(Part 3) Top products from r/politics

It's much worse than race-baiting.

I've resisted calling Trump a fascist until now--preferring the terms "authoritarian demagogue," or proto-fascism to describe Trumpism's potential as a movement.

Trump's inaugural address crossed over the line, though. It has strong fascistic themes. The decision to press ahead with such a combative speech in a setting where incoming Presidents have traditionally tended to be conciliatory--notwithstanding Trump's historic unpopularity and need to broaden his appeal--genuinely concerns me.

Fascism is a somewhat elusive concept. But Columbia History Professor Robert Paxton's definition from The Anatomy of Fascism is the best I've come across:

>"A form of political behavior marked by [1] obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and [2] by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which [3] a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, [4] working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, [5] abandons democratic liberties and [6] pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints [7] goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [element numeration added.]

I think Trumpism, as I observed it during the campaign, certainly had [1], [4], [5], with a bit of [2] and [7]. There were tinges of [3] (more from supporters than the top) and [6], but nothing totally clear cut. That's why I think proto-fascist is probably a more apt descriptor.

Prof. Paxton further explains that fascism has several "'mobilizing passions,' mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, [but which] form the emotional lava that set fascism’s foundations:"

>[8] a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

>[9] the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it;

>[10] the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;

>[11] dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

>[12] the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

>[13] the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny;

>[14] the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;

>[15] the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;

>[16] the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle. [Numeration added]

I see many of these mobilizing passions, some of which arguably had been missing from Trumpism, in the Bannon-authored inauguration speech. Here are some relevant excerpts, with my comments [italicized in brackets]:


>We are one nation, and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams, and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

[This rhetoric is just weird and outside the mainstream of American political thought, which tends to value individual rights and liberties, above the "glorious" collective destiny of the nation. We also tend to talk about our country in terms of our Constitutional institutions and our shared beliefs in those institutions. But the Constitution, the Framers, and our Republic didn't come up in this speech. Rather it was focused on one narrow conception of what it means to be an American--a people who, besides destiny, supposedly share "share one heart, one home."]

>[…]

>We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.

>[…] We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.

[Monarchs and autocrats issue decrees. Presidents preside--they oversee and direct agencies to take actions. They specify how existing law will be enforced within their discretion, regulate through power delegated to administrative agencies, petition Congress to appropriate funds or enact new legislation. But they don't legislate by sheer force of will--or at all. That's Congress' prerogative.]

>Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs.

>Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

[This is a pretty clear signal that he intends to reject an open economy, and it's strikingly unusual -- unprecedented really -- for a President to say that]

>[…] At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

[This is the scariest part of the speech. Total allegiance? Who defines what that is, or patriotism is? Why do we need to be totally subservient to the nation to cultivate bonds of loyalty to our fellow citizens? We can do it directly through empathy and tolerance for diversity. We don't need to all be the same to respect each other.]

>[…] We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over.

[Besides echoing the Orange One's Twitter attack on Congressman John Lewis, civil discourse is the essence of free and democratic society. Why would we want to just do things before we understand them and their implications so that we can reach consensus? Act-first-think-later (i.e., triumph of the will over reason) is a hallmark of fascism.]

>Now arrives the hour of action. Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again. […]

>A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms. And we all salute the same great American flag.

[Once again, this is a narrow, militaristic and homogeneous conception of what it means to be American. The idea is, conform and unite, otherwise we will be weak. It's fucking nonsense.]

I'm still in the process of digesting this. But much of it should be anathema not just to progressive liberals, but to principled conservatives and libertarians. What we're seeing here is not normal or acceptable. We need to recognize the peril of the moment we live in--particularly with the Trump regime's attacks on the press, and its willingness to lie blatantly without any hesitation about things (like the crowds) that can be instantly proven false.

> 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.

>Eli Lake can "raises questions" all he wants but All of NIAC'S budget, is about $1.5 million. Less than what AIPAC spends on shoeshines, and if that amount only %20 can be used for lobbying.

That was just one lobby for the pro-Iran side. There were many other special interests that were itching to do business in Iran. There was a lot of money floating around during negotiations.

>Pretending that Israel does not have a pernicious and unbalanced influence on US foreign policy is just being a flat earthen when even the most distinguished mainstream US experts say it does:
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

Pernicious? No I don't think so. It is not surprising a lobby representing Israeli interests is focused on Israeli interests. Unbalanced? Well they certainly are stronger force than many other countries. Here's a list from 2013 showing which 10 countries spent the most lobbying the US.
http://wapo.st/1g4xzvO
As you can see, Israel didn't make the list. Even if you include all of AIPAC's money as Israeli government lobbying, they don't even crack the top 5. There are many foreign governments trying to influence our policy in ways that befit them.

>What other FOREIGN GOVT gets the special treatment given to Osrael? Our congressional and presidential candidates and office holders regularly appear before AIPAC and swear never ending fealty to a foreign govt. We don't do that for the Germans, Poles, Japaneae...just Israel.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVLELDY90-E

I think this is reaching a bit. Israel are our allies. We share lots of tech and intel that have benefited the US greatly. Just take a look at Israeli tech and it will shock you how much has been developed there. They are the only democracy in the Middle East with freedom of press, religion, and speech, meaning we value the same things and many times our interests align.

