizza · 17 pointsr/politics

No one has called this out yet? Have you read Nate Silver's reasonings behind Sanders having no chance and Trump maybe having some?

Silver and FiveThirtyEight largely believe that the party decides. Which means ENDORSEMENTS are the biggest indicator of which candidate is the most likely to be the nominee, not poll numbers.

Trump has somewhat of a chance because the Republican party is historically divided. His huge poll numbers have a chance of dazzling the public before the Republican party can get behind a candidate, which will force the party to support him or else they face splitting their base if they refuse to endorse him. This is why you have people like Graham and Pataki dropping out in quick succession because they're doing what's best for the party.

There's a lot going on with Republicans that clears a path for Trump to maybe get it. Meanwhile, Clinton is literally the most supported party candidate in the history of elections on planet Earth. Short of a scandal worse than watergate or her death, her support isn't going anywhere. Not to mention, Silver has already wrote about how it's misguided to compare Sanders to Trump.

And just for kicks, since you seem like the type of person who's going to have some misguided optimism in February when Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, FiveThirtyEight already predicted that Sanders would win those two states and then lose everywhere else.

Maybe you should read what the most accurate statistician actually thinks before criticizing him?

u/stemgang · -1 pointsr/politics

The word democracy connotes mob rule, while the word republic reminds us that the President is not our King. You are right that "representative democracy" is more or less the same as "constitutional republic."

I don't know everything about Venona. My understanding has been that the decoded transcripts revealed extensive penetration of the State Department. The anti-anti-Communists vilified McCarthy for his witch-hunts, but the Venona transcripts vindicated him.

Al Franken, the author of Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot is your hero? Whoa. I would propose Thomas Sowell as a more worthy thinker.

The term "hivemind" is meant to denigrate the unthinking masses here at Reddit who downvote every submission with which they disagree, particularly conservative ideas in /r/politics. I would estimate them at less than 30%, however, which still ranks Reddit as one of the best places for intellectual discussion on the Internet.

As for the Federal Reserve, the government has no legitimate role in controlling monetary policy. The solution is to abolish them and return to a gold standard. Let prices and currencies float. I do not trust in the honesty nor competence of politicians nor central bankers, and neither should you.

u/LettersFromTheSky · 6 pointsr/politics

It is very interesting, two guys (Neil Howe and William Strauss) using their research based on generation cycles correctly predicted in 1997 that some kind of event between 2005 and 2008 would happen that would be the catalyst to fundamentally change America. Low and behold, what happened in 2008? We had a economic crash and a financial crisis. Here is a 35 min video of them on CSPAN from 1997 talking about their generational theory and research:

Neil Howe and William Strauss on The Fourth Turning in 1997 CSpan

The Fourth Turning is the first book they wrote detailing their research. (William Strauss passed away in 2007).

Strauss-Howe Generational Theory

To give you some perspective, the Millennial Generation is what they call a "Hero Generation". The most recent example of a "Hero Generation" is the generation that grew up during the Great Depression and fought in WW2 (which that generation is virtually gone now).

>Hero generations are born after an Awakening, during a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and laissez faire (hmm that sounds kind of like our last 30 years). Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis, emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers, and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening. Their main societal contributions are in the area of community, affluence, and technology. Their best-known historical leaders include Cotton Mather, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John F. Kennedy. These have been vigorous and rational institution builders. In midlife, all have been aggressive advocates of economic prosperity and public optimism, and all have maintained a reputation for civic energy and competence in old age.

If you have any interest in this kind of stuff, I highly recommend reading their book:

The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny(1997)

Neil Howe also published a book in 2000:

Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation

To quote one of the reviews:

>Still, the book is engrossing reading. It was actually recommended to me by a distinguished U.S. Army officer who suggested that the book could give military leaders insights into the wave of young people currently entering the armed services. I believe that many other professionals could also benefit from a critical reading of this book.


The recent research conducted today about the Millennial Generation largely supports Neil Howe and William Strauss generational theory.

Those two guy should be given some kind of recognition for their work.

u/r_a_g_s · 27 pointsr/politics

> I think there must be some sort of primordial fear mechanism that Fox/Roger Ailes know how to exploit.

tl;dr Strong correlation between "being conservative" and "brain that tends to respond more strongly to fear, with bigger fear-handling brain parts [the amygdala]".

  • Mother Jones article from 2013 by Chris Mooney, "The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans"

  • One of the studies referred to in the article

    > What they found is that people who have more fearful disposition also tend to be more politically conservative, and less tolerant of immigrants and people of races different from their own. As [Brown University researcher Rose] McDermott carefully emphasizes, that does not mean that every conservative has a high fear disposition. "It's not that conservative people are more fearful, it's that fearful people are more conservative," as she puts it.

  • The second study referred to in the article

    > Darren Schreiber, a political neuroscientist at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, first performed brain scans on 82 people participating in a risky gambling task, one in which holding out for more money increases your possible rewards, but also your possible losses. Later, cross-referencing the findings with the participants' publicly available political party registration information, Schreiber noticed something astonishing: Republicans, when they took the same gambling risk, were activating a different part of the brain than Democrats.

    > Republicans were using the right amygdala, the center of the brain's threat response system. Democrats, in contrast, were using the insula, involved in internal monitoring of one's feelings. Amazingly, Schreiber and his colleagues write that this test predicted 82.9 percent of the study subjects' political party choices—considerably better, they note, than a simple model that predicts your political party affiliation based on the affiliation of your parents.

  • Chris Mooney's book The Republican Brain

    > There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.

    > Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

    > The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.