We require foreign governments to be US friendly or we don't support them. In fact with the amount of regimes and democratically elected governments we have toppled it could not be any more hypocritical to call out other countries for trying to influence us. Further, you could make similar arguments about politicians needing to pledge allegiance to Citigroup or Exxon. Israel is just one of many strong lobbies. They're not pulling the strings and dictating what will happen - they simply try to influence the outcome as best they can. They are no more nefarious or pernicious than any special interest.

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.

Eh.. I don't know about that. I mean, historically that has been the case, but ever since Citizen's United gerrymandering has taken on a whole new form. The republicans have mastered it and are now the king of ratfucking.

You would like this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467733922&sr=8-1&keywords=ratfucked

One of the reviews from amazon below

> - first, they provided funding to state congressional races in order to obtain veto-proof majorities in state legislatures. The republican party very strategically picked republican candidates in key states and provided them with almost unprecedented funding so that their campaigns and advertising budgets would overwhelm their opponents. The plan was spectacularly successful and resulted in republicans taking over large number of seats in a number of important state legislatures.
> - second, following the 2010 census, when the new census results mandated that state districts be re-evaluated, the republican controlled state legislatures used their power to very carefully re-draw the boundaries of enough districts in order to ensure that the voting from those districts would be strongly in favor of any future republican candidates.
> - third, in the following years when states elected their representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, the newly constructed state districts performed as planned and brought significant numbers of new Republican faces to Washington D.C., bringing control of the House solidly into Republican hands.

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?

I posted this in another thread, but going to post it again here since it's relevant.

------

I feel like we should be mailing textbooks/memoirs on fascism/authoritarianism to our representatives...

I thought about organizing a gofundme to send the same book to all Republican representatives (senate and congress) from Amazon, but I think it would be more effective if it was sent from individual constituents in the rep's districts. I personally feel powerless since all my representatives are democrat, but I think it would send a really powerful message if people in red districts sent copies of books directly from Amazon. It would only cost around $10 to do that, and you can include a gift message with your address and why you're sending it.

People smarter than me probably have better suggestions, and could even point out passages that should be highlighted and bookmarked, but here are a few suggestions off the top of my head:

• The Anatomy of Fascism
  
• It Can't Happen Here
  
• Or just go all out and send Inside the Third Reich (though this may come across a tad hyperbolic, even though there are some fair comparisons)
  
  EDIT: Adding 1984 by Orwell to the list for obvious reasons.

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526

>Is the United States a force for democracy? In this classic and unique volume that answers this question, William Blum serves up a forensic overview of U.S. foreign policy spanning sixty years. Remarks from the previous edition: "Far and away the best book on the topic."-Noam Chomsky "A valuable reference for anyone interested in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy."- Choice "I enjoyed it immensely."-Gore Vidal "The single most useful summary of CIA history."-John Stockwell "Each chapter I read makes me more and more angry."-Helen Caldicott "A very useful piece of work, daunting in scope, important."-Thomas Powers, author and Pulitzer Prize--winning journalist "A very valuable book. The research and organization are extremely impressive."-A.J. Langguth, author and former New York Times bureau chief For those who want the details on our most famous -actions (Chile, Cuba, Vietnam, to name a few), and for those who want to learn about our lesser-known efforts (France, China, Bolivia, Brazil, for example), this book provides a window on what our foreign policy goals really are. William Blum is the author of Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower .

EDIT: Here's a surely illegal transcription.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

I recommend you read Warren's 2004 book, The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke before questioning her longstanding commitment to idealistic and rational solutions to a broken system.

Bernie and Liz are both awesome, and both are bringing rational ideas to the mainstream. However, Bernie didn't invent these ideas. Baron Von Bismarck gave Germany Universal Healthcare in 1848. Free college in the US goes back as far as the Land Grants under Lincoln. Reducing money spent on bombs we blow up and instead on infrastructure that lasts 40 years just makes solid sense, and reminds everyone of The New Deal. Making sure greedy actors don't corrupt the free market and act like cartels is an idea from the late 1800s.

They have similar ideas because anyone with intelligence, critical thinking, the ability to read history, and a deep profound care for the future of their society and humanity at-large, will always land on these solutions. I am thankful that we have both of them in our political system, and as part of our society.

Running around telling people they need a math course is the surest sign you're missing the bigger picture. I'll pass on returning your ignorant insults and instead try to help.

Here, educate yourself. And I'd be happy to entertain any info you have that supports the view the Federal Reserve is acts in best interest or the American people rather than in their owners best interest (hint: it's not owned by us or the USA)

Warren Buffet's "Squanderville"

Republican Congressman Ron Paul's book. "End The Fed" tell him he needs a math course.

And a litany of documentaries on the the history, unconstitutionality, and shady dealings of the Federal Reserve. Just go to Google video and type in "Federal Reserve"

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.

>No, what I'm saying is the means are totally justified, and the ends will be what they are.

Wow. This is some truly terrifying, Nazi level rhetoric.

>I think Donald Trump is in hock to the Russians.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

>After what Trump did in the 1990s, no American bank wanted to work with him and he had to go to Russia to get cash.

You mean while he was a democrat?

>If he's capable of separating that from his duties as Commander in Chief, god bless him

He literally just outlined out his plans for doing this.