  • 2011 Psychology Today article "Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds" that refers to this study which says:

    > We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect difference in self-regulatory conflict monitoring and recognition of emotional faces by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.
u/veringer · 2 pointsr/politics

> a vendetta against us [rural voters] because of Trump

Given the electoral college system and the lopsided weighting of small rural states against larger populous ones, you have to admit there are legitimate grounds for many people to be (at the very least) irked.

If we interpret Trumpism as a "fuck you" from rural America toward the leaders who forgot about them, then I think it will backfire. It's become more clear that Trump is not really looking to maximize public good and broaden the inclusiveness of our economy. That is to say, it's unlikely he's going to address the deeper concerns facing rural America, certainly not as much as he's going to enrich himself and his winning coalition. Selectorate theory is predicated on the concept of a "winning coalition". And Trump's winning coalition was smaller than most--given his tenuous relationships with party leaders, penchant for insularity and nepotism, political hamfistedness, antagonism with the intelligence community, and possible intrigue with unsavory figures like Manafort and Russian oligarchs. From the aforementioned Wikipedia entry:

> When the winning coalition is small, as in autocracies, the leader will tend to use private goods to satisfy the coalition. When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition.

Trump, if he's to remain in power, is going to have to make sure his "essentials" are satisfied/enriched. You can look through his appointments, budget, and policy proposals to read between the lines there. You think naming the CEO of Exxon as the Sec. of State was designed to help you? Probably not. Likewise, cutting or gutting the agriculture department, the EPA, forest service, department of the interior, department of education, etc are all very unlikely to improve rural life or bring jobs back. Climate change denialism seems a pretty bad policy too for rural Americans. Who do you think is going to be hurt the most when water is scarce, fertile areas become deserts, food becomes more expensive, and society destabilizes? You'd be better off supporting taxes on robots, universal basic income and anything but fossil fuels.

Anyway... I'm not even sure the premise of this whole comment is correct (that Trump is a "fuck you" from rural America). A hard shift to the right against globalism seems to be happening across the world. We'll see what happens. I'm certainly not optimistic either way.

In the mean time--since I referenced Selectorate Theory--you may enjoy The Dictator's Handbook as a framework from which to understand political survival in uncertain times. Don't let the title fool you, it talks a lot about democracies and draws many parallels to corporate dynamics as well. It's a very thought provoking set of concepts that I wish more people knew about.

Cheers.

u/GregoryPanic · 13 pointsr/politics

Yes, I do actually, because compromise would be forced as the norm and obstruction would be incredibly difficult. It also breaks up the power within congressional districts, because fewer powerful entities directly affect the voting populace.

It's about restricting the ability of congressional leaders to consolidate power within their districts, and having it come down to money.

Look at it this way, each congressperson current represents about 700,000 people (if i remember correctly). For what is considered a "local representative", that's not very "local". It makes it too easy for monied interests to convince the populace at-large of how this effective stranger thinks about xyz issues.

Break this number down to 150-200k each, and it seems a little more reasonable that community groups could have a real chance at having their voices heard. A union representing 1000 people is suddenly 1% of the vote, if 50% of people vote. That same union is a fraction of a % in a 700k district.

This results in a) more level headed politicians who can actually get to know the entirety of their district and not just rely on the big money havers, and b) better democratic representation.

TL;DR: Increasing the number of reps actually dilutes the power of an individual rep, such that they become more beholden to their voters.

edit: credit where credit is due - this book is amazing and explains in detail why a system that increases the number of reps leads to better representation. But to keep it simple - the first thing dictators do is consolidate power by getting rid of as many "key people" as possible, and when a representative represents 1 million people, the "key people" are people with the money to run ads, not community representatives.

u/Syjefroi · -5 pointsr/politics

Because Trump has virtually zero support from his own party. Because Trump is remarkably unpopular with voters. There's no such headline as "Unpopular man with no allies defeats national party that comes together to support opponent."

There's so much good reporting out there from excellent political scientists and numbers folks, in a calmer world we'd shrug Trump off and go back to looking at the serious candidates.

538 continually puts out good articles:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/beware-a-gop-calendar-front-loaded-with-states-friendly-to-trump-and-cruz/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

And I also like Jonathan Bernstein, who is one of the best: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-07/party-elites-not-voters-will-choose-2016-nominees - who refers to this awesome book as well - http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations/dp/0226112373

Remember, this is a primary. A primary is for a party to choose who will represent them in a presidential campaign. The people who run the party and do the most work in it have the most influence and collectively choose that candidate. Rightfully so, I think. Voters help, so do special interest groups, party-aligned media, etc etc. There are a ton of varied interests all working together and all trying to come together. It's democracy, and it's amazing. And a guy like Trump or Cruz can't just waltz in, be an asshole to everyone, and win.

Imagine going into your office tomorrow. You've been there maybe only a couple of years. Maybe it's your first day. First thing you do is call your bosses idiots, then you heroically pump up your colleagues to follow you, only to side step. You let them take the fall, effectively stabbing them in the back.

After doing this for a while, you announce your plan to run for company CEO.

Who is going to support you?

And yes, Cruz and Trump could win a state or two. Let's say you won a floor of your building, a floor not of peers, but of lower workers. You've gone down there talking shit about the CEO and what you'll do to kick them out. Populist stuff, basically.

Any sane person would say "ok, that's enough of this" and find one person they can throw their entire weight against to beat you.

Seriously, this stuff happens every cycle on both sides, since at least the 80s.

In no world does a candidate make an enemy out of their entire home team and win control over that team.

u/VROF · 49 pointsr/politics

> And then I want to go to Thanksgiving with my suddenly very political very outspoken very Trump supporting family.

Save yourself the headache. After Trump won I was laughed at on Thanksgiving for saying Paul Ryan was promising to end Medicare. I even showed the proof and they changed to "Doesn't matter, the Democrats won't let them do it anyway."

Your relatives are brainwashed and no matter how this shakes out, they will have revised reality to fit their own narrative.

u/jonlucc · 5 pointsr/politics

It's a bit of a mixed bag, if you look at the Politifact tracker. Even so, we're never going to have transparency into the DoD or intelligence operations. There's a book called Legacy of Ashes that points out that the very existence of an intelligence office is counter to an open democracy. That really made it clear to me that we can't actually have everything in the open, and we elect officials to be in those dim rooms seeing what we can't and making decisions in our best interest.

u/mpv81 · 2 pointsr/politics
  • Look through a few political science books

  • Read from a few well respected publications:

    -The Economist

    -Slate

    -The Atlantic

    -Foreign Policy Magazine

    (Just to name a few well rounded publications.)

  • Read an enormous amount of History Books.

    A People's History of the United States By Howard Zinn is a great primer, but I'm sure some people will say that it leans too far to the left. Either way I thought it was great, regardless of your political view.

  • Debate with people. Seek out (constructive) debate with those that disagree with you. Constantly challenge your own ideas and preconceived notions.

  • Rinse and Repeat.

    EDIT:

  • Also, I forgot the most important thing: Constantly study and improve your skills in this subject. Without it, everything else is useless.

u/EnlightenedMind_420 · 1 pointr/politics

I feel the urge to post this link anytime a conversation gets to this point: https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928

You are of course right in everything you say, the only point I have to diverge with you on is I am one of those damned optimists. My rose hued view of it is just as you say, we manage to stage a fair enough election to take back congress this fall, and then yes, the system works as it was always intended to work at that point. We impeach him, and who gives a fuck if he wants to leave or not at that point? He HAS to leave, it is required of him the minute he is impeached, if he refuses he can fully legally be dragged form the White House in shackles at that point.

I guess I just have faith that even Trump's apparently utterly insane base, will at the moment we are about to go over the presipice, wake the fuck up and open their eyes. Keep in mind, we don't need all of the, not even a majority of them (We are already 63% of the adults here and they are 36%)...we are never going to convince the cultists to leave their dear leader. But if we an get even a small number of the remaining sane Trump supporters over to our side, the numbers being to tip too precipitously in our favor at that point I think.

You have to keep in mind, that even though the internet and social media got us into this damn mess, they also serve as an odd safety trip wire against authoritarianism. There is no way to effectively hide reality from a large enough segment of the population when every person in the country has the internet in their pocket. We will be able to keep an eye on things far more closely than any citizenry that dealt with an attempted hostile overthrow of their representative system of government in the past. This give us in my opinion a very unique and profound advantage in all of this. Our resistance is vastly easier to organize and inform than any previous one throughout history...

Basically, despite much evidence to the contrary, I remain optimistic that the people of this country are beginning to awake form their long slumber, and that enough of us will wake up in time to prevent the car going completely over the edge of the cliff...please forgive my mixing of analogies lol, I hope you were able to catch the drift of it at least.

u/parcivale · 1 pointr/politics

But what about the fact that people, the less educated most especially, will be persuaded by propaganda and will often vote against their own interests? There was a book published a few years ago, What's the Matter with Kansas? that shows how the working class in the United States does exactly this over and over and over.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but they would be better off today if they hadn't voted at all and had let the votes of the better educated, (and the better educated people are, the more left-of-centre/progressive their voting patterns are) have more weight as a result.

u/shadmere · 1 pointr/politics

This is a great book about that very subject.

It's not that Republicans are mentally wrong, but they do tend to think differently than liberals in many areas. Many of those differences, while they might be useful in certain situations and contexts, are pretty awful when dealing with a modern, free society.

u/B1gWh17 · 1 pointr/politics

If you want a super interesting read into America's failures at espionage, Legacy of Ashes is a great read. We are decades behind other nations as far as infiltrating successfully and keeping our people alive.

u/[deleted] · -2 pointsr/politics

I've always thought of them as the War Party, although the Business party's an apt description as well. The Big Business party might be even more appropriate.

I would disagree with you, though, about the Dems supporting big business with less vigor. I think both parties are equally adamant about supporting corporations, the Democrats just veil their support of big corporations in populist rhetoric. "Progressive" economic policies, namely the regulation of business, is made to appear to help the little guy when in reality is designed to keep the little guy from competing. Both parties are equally corrupted by big business, they just have slightly different ways of showing it.

u/thecrazy8 · 2 pointsr/politics

I mean you say that but there have been very clear efforts by the leaders of the republican party to stop Trump. Trumps entire candidacy has pretty much debunked the party decides.

u/OB1-knob · 3 pointsr/politics

> most of the (Fox News) viewers are super successful people and smart in business. It’s amazing to watch.

Dude, WTF are you smoking? Don't confuse an exceptionally high viewership among the elderly with "super successful people and smart in business". Elderly people are notoriously fearful of any change and distrustful of minorities, so they like Fox News because it feeds these fears and distrust and tells them they're right and everyone else is wrong.

This is not something "super successful people and smart in business" crave. This is what your racist uncle craves, and just because he grew up in a better economy and has had longer time to save and invest doesn't make him "super successful people and smart in business".

It just makes him old, fearful and bitter with a better retirement account.

You admit though, that your dad really fell under their spell after he had a stroke, so you're saying that in his weakened, debilitated state he found himself more mentally susceptible to the Fox News messaging?