>And, frankly, his views on Russia are extreme in the American political landscape, so my expectations for him in the investigations aren't so high right now.

Oh, so now the democrats are the hawks? Interesting.

> I care far more about good results than I do about good process.

Glad to hear you are for stop and frisk! Worked in NY!

>Hasn't always been that way, but then I got into international business at the executive management level, and I got a family. In short, I grew up.

Please. You're middle management material...

>This is me being a patriot and wanting to make sure that my government isn't, in fact, a puppet to a foreign power.

Ever stop to think that YOUR reaction is actually the one the Russians want to invoke?

Go read a book from one of the foremost experts on the subject - the highest ranking Soviet Intelligence Officer ever to defect to the US:

https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-ebook/dp/B00D99V2RY

A patriot, you are not. Soldiers who defend the president/country, regardless of political persuasion are patriots. Are you nothing close to the person you imagine yourself to be.

Besides, Clinton is already in Russia's pocket. The UraniumOne deal proved that.

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296

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.

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.

I cringe every time I say this because, being married and gay myself, the author has some fairly horrific social beliefs on equality for people like me. If you read his other writings (he's prolific) please do not attribute them to me or think I support them in any way. The guy would be perfectly happy to rip my family apart and have us enjoy limited protections under the law.

That said, I believe in being impartial and judging people by the quality of their work. Professionally, he wrote what is simply the best introductory topic for the layperson who wants a real-world understanding of the fundamental laws of economics and how they influence day-to-day life. It's called Basic Economics by economist Thomas Sowell. It is the book I gave members of my own family when they reached adulthood and took an interest in what I do.

Read it. It will be one of the few things that can pay dividends for the rest of your life. You'll end up with at least a freshman or sophomore level understanding of college economics in terms of the big ideas; the things that matter. Just as importantly, you'll know enough to be able to research topics that interest you further and that seem counterintuitive (e.g., understanding why economists hate rent control because it always leads to worse housing conditions and out-of-control housing costs for the poor and working class due to manipulation in the supply/demand curve.). It's far easier to get through than a textbook and will give you a lot to consider.

As for tax policy, not off the top of my head. I think the big thing is to get the fundamental economic ideas right because then you can at least understand how your stated goals relate to tax policy which involve, to some degree, moral decisions about fairness. When you get into tax policy, it's more about numbers; learning to analyze the data yourself to decide whether you are being manipulated.

What role does the Federal Reserve play? This is the level of "investigation" you need? LOL!

Here, pick up a book:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193

I'm not about to waste my time trying to explain everything from interest rate price fixing to inflation for you, and the impact all this has on making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The Democratic Party hasn't been liberal for 35 years. It is astounding that liberals still believe the DNC represents them.

Thomas Frank explains it way better than I can, and it is worth a read or listen:
Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391

You can start by finding out who your representatives are here.

Learn about what each office does and what they are responsible for.

What issues are you most concerned with? Taxes? Healthcare? Unemployment? etc. How has your represented responded to these issues (i.e. voting record)?

If you're a student in university, it may be helpful to take an intro political science class. If not, hopefully, some redditors can suggest some good reading for you.

Some websites or news programs that I find helpful in getting some info are NPR, BBC Worldnews, Al-Jazeera and Euronews. I'm not a fan of local news programming. I read a lot online for the local stuff.

You may enjoy The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report. They're comedy shows but they tend to show the absurdities of it all. You can a learn a lot too. Sometimes, I enjoy the roundtable discussions on Real Time with Bill Maher. I've gone as far as to purchase some books based on the discussions they've had.

I can't recommend books for "getting to know politics" per se, but a few in my collection include that I found informative:

The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria


The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein


Ghost Wars by Steve Coll


The Boys on the Bus by Timothy Crouse


Politics of the Veil by Joan Wallach Scott


Voices of Freedom vol. 1 & 2 by Eric Foner


Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken




The Parliament of Man by Paul Kennedy

I found them enlightening and some gave me a clearer look at the workings of government and politics in America. Some stuff you have to take with a grain of salt. Checking the references from anything you read is helpful imo. Hope this helps a little.

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

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.

cool. Thanks for acknowledging my point and stating your disagreement in a diplomatic way. I think we are getting to a real discourse here.

My first disagreement with your statement is I don't think fighting republicans and making democrats better is either or first or second type of situation. In fact, considering how the democrats are always chasing the republicans rightward often losing big in election seasons, I think that making the democratic party a stronger one that better represents and inspires its people will stop the rightward shift of both parties.

Because policy polling shows the democratic platform is way more popular than the republican one and actually on most polices, the majority of American's are left of the democratic party but the constant losing of ground on policy, the appearance of elitism and corruption, the focus on identity politics which doesn't resonate compared to economic issues, and the fact that economically the middle and working classes have been devastated by republicans AND Democrats are some of the reasons why Democrats keep losing. That and the Democrats constant shift rightward, because when voters are presented with the options of republican and republican light, they'll go with the real thing.

I do agree the republicans are worse and we should fight and obstruct their agenda I also don't think investing energy in trying to change the republicans is the most prudent strategy.