You've proven my point.

To understand, watch The Brainwashing of My Dad, it's free on Amazon Prime.

u/AnastasiaBeaverhosen · 4 pointsr/politics

Theres a very famous book in political circles called 'the party decides.' Basically they analyzed every election before and after and got a feel for who the party wanted to nominate before the primaries and who they actually ended up nominating. They found that the president is always, without exception, picked by the party. So if trump won, that means the establishment didnt throw everything they had at stopping him

https://www.amazon.com/Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations-American/dp/0226112373

u/equal_tea · 11 pointsr/politics

> These ten men were not men of distinction. They were not men of influence. They were not opinion-makers. Nobody ever gave them a free sample of anything on the ground that what they thought of it would increase the sales of the product. Their importance lay in the fact that God—as Lincoln said of the common people—had made so many of them. In a nation of seventy million, they were the sixty-nine million plus. They were the Nazis, the little men to whom, if ever they voiced their own views outside their own circles, bigger men politely pretended to listen without ever asking them to elaborate.

~ Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

u/elvisliveson · 0 pointsr/politics

oh dear not czars! not in a republic! oh god nooooooooo!


on the other hand, it is entirely possible when your house minority leader is a radio talkshow host.

by the way, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot is selling like hotcakes now that Senator Al Franken has further proven it. Get yourself a copy, you might learn something.

u/petri_dish · 2 pointsr/politics

Intelligent critiques of progressivism do exist. Glenn Beck doesn't provide any, though. This is a good book. I don't agree with everything Prof. Watson says, but he does a good job of examining some of the philosophy behind the progressive movement. And despite its dumb title (which I think is a little hyperbolic, though not completely off-base), Jonah Goldberg's book does a decent job as well.

u/BravoTangoFoxObama · 1 pointr/politics

Don't get so butt hurt dude, I am not attempting to smear his character. I am simply pointing out he has made serious mistakes of judgment in the past.

If you are interested, my source is the national book award winning Legacy of Ashes. A very interesting book in which Gates tenure is examined, amongst all directors.

u/CMDR_Fude · 0 pointsr/politics

It's not anti-intellectualism.
If anything politicized labels are anti-intellectualism because they're derived from opinion.
Fascism is a loosely defined term that is often associated with the right wing but it really can characterize governments on both sides of the political spectrum.

If you ask google and the average joe the definition of fascism you'll get
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

If you ask Merriam Webster on the other hand you get

1.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

If you apply websters definition communism/liberalism can be classified as fascism when the criteria is met. Google's definition reserves the term fascism for right wing.

It's interpretation, not anti-intellectualism.

Also, here's a good read:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

u/freemancw · 2 pointsr/politics

Before placing myself in the position of defending child labor practices in the Industrial Revolution, let me take a second to refine my objection.

When I read your post, you were obviously exaggerating for effect (I don't think people are clamoring for deregulation of child labor), but I do think that the situation in the Industrial Revolution wasn't as simple as just having some regulations would have put an end to child labor and simultaneously maintained or raised overall living standards for the working class. It is my view that the claim that all corporations were monopolies who were dominant enough in the market that they had full control over wages and wouldn't have raised them without unions and regulation is overstated.

Secondly I do happen to study history when I find the time, so I can avoid putting my foot in my mouth and so that I can support my views about things. Specifically - most of what I know about Progressive regulation comes from the work of Gabriel Kolko (a self-described leftist and anticapitalist with a PhD from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko), who wrote the book The Triumph of Conservatism. Its central thesis is that regulations of the era were lobbied for by the corporations themselves (to stifle competition). It's not available online anywhere, but here are some reviews (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500).

Until you provide substantive evidence of your own views you can't run around claiming that I'm some ignorant buffoon who doesn't know basic history. Maybe if you show some good material I'll change my mind.

u/tbss153 · -5 pointsr/politics

You speak about this like its some blockbuster revelation, you do understand he wrote a book about this, no?

​

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Comeback-Donald-J/dp/0812929640

​

Trump's story begins when many real estate moguls went belly-up in what he calls the Great Depression of 1990.  Trump reveals how he renegotiated millions of dollars in bank loans and survived the recession, paving the way for a resurgence, during which he built the most successful casino operation in Atlantic City, broke ground on one of the biggest and most lucrative development projects ever undertaken in New York City, and outsmarted one of South America's richest men for rights to the Miss Universe pageant.

u/andybmcc · 2 pointsr/politics

Didn't we already know this from the interviews with Trump and Ivanka as well as the book that he wrote about the recession?

Ivanka being interviewed about Trump in debt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCer9g-fh8o

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Comeback-Donald-J/dp/0812929640

>Six years ago real estate developer Trump (Trump: The Art of the Deal, LJ 2/15/88) was several billion dollars in debt, owing in part, he says, to his complacency and the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Now, thanks to some skillful negotiating, hard work, and luck, he says he is back. Trump's goal for this third book is to provide "inspiration" for almost anyone, and some of his top-ten comeback tips are to play golf, stay focused, be paranoid, get even, and always have a prenuptial agreement. He even includes investment and marital advice he has offered to friends and acquaintances, e.g., "If he doesn't lose the ballbreaker, his career will go nowhere." Trump comes across as smug, crude, and self-impressed, but one remains fascinated with his business acumen. He dislikes shaking hands because it spreads germs and even informs readers to "simply bow" if they ever meet him. Recommended for curiosity seekers.?Bellinda Wise, Nassau Community Coll. Lib., Garden City, N.Y.
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.

This isn't news.

u/bejammin075 · 537 pointsr/politics

Ha ha, sick burn Ann! Ann, did you by chance write the book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, with the following book description:

>Now Ann Coulter, with her unique insight, candor, and sense of humor, makes the definitive case for why we should all join his revolution.

u/Nazicrats · 277 pointsr/politics

Actually, trust me, they're perfectly happy with paid-for Democrats who will push through regulations that set up cartels and monopolies that will ensure more money inevitably finds its way into the Kochs' pockets.

u/eureddit · 13 pointsr/politics

German here. It seems to me like too many people are pinning their hopes on this one investigation.

Too many people are still sure that the system works at some level, even though Trump and his cronies have been busy dismantling it from the inside right since he got into office. They're sure that the institutions will still protect them. They're sure that the population is generally aware of what's going. They're sure that if Trump ever took that final step into authoritarianism, millions would be in the streets.

So I'm just here to say that this process has happened before, and it has happened in many countries, and all of the arguments you're making have been made before - and yet many of these countries fell to totalitarianism.

I'm just gonna leave this quote from a German university professor who was interviewed about what life in Germany was like in 1933-45:

>"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

>"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all."

(source: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45)

u/jeepster4 · 1 pointr/politics

Tomas Frank wrote a book that answers all your questions. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805073396 'What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America' Get it..read it. Now you'll understand how propagandists took over the government.

u/clearskiez · 8 pointsr/politics

I won't give any direct answers because this is something you need to know for yourself, not because someone told you.

So if you want to know how to approach this, first you need to know the history. Read for example A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn to see specific instances how was government behaving in last 500 years. Watch documentaries from John Pilger. Watch Assassination of Russia to see how Putin got into power. Read War is a Racket. I could go on and on; there are hundreds and hundreds of great books and documentaries and unclassified documents which you can get today and check for yourself.

Also I need to point out - don't make a (common) mistake thinking of any government as a single entity. It is made of people, each of them having his own agenda. More proper question then would be, could some people in government have so much power and skill and at the same time be so unscrupulous, that they plan, commit, and get away with committing terrorist (false-flag) acts for their own profits?

u/nimbletine_beverages · 3 pointsr/politics

The criminalization of counter culture and free thinkers is just a happy side effect of the effort to implement a formally colorblind but effective racial caste system.

Seriously, read this book http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030

The opponents of civil rights simply shifted their focus into being "tough on crime." This obsession with so called 'law and order' has been massively successful in its aim, even civil rights democrats embraced it.

u/TotesNottaBot · 3 pointsr/politics

Nothing is True and Everything is Possible which is about Russian society after almost two decades of Putin's rule.

The Warmth of Other Suns and Hillbilly Elegy because, in my opinion, they describe the past in way that informs the present social strife that Trump used to divide and conquer to win the Republican primary and general elections. If the Left is going to have a political answer in 2 and 4yrs for the people who either declined to vote altogether or who voted Trump, we have to understand and have compassion for their plight.

Hell's Angels because of Thompson's pinpointed description of the "politics of revenge". And also his book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 has some parallels to the 2016 election.

It Can't Happen Here is in the same realm as 1984.

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 4 pointsr/politics

9/11 is one of the major things that made it took a turn for the worse.

Experimental psychology has consistently shown existential risk and a culture of fear drives a turn to the right politically.

I highly recommend the book The Republican Brain for the full story, but this article shares the basic point and a podcast with the author of the book is here.

For a good overview of what the differences between the right and the left are which might help you think about why people move to the right in times of uncertainty, I recommend this infographic.

u/almodozo · 1 pointr/politics

In America, that's where .. a fairy recent phenomenon too, but one that seems to be making great strides among libertarians and conservatives .. thanks to Jonah Goldberg for that. :-(

u/justahunk · 1 pointr/politics

Highly recommend "A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America" for an in-depth exploration of this topic. The book goes a bit off the rails occasionally in an attempt to prove its thesis, but overall it's a well-done, eye-opening book about how the Boomers pillaged the wealth created by their parents and left nothing but debt behind for the rest of us.

https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781

u/puffykilled2pac · -1 pointsr/politics

Look, even if I did list them out you would never change your mind. If for some reason you are serious and looking to see all perspectives I would really recommend this book. Also Christopher Hitchen's No One Left to Lie To is a great read if you'd like to know how Hillary treated Bill's victims.

u/diskreet · 1 pointr/politics

>Boomers want their gimmes just like everybody else. They never thought the Con-man in Chief would take them away from them.

FTFY, if the latest book I'm reading is correct that this is all the government normally has to do to keep support; mortgage the future to pay for boomers benefits today.

https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781

u/countyroadxx · 27 pointsr/politics

Another commenter was urging people to watch a movie on Amazon yesterday about Republicans being corrupted by the media consume. Trump is just like most Republicans in real life. He clearly believes the crazy things he sees on right wing platforms.

The movie is really good and explains a lot https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B01C6AFDM6/ref=dv_web_wtls_list_pr_1

u/stevie2pants · 527 pointsr/politics

There's a book called A Generation of Sociopaths that lays out a well supported argument that Baby Boomers carry that attitude more than other generations. Here's a crappy cell phone picture of one of the appendix charts that lists the favorable treatment Boomers have gotten from congress to the detriment of everyone else.

Our generation (I'm an early born millennial) has the environmental and fiscal mess the Boomers heaped on us to clean up, but we can and will do better.

u/thewholebottle · 3 pointsr/politics

Sorry, poor WHITE working classes.