There is a cogent argument made by Thomas Frank in his book Listen Liberal that the democratic party abandoning the working class in favor of the professional class is what led to them losing the majority of legislatures over the last 40 some years. So the way I see it, if the democratic party can take on the role of being the party of the people again, in a meaningful not rhetorical, way they will win seats and if the republicans want to stand a chance as a party they'll have to follow the democrats lead.

Also, [Why Not Me?: The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency] (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Me-Unmaking-Presidency/dp/0385334540) is an amazing book. It's written like an epistolary novel: fake campaign bios, news reports, diary entries, Bob Woodward exposes, transcripts. It's an incredibly well done and funny book. Definitely check out the Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot Book and Lying Liars is brilliant is well. While you're at it check out some videos on YouTube of him as the comedian for a couple of Correspondents Dinners during Bill Clinton's presidency.

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.

It's a pretty large subject, roughly split into two parts: microeconomics (looking at the market for a single type of product, important for running a business) and macroeconomics (looking at the entire economy as a whole, important for analyzing things like taxes, government spending, imports/exports, outsourcing, etc). For voting you mainly want to learn macro, but it depends on core concepts from micro ("supply and demand" is the phrase you will hear many times, and it's important to learn exactly what these are). I'd recommend Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell. This book is often used in university economics courses for non-majors (the main difference being that economics majors have to do a lot of math that most of us don't need if we just want to understand the concepts).

I strongly suggest Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, Peter Pomerantsev's exploration of his time as a television producer in Russia.

They've lived under dictatorships and tsars for over a century. Every single Big Promise for the last hundred years or more has gone to the same conclusion, every power vacuum was filled quickly by worse, or at best the same as before. Organized crime is referred to as 'authority'. When the only organization of any kind was criminal, they became the de facto pseudo-government.

This has affected the culture deeply. There's a special kind of permeating philosophy in the day to day mindset, in their relationship to truth, power and certainty.

It's fascinating.

Edit: Ok, thanks for taking my Gold Virginity, random stranger :)

More links: Red Notice by the recently headlined Bill Browder, on the Magnitsky Act and its gruesome origins. I haven't, but I will read this soon.

Bill Browder's lecture on How he became Putin's No.1 Enemy. Basically a longer version of his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary.

Putin's Kleptocracy, a promising but so far a bit dry look into how Putin steals everything.

Do you honestly believe that if a billionaire makes a dollar, that it somehow prevents you from making a dollar as well? Do you think that there is legitimately a finite amount of money in this world? Do you think that billionaires actually have a scrooge mcduck vault full of all their billions? Cause if you've answered yes to any of this I recommend you read this book :

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529

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. :-(

It's all part of the plan. This isn't coincidence, and this isn't an isolated event special to Wisconsin.

Get your hands on the book Ratf**ked.

It's quite the eye opener into how the Republican party plotted and pulled off a plan to take over the country, and they pulled it off without a hitch.

Voter suppression, gerrymandering on a level never seen before, and much more was done between 2010 and 2016 to ensure Republicans took control of everything they could. It's going to have ripple effects down the line for decades.

The best book, on the topic, hands down: Origins of Totalitarianism. Not for the weak in mind, though. There is also this: The Anatomy of Fascism. Books are cool.

Here is his new one , another home run imo

[Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?]
(https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)

>From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics -- a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?

>It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.

>But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

Yes, Ratfucked summarizes the story pretty well

[Amazon link] (https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497177188&sr=8-1&keywords=ratfucked)

I mentioned this in a previous thread about Browder's testimony, but if you have a chance, read his book Red Notice. Browder goes into detail about his investments into Russia (becoming the largest foreign investor in Russia) and the rise of Putin's corruption within the Russian government. He was the crusader who got the Magnitsky Act passed, as Magnitsky was Browder's lawyer who discovered a lot of the corruption and the trail that led to the oligarchs and Putin. It really does read like a thriller.

>The problem is, the "market" doesn't do a good job deciding what people should earn.

I wouldn't agree with that statement. Probably the only time the "market" doesn't have a say in determining wages is in the case of executives who essentially determine their own pay. That's what comes to mind (I'm assuming) for most people when they think of "overpaid" workers. Point being, in that case, the market doesn't directly decide the pay of those who have the most exorbitant salaries. It's not a failure of the market. If anything, it's the lack of competition present due to government intervention...

>My point is this: If the country locked down wages in a tiered system, the market would still have to be based on demand

If the country is locking down wages, it's not allowing the market (including demand) to work as it should. It will cause a lot of problems. Examples of potential problems would be massive shortages of labor in some places and large surpluses (read: unemployment) in other areas. It would hurt local businesses in some areas and benefit them in other areas. The list could go on, but I think the point has been made.

>And if the workers' location was a non-issue, ALL states could develop really healthy and lucrative job markets.

It's not the workers' location that matters as much as the economic environment that they live in. Arguably the healthiest economy in the US today is found in North Dakota (3.8% unemployment and $1 billion budget surplus), which is about as far from Wall Street and the Silicon Valley as you can get.

Just wondering, how much exposure to economics do you have? A lot of the topics you're addressing have already been addressed by economists. If you're interested in seeing their take on things, I would recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, as a general introduction to the subject. Given what you've expressed thus far, I'm sure you'd enjoy seeing what he has to say.

Chalmers Johnson wrote several good books on this subject.