>Trump essentially won by just 80,000 votes in three states, maybe that, along with issues like the opioid epidemic and poor health outcomes, was enough to put him over the top. But the analysis also shows that a bulk of support for Trump — perhaps what made him a contender to begin with — came from beliefs rooted in racism and sexism.

It's important to note that the poor white working class was not integrated--they didn't work alongside poor blacks and Hispanics at the same jobs. They were surrounded by other white people.

https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture/dp/0062300547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522176550&sr=8-1&keywords=hillbilly+elegy

A good read.

I was painting with a broad brush, yes. It's probably better to say that Rosanne Connor is representing a very specific, individual person.

Edit: The three states being Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

u/JonskMusic · 3 pointsr/politics

This is a great article. There are so many people out there who just don't get it and keep repeating lies over and over about the economy being great, wages, etc. Brainwashed by FOX. And it makes sense; the boomers were brought up on TV and they let it brainwash them. They were already sociopaths as a whole, voting to enrich themselves at the expensive of future generations. It's all really upsettings specifically the information in this book:


https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781

u/bikerwalla · 13 pointsr/politics

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book just like that, Liberal Fascism. It said that Hitler was vegetarian and an animal rights supporter, and also the NSDAP has 'Sozialistich' in the name of the party, ergo, the Nazis were pinko commie leftists.

u/d38sj5438dh23 · -1 pointsr/politics

There is actually a really great book about this point, definitely worth a read.

u/Ellistann · 17 pointsr/politics

The Book he based that off of is called The Dictator's Handbook. Its his primary source, and is fantastic.

Been listening to it on my way to work over the last 3 weeks.

Read it, or be like me and listen to it.

u/gizmo78 · 42 pointsr/politics

Why are people pretending like this is a revelation? He literally wrote a book about it in 1997, The Art of the Comeback.

From the publishers description:

> Six years ago real estate developer Trump (Trump: The Art of the Deal, LJ 2/15/88) was several billion dollars in debt, owing in part, he says, to his complacency and the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Now, thanks to some skillful negotiating, hard work, and luck, he says he is back.

u/mofukkinbreadcrumbz · 18 pointsr/politics

That's most of what politics is. The more good you do for the people, the less good you can do for those who control the people and in turn, the less power you have.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

u/ididnotdoitever · 10 pointsr/politics

American History classes are far more focused than World History classes. That and American textbooks are whitewashed in a big way.

Everybody should read this book for a good grasp on what's happening with American History classes indoctrination.

https://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281

u/buyfreemoneynow · 2 pointsr/politics

> It seems to me like we have two 'extreme' personality types in America, one which looks back to the struggles of their parents and grandparents and idealizes it, and one which learns the lessons of those struggles but attempts to apply it to new experiences.

This is refreshing, and came up in a discussion I had recently. The book I was recommended is Hillbilly Elegy about this exact thing. I drove through a few states in New England and most of my drive was through dilapidated and forgotten towns where more than half of the buildings in the town center are boarded up and the main building is a huge church, which is typically their community center. Imagine growing up in a town like that as a member of a family that is a part of the church and a member of a family that hates the church. Imagine growing up either in a house that's close to town and well-kept vs a house that's a little further outside of town with rotted siding and extra appliances and car parts strewn about your lawn.

Also, imagine growing up in a household where your dad beats everyone in your family into submission vs a household where your parents work together to expose you to the arts and other parts of the world. It's all about that early programming.

u/GuruOfReason · 2 pointsr/politics

Very good post. I would recommend that everyone on here read The Fourth Turning.

u/INEEDMILK · 3 pointsr/politics

If you are interested in this topic, I'd highly recommend a book by the name of What's the matter with Kansas, by Thomas Frank.

It details how the various political entities, seeking to dictate economic policy, took steps to keep the "masses" uninformed, and, subsequently, ended up tricking them into voting for individuals that represent the opposite of their best-interests.

u/aspartame_junky · 122 pointsr/politics

They have already tried to establish their own "facts" with Conservapedia.

For example, Conservapedia suggests that the Theory of Relativity is not supported by evidence, and in fact, says "Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false." ... This assertion by Conservapedia is itself just plain false.

Chris Mooney goes into much more depth with this and other examples in his book "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science - and Reality", worth checking out.

EDIT: I just checked out a few entries in Conservapedia. The following are good for a laugh:

Global Warming

Dinosaurs

Mammoth

Counterexamples to an Old Earth




u/Jackmack65 · 26 pointsr/politics

I agree. I think the country's economic strength and global leadership peaked about then, and both the loss of the Vietnam War and the fall of the Shah signaled the beginning of our decline.

My comment was really directed at the decline & fall of the republic in terms of political process. I trace the decline of political process effectiveness to Gingrich, whose scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs partisanship destroyed good-faith governance. If there's one person who broke the American model of government, it's him.

I do sort of wonder if the decline and fall of political systems lags the decline and fall of their respective economies. That might make for an interesting study.

If you've never read Strauss & Howe's The Fourth Turning it's well worthwhile. It's fairly easily picked apart in some of its detail, but is chillingly prophetic in its broader strokes and provides good food for thought.

u/DownWithDuplicity · 1 pointr/politics

I'm pretty sure Russia/U.S.S.R has always eclipsed the U.S. in covert ops. I don't really believe you would be saying such things if you read: https://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500791604&sr=1-1&keywords=tim+weiner

u/Sparkle_Chimp · 6 pointsr/politics

Yeah, pretty much. There's already one book on the subject. It has 50 pages of sources.

u/JamesGold · 0 pointsr/politics

I agree with this. A great pair for general American history is A People's History of the United States and A History of the American People - the former will give you a liberal perspective and the latter a more conservative one.

u/PMTurkeyBacon · -8 pointsr/politics

If you want to truly understand this latest bombshell I highly encourage you to read this book that Trump wrote over 20 years ago about being billions in debt in the 90’s.