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire

The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic

Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope

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

After a quick google search I managed to track the book. It was written by a decorated General and has received quite a few avid reviews.

Again, though, I stand by my claim on the site. I'll do some more googling to find out whether his claims are backed up by secondary sources though, but I do believe in his honesty.

I can't tell if this a bot response, or someone throwing their hands up in the air before even making an effort to have a discussion. If I'm not worth the time that's fine, but I do recommend that book. Here's a link. There are also plenty of interviews on Youtube where the author talks about details from the book. I promise it's all more worthwhile than talking to random dudes online for fake internet points.

Read Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine. It explains these tactics perfectly. If you want to change a society's behavior, you create a false crisis and scare the shit out of people so they will accept something - anything - stable as soon as possible.

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.

I'm gunna buy it. I need other book suggestions to make it $25 for free shipping.

Here are some of my suggestions to others:

>The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual (Paperback)
>by John A. Nagl
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226841510

>Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam (Paperback)
>by John A. Nagl
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226567702

>War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier (Paperback)
>by Smedley D. Butler
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0922915865

>Cultivating Exceptional Cannabis: An Expert Breeder Shares His Secrets (Marijuana Tips Series) (Paperback)
>by DJ Short
>http://www.amazon.com/Cultivating-Exceptional-Cannabis-Breeder-Marijuana/dp/0932551599

Maybe 20 countries at that time were trying to tailor socialism to their unique needs. It's called self determination. Kissinger went all out to knock everyone of them out by any means necessary including assassinating their leaders. Catholic priests and nuns were marching along side villagers to help locals retain rights to their own resources all over the Americas. http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458068896&sr=1-2&keywords=killing+hope+u.s.+military+and+cia+interventions+since+world+war+ii+by+william+blum

>1. The Democratic party, for some insane reason, followed the Republican party to the right. I dunno what the strategy behind that was, but if they had not, they would likely have control of most State governments + Congress.


Read or listen to Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank

The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Amazon)

The Fellowship (Wikipedia)

The Family’s Ugandan Project (Harper's)

The article and especially the headline were quite inflammatory. But the larger point should not be taboo. Pro-Israel forces which are largely Jewish have an overwhelming influence on our foreign policy. The Iraq War would not have happened if not for that influence.

A fantastic book on the subject is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by two of the country's top international relations experts John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Here's a fantastic lecture and Q&A on the subject which they did at Harvard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXS3tmZrcU

They are very worth the time. I read Blowback and Dismantling the Empire. I have a couple of other of his books on the to-read list. Start now, trust me.

I would also recommend William Blum's Killing Hope and Rogue State, as well as Chalmers Johnson's trilogy on empire, Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis.

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

Democracy in Chains is a great book that talks about the Koch network. link

It's easy to call that period peaceful from the comfort of an armchair somewhere in the USA. The problem is that the civilians of many countries experienced much upheval. Mostly the fault of the CIA and American imperialism.

Probably worth a read : https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1497851226&sr=1-1&keywords=killing+hope

If its too long, try wikipedia for just regime changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

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.

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.

Just a nitpick - "Dr" Lawrence Britt doesn't really exist. This is a chain email that was popularized during the Bush administration. Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism is a much better definition.

Anyway, yes, he's a fascist, fascism is inherently populist.

Eli Lake can "raises questions" all he wants but All of NIAC'S budget, is about $1.5 million. Less than what AIPAC spends on shoeshines, and if that amount only %20 can be used for lobbying.

Pretending that Israel does not have a pernicious and unbalanced influence on US foreign policy is just being a flat earthen when even the most distinguished mainstream US experts say it does:
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

What other FOREIGN GOVT gets the special treatment given to Osrael? Our congressional and presidential candidates and office holders regularly appear before AIPAC and swear never ending fealty to a foreign govt. We don't do that for the Germans, Poles, Japaneae...just Israel.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVLELDY90-E

Pat McCrory was a pretty decent Republican mayor in Charlotte as a counter balance to the Dem controlled city council & county board of commissioners. He was likable and worked across the aisle to get things done. When he won the governorship the N.C. legislature had a supermajority due to gerrymandered districts and had been drunk with power. McCory was ill prepared. Art Pope, a long-time right-wing operative, became his chief of staff like Cheney was to Bush. McCrory went along with Art Pope's reckless ideas and never pushed back to the wacko republican legislature and lost his soul.

Charlotte Observer columnist Mark Washburn nets out McCrory's astonishing record. Eleven nice words to describe the reign of Gov. McCrory

North Carolina is a purple state suffering from gerrymandered districts that followed the 2010 census as are these states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Here a good book on subject:
Rat F*cked

> 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.

This isn't unique to Bannon btw. Of course it extends to the aids he's elevated from Stephen Miller to Sara Hahn.

But it's much bigger than Bannon. Pence, Sessions, Conway, Betsy Devos, and others have all evinced key elements of this ethnonationalist, Christian Dominionist, Clash of Civs ideology.

One center of this group in politics is organized by the CNP, which has included Conway and Bannon in the past. However, it's extremely secretive.

>The CNP is not controversial so much for the conservatives who dominate it — activists of the religious right and the so-called “culture wars,” along with a smattering of wealthy financiers, Congressional operatives, right-wing consultants and Tea Party operatives — as for the many real extremists who are included.

>They include people like Michael Peroutka, a neo-Confederate who for years was on the board of the white supremacist League of the South; Jerome Corsi, a strident Obama “birther” and the propagandist hit man responsible for the “Swift boating” of John Kerry; Joseph Farah, who runs the wildly conspiracist “news” operation known as WorldNetDaily; Mat Staver, the Liberty Counsel leader who has worked to re-criminalize gay sex; Philip Zodhaites, another anti-gay activist who is charged with helping a self-described former lesbian who kidnapped her daughter from her former partner and fled the country; and a large number of other similar characters.

>As the SPLC noted when it published the 2014 directory in May of this year, the CNP has every right to keep its membership secret. But, as the SPLC wrote then, “it also provides an important venue in which relatively mainstream conservatives meet and very possibly are influenced by real extremists, people who regularly defame LGBT people with utter falsehoods, describe Latino immigrants as a dangerous group of rapists and disease-carriers, engage in the kind of wild-eyed conspiracy theorizing for which the John Birch Society is famous, and even suggest that certain people should be stoned to death in line with Old Testament law.”

If you're interested in reading more about this strain of politics in the US gov, you can also check out The Family by Jeff Sharlet.

They have indeed. This book lays out exactly how they did it too. Here's a hint: it wasn't because they had better candidates. They simply saw an opportunity to redraw all the maps... and took it.

Pretty evil stuff if you ask me.

I'll give you one quick example of why I support Ron Paul, and particularly, his move to End the Fed.

I was recently reading about the release of Ronnie Biggs, who was involved in "the great train robbery". When I saw this line, in the article...

> The (1963) robbery netted 2.6 million pounds – worth more than $50 million today.

In 1963, it took approx. $3 to buy 1 British Pound (pdf). So they stole $7.8 million 1963 dollars, and due to inflation (from our friends at the fed), that's $50 million in today's dollars.

With a bit of math, that means that today's dollar, is worth 15.6 cents of 1963 money.

So... the Brits are going crazy over a guy who stole less than $8 million dollars, but in my lifetime (born in 1964), the Fed has stolen 85 cents worth of every dollar in the country.

Lovely, ain't it? It's all a matter of perspective.

ps: Yes, I did read Atlas Shrugged, and started reading Lew Rockwell's blog not long after - both of which happened before the conversion was complete.

I still hate Reagan, and both Bush's (I despise Jr.), but I've begun to at least believe in some of the things that Reagan stood for - if only he had actually practiced them.

This book explains why Obama won't end the wars.

Get ready for the invasion of Libya to protect the children there.

Actual Conservative here. You seem to know nothing of our ideas other than strawmen put forth from lefist echo chambers (like this very sub).

Here is a good start for you if you actually want to have a basic understanding.

I read Why Not Me?: The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency as a child. I read it on a long road trip.

Funny stuff - well, for a kid at least.

I believe he ran on a platform of "No ATM Fees"

She already did stuff - its well documented. In fact, there is a book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296

Liberals don't care about it.

Why would I care about a Trump surrogate trying to make money?

The biggest threat facing our country is globalism and that is why Trump literally saved our country.

And you have zero evidence to back up your claim, yet an entire book has been authored supporting the position that U.S. military action fuels terrorism.

There's also a good book

https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies-Republican/dp/1982103124

Franken wrote a hilarious book about running for president before the 2000 campaign. It's in the format of a campaign diary.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Me-Unmaking-Presidency/dp/0385334540

The George Mason economics department and law school is deeply rooted in the Koch political machine, anyone interested in its history and outsized influence on our government for the last several decades should read Democracy in Chains.

You might be interested in Robert Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism."

Yes, it does. Somebody even wrote a book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies-Republican/dp/1982103124

They didn't underestimate his support, they tried to co-opt the nazi movement.

There's a fantastic book called the anatomy of fascism that goes into detail on this and talks about exactly what is required for actual fascists to come into power:

https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918

Way to plagiarize and spin Naomi Wolf's recent book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, into a right-wing screed.

What is both sad and laughable about this is that the basic premise may be sometimes true--that governments use crises (imaginary, real, or real but inflated) to motivate their citizens to support their policies--but attempts to suggest, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is only those on the political left that use this "road map."

EDIT: Adding a link to Wolf's book on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

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

He literally already wrote the book on becoming president and he came up with the perfect slogan decades ago. There is literally no reason for him not to run.

> You need to understand math before discussing economics or you might as well be discussing religion or philosophy.

Counterpoint: Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell. Very informative and insightful. Not Austrian. No math.

Sure do. There's even a book you can read on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-O-Paxton/dp/1400033918/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495981371&sr=8-1&keywords=the+anatomy+of+fascism

But that's the thing - people didn't think they were voting against their interests. Trump promised jobs. He promised action. He promised to shake things up. He reached out to a segment of the population that has felt left out, and told them that what they've been through is horrible, and he can make it better. And he gave them a boogeyman in the news and "PC Culture".

I think you'd be surprised at how much of the country still is OK with racism. Still believes in white supremacy. They may not state that they are racist, but their policies and behaviors show they are.

Also, don't underestimate what happened the last couple of weeks of the election. Those letters, and subsequent gobbling up by the media is likely what pushed all of this over the edge.