Oh... wait

u/whitedawg · 4 pointsr/politics

The thesis of your comment is brilliantly expounded upon in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?

u/droivod · 2 pointsr/politics

There's a great book on the subject called Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot

u/PuddingInferno · 7 pointsr/politics

> I always wondered how did German people allow things to get how they did.

I highly encourage you to read They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45.

It's terrifying.

u/IAmInLoveWithJesus · -5 pointsr/politics

It is somewhat true, read Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism. I found it intriguing, he traces all the stances of Fascism and relates it to the liberal beliefs like abortion and other things.

u/GraphicNovelty · 2 pointsr/politics

Again, the DNC is only one part of the party establishment. It's access to donors, access to policy think tanks, and access to key interest groups etc. The main theroetical text that's cited is the party decides. By their very nature, field-clearing is a secretive process that happens behind closed doors, because making such discussions public is inherently damaging to the legitimacy of the primary process.

A few examples that were made public:

Warren was told by donors not to run

Biden was told by Obama not to run

Wonks: "Clinton has achieved such overwhelming party insider support that the Sanders campaign is largely cut off from access to the kind of para-party policy wonk universe that would allow Sanders to release campaign proposals that pass muster by the traditional rules of the game."

The belief that everyone lined up behind hillary because of admiration adn the idea that a primary was damaging (which isn't empirically true, but remains a talking point anyway) was a polite fiction designed to foster primary unity.

u/Whitey_Bulger · 1 pointr/politics

> Where in the world did you get that?

It's "The Party Decides" analysis - still a major theory in American political science, even if the Republican party seemed to completely fail at it in 2016.

I didn't say blindly, just that party establishment leaders at all levels have a large amount of influence over primary voters, especially when they decide to work together.

u/peppermint-kiss · 5 pointsr/politics

Here's an interview about the theory from 1997, but I really recommend reading the book to understand how the authors' predictions about the course of American political and social life have turned out to be so accurate many decades later.

u/ISeeDemSheeple · 1 pointr/politics

> "industries can be trusted to regulate themselves"

Lol. Kudos to you for keeping at it with someone who is so obviously and blatantly a shithead troll.

I feel like you deserve better than I've been giving you. For being so patient and all.

So: firstly, libertarians are not a unified block as all that. Any more than communists are a unified block who all think alike (there are Marxists, non-Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyites, etc etc).

http://c4ss.org/content/12938

Secondly, on the issue of regulations, the question is not so much what corporations would do if left unregulated - the question is actually much more immediate. It's who controls the government NOW, and what are they using government's regulatory power for. Now and in the past.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500

You should bear in mind, the real difference between liberals like you, and radicals like communists and libertarians isn't one over preferred policies. Radicals don't believe our current system (capitalist + statist) to be workable, at all. I.e. rather than this being some sort of democracy, it's actually a plutocratic kleptocracy/oligarchy, with control maintained with heavy doses of propaganda and emotional manipulation of sheeple. Including disinformation about radical factions like communists, and yes, libertarians.

I shan't defend libertarians further. I'm actually not one myself, or an ideologue of any stripe. I believe that efforts to formulate a "perfect" or even just "right" ideology are futile and doomed to failure. I just think that because libertarians are a small and despised minority, they're powerless and not really the problem. That's more likely you liberals. After all, what has the result of your liberalism been? You guys voted for this, not libertarians.

u/crsy10 · 4 pointsr/politics

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062369288?fp=1&pc_redir=T1

Happy reading. It happened. A lot. If you take away the accusatory narrative and just look at the facts. It's really not that hard to come to the conclusion that she's corrupt as fuck. If ONE instance in that book is true then she's a corrupt politician. But there's an entire book. On true events. Some person, government, company, gives the clintons money, and they get favorable treatment. Obviously there's no way to say that X directly contributed to Y but the sheer amount of times this shit happened speaks for itself.

u/quickhorn · 10 pointsr/politics

Check out The New Jim Crow. Their numbers absolutely do matter. And we absolutely should not be removing the right of citizens to vote based on laws written by those that benefit from removing those citizens right to vote.

u/Devlonir · 0 pointsr/politics

Fun that this is the main story today.. Considering he wrote a book about this time in 1997. https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Comeback-Donald-J/dp/0812929640

u/garyp714 · 3 pointsr/politics

Might help to also explore the incredible repetitive and circular cycles of American politics. Amazing how we repeat ourselves so regularly. A good one I liked from the perspective of the President and how a good one governs with the tenor of the American political lean in mind:

Presidential Leadership in Political Time

I'd also check out:

The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

Despite it getting a bad wrap due to Steve Bannon using it to explain away his idiotic end of time accelerationism bullshit, it's an excellent book towards understanding how frighteningly repetitive we are.

u/WhatTheWhat007 · 1 pointr/politics

I truely hope Tim Weiner (Legacy of Ashes, Enemies) is working on a Comey biography. Or at least an update to Enemies.

u/jjmc123a · 1 pointr/politics

Al Franken thought he was a Big Fat Idiot in 1999. One of his better books I think.

u/YokedHipsterDouche · -1 pointsr/politics

You should read this book, it's pretty enlightening about the origination and fascist history of the left.

u/TheHobbitryInArms · 2 pointsr/politics

Anyone with a brain who had ever read a book about the CIA or NSA would KNOW fucking KNOW that all those communications are monitored. Trump and his idiot know-nothing family deserve everything that happens to them from this point on.