Finally, read this book which goes into the strategy the GOP used to Gerrymander districts which made this no field day.

>She already did stuff - its well documented. In fact, there is a book about it.
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
>
>Liberals don't care about it.

Because it's plain and simply put not true. There's not a good damn thing about any of those claims that has been verified. At all.

>The biggest threat facing our country is globalism and that is why Trump literally saved our country.

Globalism is what made America rich.

You don't honestly think we did this by ourselves, do you?

The author of this book
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Notice-Finance-Murder-Justice/dp/1476755744
Was on NPR discussing the Magnitsky act and stated it was the most important sanction that Putin wanted lifted. Haven't had time to go down the rabbit hole, just putting this out there

Man, whoever amongst us hasn't already read her book "Democracy in Chains" is comically missing the point of most of what the GOP is doing. They're not seeing the situation as the chess board that the Koch organization sees it to be.

​

Too many of us bemoan the individual moves of various republicans in state and federal office, but it's mostly part of a vast, coordinated effort to literally rewrite our Constitution to permanently prevent the will of the people from having any power over private-sector commercial interests.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980966

​

r/KochWatch

Thanks so much. I've been racking my brain for that term of weeks now. I read about the trend in I think Harpers when I was on vacation awhile back and promptly forgot the term but held on to the concept. Whew.

Reference

Also

Read Dark Money & Democracy in Chains. The capitalist class within the USA has been actively attempt to take control of the government and reshape it to benefit them. Trump is just stupid enough to make it obvious what he is doing.

There is literally evidence a simple google search away, but I guess it's easier to sit there with your fingers in your ears and going la la la.

Selling tainted blood

Uranium One was Clinton turning over control of most of USA uranium deposits to the Russians. It's akin to Obama selling control of our ports to the Chinese. While not illegal, it's a bit fucked.

Haiti Under Clinton: $1,300,000,000 in aid. 0.6% went to Haitian Organizations. 9.6% to the government. During this time Hilary's brother tried to open a gold mine using funds from The Clinton Foundation. Instead of rebuilding, they spent millions on a fee based system where you can use cell phone credits to pay for goods.

Would you like to know more?

There's no end to their corruption.

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.

THAT IS MYTH TAHT KEEPS GETTING PASSED AROUND

PLEASE RE-READ THIS BOOK AND STOP SPREADING AROUND FALSIES

THE TWO INCOME TRAP

THIS WOMAN HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME RESEARCHING THIS. IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE 'BUY MORE CRAP'

THE AMOUNT WE SPEND ON 'CRAP' HAS ACTUALLY LOWERED (PERCENTAGE WISE OF INCOME). ELECTRONICS AND OTHER 'CRAP' HAS BECOME CHEAPER SO WE CAN BUY MORE OF IT

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS INCOME IS GOING TO HOUSING, FOOD, HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT. ALL OF THESE HAVE RISEN. GO LOOK AT THAT GRAPH POSTED ON REDDIT AWHILE BACK AND STOP SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

But that was not all. Oh no, that was not all.

Read William Blum’s Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. It’s comprehensive.

Funny, reading about this exact same situation that happened in Chile and Argentina, The Shock Doctrine

What's the matter with Kansas?

You may find Democracy in Chains to be even more informative, if depressing.

Here

They truly are scum. And I say that as someone who used to be Republican.

I bring you the banal collection of The Family. Complete with Jesus+ nothing (not even your life)

Has anyone read The Family by Jeff Sharlet

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

The Family

...the family..."

As in... The Family?

Book about Prayer Breakfast.

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296/

Here's one to start with Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

Here is where all of the "proof" comes from

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296

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

Like Israel
?

Secretly? I assume this is just one big work if antisemitism?

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

And there's Kindle edition!

Why not him

I don't know. It didn't really work out for him the last time he ran

Case in point.

Liberal Fascism

...or "national socialism"

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

You should read End the Fed.

Start with this: Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

> Warren only recently has been saying the things she does

Here's her book from 2004 explaining all the issues with our economy before almost anyone else (Bernie excluded) had caught on.

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907

also:

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907

She, along with her daughter, wrote a whole book tackling this subject: The Two-Income Trap

<http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805073396>

War is a racket.

How about Red Notice, since that's the book Browder already wrote on the subject... https://www.amazon.com/Red-Notice-Finance-Murder-Justice/dp/1476755744

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526

Dig in.

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

Read this book and it will make sense

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

This book is entirely about Gerrymandering and is something every American should read.

See the book "Ratfucked" by David Daley, where he lays out exactly how it was done.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ratf-ked-david-daley/1123515748

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483937743&sr=8-1&keywords=Ratfucked

Everything Trump Touches Dies.

Everything Trump Touches Dies

https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies-Republican/dp/1982103124

Book on the subject Everything Trump Touches Dies

Everything Trump touches dies.

Everything Trump Touches Dies

https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies-Republican/dp/1982103124

Everything Trump Touches Dies.

© Rick Wilson

Here's a good book to start with.

Edit: The only thing people can say is "hur dur right wing" because facts and morals do not matter to these scumbags.

as was your comment.

Libya, Aghanistan, Iraq.. and 50 or so other occupations and regime changes brought by the US have little or nothing at all to do with defending the US. Funding those excursions is not defense spending, it's spending on military. There is a difference. Read what one of the most decorated generals in the US had to say about our military spending: War is a racket

More manufactured crisis to justify closed door meetings to ram through unpopular legislation.

Naomi Klein wrote a great book about it.

You should link to Bill Browder's book Red Notice. It puts this whole collusion thing into perspective - and it was published in 2015 before Trump was even a serious candidate.

I'm sure Senator Elizabeth Warren didn't agree with him considering her book The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke

Saying that Warren doesn't see class is funny considering she wrote the book on the changing face of working-class and middle-class household finances.

I won't deny that Bernie is to Warren's left because he's an actual socialist (something Bernie supporters will openly celebrate now in the primaries, just as they will furiously deny it if he makes it to a general election) but saying that non-socialist candidates don't acknowledge economic class is ridiculous.

Or maybe they don't. The fact that the GOP fabricate a culture war to make people vote against their economic interest is not new.

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805073396 (2004)

Yeah. 1984 reads as a horror story to me.
That quote reminds me of this book.

I thought he'd already made a solid statement that this would be a bad idea.

Hanson is the product of decades of investment and infiltration by the Koch brothers into George Mason University. See references below describing the long history of the development of the Right Wing’s plan for reverting our country back to the time and culture of the deep post-Civil War South. Hanson’s ideas have arisen due to the cozy environment created when the university chose money over principle.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-architect-of-the-radical-right/528672/

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980966

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/despot-disguise-democracy-james-mcgill-buchanan-totalitarian-capitalism

Browder is also the reason these sanctions exist.

His lawyer who was looking into large scale corruption and money fraud in the upper echelons of the Russian government is the "Magnitsky" in The Magnitsky Act

He is and should be considering by all a top expert in this matter.

EDIT:

Listen to these for more information on Bill Browder and The Magnitsky Act:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/14/537304186/episode-784-meeting-the-russians

http://www.earwolf.com/episode/bill-browder-kremlin-critic/


If you prefer to read his book:

https://www.amazon.com/Red-Notice-Finance-Murder-Justice/dp/1476755744

Its worse than that, read "Democracy in Chains" (written by a historian) to see that this systematic destruction of our democracy has been slowly progressing for much longer.

> do they really have no understanding of longterm blowback?

Yes. So much so that the book Blowback is all about shitty Conservative foreign policy.

https://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Project/dp/0805075593

Fuck AIPAC.

Suggested reading.

I don't know how much longer we have to deal with the most oppressive, non-elected regulatory commitee in the country. When are we going to wake up and End the Fed?

Will we be foolish sheep and continue to vote in politicians who advocate more of the same bullshit that is robbing America of its Liberty? Are we going to keep electing Ben Bernanke's buddies like Bush and Obama?

He is just now figuring out that the U.S. government is one of the leading terrorists organizations in the world? Anyone with any actual knowledge of U.S. history knows that. He isn't as bright or well educated as I thought he was.

All he had to do was read War Is A Racket by Gen. Butler or Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer (just to name only two sources of many).

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865

http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322413021&sr=1-1

You are working awful hard to point other places on something that required no action to keep criminals from accessing their millions. In fact, the places you're trying to point to ARE these guys. the guys we're discussing are LITERALLY from Rosneft and other Russian oil and fossil fuel interests that are funding a significant portion of climate denial [1]

[1] Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man's Fight for Justice https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476755744/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.DSZDbK74GAXT

> Shit... The religious right was formed to stop integration.

So was modern "Libertarianism". The economist James Buchanan is a right-wing villain more people need to know about.

> You seem desperate to get me to concede that Americans are powerless to fix the government in the US.

I'm saying it's extremely unlikely given all the success they've had getting Americans to vote against their own interests. If you are voting for D&R at this point you are extremely politically uninformed. Americans are extremely confused about politics and what kind of political ideology they should have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmhDacR9vaQ

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

A sizable chunk of america seems pretty locked into democratic/republican bs at this point due to gerrymandering and the fact that the corporations control the media. And most american's don't understand their own government and how elections work.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim

I'm saying its highly unlikely that america will shed its hyper capitalist ideology given most progressives don't seem to understand the link between war and capitalism, i.e. they just seem to want to tweak it.

"The following quotations from the book are intended to summarize it:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." [p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]"

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg_-NjjnvP4

Exactly, a system excluding independents 7 months before the vote, when people barley know any other candidate but the establishment name-recognition candidate, is not corruption, definitely not rigged, it's the voters stupidity for having busy lives and being disgusted by the dirty tricks of the two parties.

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

They should just know to make sure the system didn't exclude them months before the candidates have even set foot in their state to pitch for their vote.

Trump merely just has to say the democratic primary was rigged and it falls on sympathetic ears, he's now winning amongst the people cheated by that process, and you are calling them idiots, I have rarely seen something so obviously backwards, your perspective makes it that that simple for one of the biggest liars to tell the truth, my god.

Really? The same Trump that had been railing against wars we've been in that shouldn't have started in the first place? He's criticized Bush for Iraq, Hillary/Obama for Libya, Syria, etc... And you know what? He's right - if the US hadn't been screwing around over there, ISIS would not exist

For you downvoters - maybe you should read this book.