Two books everyone should read.

The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization

[Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA](
https://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495854882&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=leagecy+of+ashes)

We have hung spies in this country before. We should continue that practice.

u/Brokenshatner · 25 pointsr/politics

Very well organized post - covers a lot of sensitive material concisely.

For those interested in understanding the decidedly NOT explicitly-racist motivations of many Trump voters, I recommend J.D. Vance's book Hillbilly Elegy.

I'm currently reading the 7th Harry Potter book with my kids, and we just last night got to the bit where Ron Weasley just can't believe anybody would stand by while the Muggle registry laws were rolled out. At time of writing, the inclusion of this exchanges was clearly meant to evoke good Germans just being glad the trains were running on time, but here we are again. To quote Professor Slughorn, these are mad times we live in.

u/IsayLittleBuddy · 0 pointsr/politics

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change

This seems to be an interesting read. Here's a link that includes a big chunk of the first chapter that includes the thesis of the author, Jonah Goldberg.

u/epiphanot · 7 pointsr/politics

Chris Mooney's The Republican Brain has some interesting things to say related to this. As does John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience.

u/themoleculoman · 1 pointr/politics

https://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478009894&sr=8-1&keywords=legacy+of+ashes

CIA wasn't very happy with how negative the talk of Weiner was and Weiner does seem to misrepresent quite a bit of information, but a lot of the information is true as well. You have to read other books on the events described in the Weiner book to get a more "unbiased" version of events, but Weiner highlights some pretty ridiculous operations the CIA has undertaken (just read it with a critical viewpoint).

u/Circus_Maximus · 2 pointsr/politics

Looks like the book, What's the Matter with Kansas is going to need a second edition.

u/machlangsam · 3 pointsr/politics

Recommend Hillbilly Elegy for insight into this phenomenon.

u/maggiesguy · 2 pointsr/politics

Another great book on the rise of fascism in Germany is They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer. It used to be hard to find, but apparently not anymore. I ended up finding a copy a decade ago at John K. King Used Books in Detroit, which is probably the most incredible used book store in the country.

u/cometparty · 0 pointsr/politics

Actually, the answer is yes, because the left isn't pro-corporation and it's not pro-monopoly. I recommend you read this book.

u/Sektor7g · 1 pointr/politics

Yeah. This comes from a book called The Fourth Turning.

And here is the authors' website- http://www.fourthturning.com/

u/killroy200 · 2 pointsr/politics

This is probably going to sound really weird, but I would y'all check out A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America. Try to get past the title, since the author does their best to make objective statements and observations. They use piles of historical data to work through the medical diagnosis of Sociopathy, and it lines up depressingly well with the Boomer generation. All of that is wrapped up in the context of presenting an evidence of diagnosis to satisfy a trial's 'beyond a reasonable doubt' requirements.

Primarily, though, it lays out a great, data-backed road-map for how we've gotten to where we are as a nation, and everything that's gone wrong on the way here. Tax policy shifts, infrastructure neglect, education failings, political party shifts, climate denial, and on and on and on. You can basically build a manual on how to effectively run a nation by saying "don't do what this generation did", and have the data to back it up.

u/techbuzz · 2 pointsr/politics

This sounds eerily familiar to the recent documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad. It is streaming free with Amazon Prime.

A filmmaker explores the radical change of her once Democratic father to an angry right-wing fanatic after his immersion in talk radio and Fox News. She discovers this to be a powerful phenomenon that has divided families across the nation.

u/Coridimus · 2 pointsr/politics

One thing that really grinds my gears about primary and secondary is the devolved method we have of textbook selection. If you have ever read Lies my Teacher Told Me then you will know what I am talking about. One of the best things that I think can happen for textbooks is for input on their adoption to be utterly removed from the School District and State School Board level. FAR too prone to fallow feel-good flag-waving instead of actual education. History is the most tragic example of this.

u/PantrySniffer · 6 pointsr/politics

Why is that shocking, I mean she wrote this bestseller In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!

u/seejordan3 · 16 pointsr/politics

The Zeitgeist is hyper tuned to Russia, almost to the point of whispers. You can feel it walking around public places. The Coehn/Trump Klan is the wedge and hammer tactic. Plant an idea, make it up, whatever.. then just hammer it on Foxic (rhymes with toxic) News for a few weeks, see if it sticks, then put another wedge in. This is Putin's strategy to split this country. Watch Brainwashing Dad (FREE on Amazon with ads)

u/walesmd · 2 pointsr/politics

For anyone that went looking for where to stream this, it's on Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C6AFDM6/ref=atv_feed_catalog

I don't know these movie websites don't say that or link to it, ever.

u/eadmund · 1 pointr/politics

The article makes the mistake of assuming that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. It is actually a left-wing psychosis, as rather amusingly pointed out in Liberal Fascism, a book which details how it was so-called progressives who supported euthanasia, fascism, state power over the individual and so forth.

u/ValkyrX · 16 pointsr/politics

There is a book on that generation showing how they used their voting power to benefit their own interest by screwing future generations. A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America

u/Tundrasama · 2 pointsr/politics

I've heard that Malkin's book In Defense of Internment is pretty spectacular. This site provided some refutations.
Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg should be a riot too.

u/phillyalpha · 2 pointsr/politics

Has anyone interviewed that right wing apologist, soi-distant polemicist JD Vance?

Huh?

This guy.

u/cannibalking · 15 pointsr/politics

Links to everything that was disproved. 'Cause dis book still in circulation and the documentary adheres completely to the 2015 published copy.

Gotta cite your sources, otherwise I'm not grading your paper.