Best products from r/politics

We found 397 comments on r/politics discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 5,501 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning 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:

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."

> 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.

> 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:

("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)

(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:

(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/socokid · 1 pointr/politics

The government is the only thing standing in the way of them cleaning up the scraps, and why they want it gone. The only thing left will be our corporate masters.

Yay! Job well done, everyone... now get back to work, LOL at your unions (Unions suck!) and minimum wage just decreased... FOR FREEDOM!

I have no issues with a government of the people, by the people. The problem is the flood of money in politics, our incredibly destructive and unsustainablewealth disparity, and half of our nation thinking it would be great to make it worse, to try what we've tried for the last 30 years (making wealthy people even wealthier) as a fix!

No. We need government working, but for the 90% of us again. Freedom isn't a few percentage points on a very wealthy person's top marginal tax rate. LOL no.

Freedom is being able to go to the doctor without having your family wiped out with bills, put on government assistance, being far less productive. Freedom is knowing your child will have the same opportunity to higher education, to fulfill their full potential in a nation that understands this helps ALL of America become better educated. That is freedom, and that is making the best out of our most precious resource: Educated, healthy, hopeful citizens.


u/rediKELous · -4 pointsr/politics

I have been posting this in relevant places to people I think might take it into consideration:

You can survival prep very quickly. Buy a water filtration system (I prefer the Platypus brand gravity filter) and at least a couple spare filters. Alternatively, you can purify water with bleach (info here). Buy at least 2 weeks of canned food that you won't touch for at least a week after the event (unless you plan to be moving). Dry beans and rice are better for your calorie/weight ratio. Buy a shotgun or pistol with a decent amount of ammo (I'm thinking 500 rounds for a pistol or at least 100 shotgun shells) and get familiar with using it safely. Cash, if cash isn't working, gold and silver ain't either. Also, a hand crank or solar battery charger, which can be found for around $20 combined with a flashlight and radio. Bam!, you're now better prepped than 95+% of the population.

Some other additional items: MEDICATION RESERVES (if possible to acquire), flashlights, hunting knife, rope, tarp, Bic lighters, padlocks & chains (heavy so wouldn't be great for travel), enough gas to drive to a location you believe would be safe, hiking backpack. US Air Force Survival Manual for reading

I recognize guns are a touchy subject with many people here, but in this day and age, I would encourage you to look at the world around us and maybe see that we could be in a more precarious position in our society than we would like. I would hope that the US would never come to a point in which gear like this might be necessary, but it is better to build dikes than just to pray for sunshine. Anyway, if guns truly aren't your thing, just don't get one.

If you do choose to become a gunowner, and you do not have experience with them, I seriously cannot overstate the importance of taking some sort of class or training with someone experienced that you trust.

This is a simplified, but relatively comprehensive survival prep guide for everything from natural disasters to total societal meltdown. I would encourage everyone to do at least some of it. The Boy Scout motto simply says "Be prepared". It doesn't say what to be prepared for.

Gun people of Reddit: I recognize a .22 rifle is probably the best for hunting small game and ammo expense/weight/availability. I also realize the AR-15 is probably your best jack-of-all-trades gun. I personally feel that a 9mm pistol or shotgun is a better option for a new gunowner to get started. We can argue about it til we're blue in the face, and I respect your opinion, but I'm not changing it.

u/BigBennP · 58 pointsr/politics

You're not going to get a serious answer from the reddit echo chamber. So far you seem to have gotten:

"Her vagina"
"the mainstream media is in the tank for Clinton"
"There are no Clinton supporters on the internet."

So here's what I consider the best arguments in her favor, mostly they're culled from my democratic pol/strategist friends, most of whom are serious Clinton supporters by virtue of where I live:

  1. Whoever gets elected is going to have to deal with a republican congress at least until 2020, if not further. So incremental change is a given. Exactly how much of Bernie's agenda is going to get adopted by a republican congress? How is he going to get it taken up? So what's going to get passed? How is sanders going to deal with a congress that says "lol no" and sends him a budget increasing military funding and cutting welfare? At the end of the day this boils down to the "experience" argument, but there's a twist. Sanders definitely also has a history of legislative accomplishments, but more than a few presidents, Obama included, have shown us that legislative experience doesn't translate to effective leadership from the White House. I'll be frank, it's pretty damn obvious that the Clintons inspired Frank and Clair Underwood from the house of cards. That is, however you care to look at it, a reality. Personal relationships and a willingness to twist arms is what gets legislation through. Inability to work congress has been Obama's greatest failing as president I think. (I'm not saying congress doesn't share the blame, but politics is the art of the possible, more could possibly been done had the situation been better managed).

  2. Clinton had a point when she said she's been the focus of partisan attacks for 10+ years. There's a SHITLOAD of dirt out there, but for the most part it's already been dug up. Think about the shit that Republicans dug up on John Kerry with the swiftboat nonsense, or on OBama with reviewing every single thing Jeremiah wright said, how exactly did it become a controversy that Obama's pastor said "god damn America?". You already largely know what Republicans are going to bring up with Clinton. Where's Bernie Sanders dirt? His personal life is largely unknown, and he's skated by on a northeastern tolerance for social indiscretions and refusing to discuss it. I guarantee you it's not because dirt doesn't exist, and not because it hasn't been dug up, but because it's being held in reserve for the general. Republicans forever tied to tar Obama with the idea that he was Saul Alinksy's protege, some kind of 60's radical reborn. Sanders actually is that 60's radical, and actually calls himself a socialist to boot. There's quite a bit out there of him associating with genuine revolutionary socialists and communists. There's going to be an army of people looking for every photo of everyone Sanders ever associated with and everything bad they said about America. His personal life wont' be off limits either. Did you know Sanders has an adult son that was born out of wedlock? Sure, millenials won't give a damn, but it will be the basis for tens of millions of negative advertising.

  3. Electability. It's popular here to point to head to head polls suggesting Sanders is better able to beat Trump. But those same polls also showed Clinton beating everyone but Kasich. In a hypothetical match up against Trump, Sanders comes out +13 and Clinton comes out +6. But the presidential campaign map matters a lot as well. Sanders did particularly poor among Latinos and African Americans, and does exceedingly well amongst poor white people in largely white (and largely red) states. Sanders tied Oklahoma, and won Wisconsin, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Vermont. Clinton, Among others has won California, New York, Illinois and Florida. Even taking election shenanigans into account, the former aren't going to matter so much in the general election and the latter will.

    They are what they are, but the real question is what are you going to do about them? because when you step outside of the echo chamber, it's pretty obvious that Clinton's going to end up the Nominee. Sanders is fighting the good fight and will carry a liberal platform to the convention, which I think is a very good thing for the party in geneal and the Sanders/Warren wing of the party in particular, but his chance of ending up the nominee at this point is virtually nil unless something radical changes like Clinton actually succumbing to a major scandal or getting criminal charges filed. Then question is then, are you going to succumb to the drawback of a two party system and vote for the lesser of two evils or do something that might result in Trump becoming president? It's easy to say now, how do you think Nader supporters felt in 2001 when Bush took office?

    I would add to this, your question makes the exact same mistake democrats have made for years as it relates to Republican voters. going back to Thomas Frank's Book what's the matter with Kansas and why Obama's comments about clinging to guns and religion caused such a fury on the right even though they're pretty true.

    At its heart, the way people choose political candidate is not 100% logical. People are not robots. The reason political disagreements exists is because people have different priorities. Priorities are not driven solely by logical connections. People choose a candidate based on how they feel about them. Obama won an election (both primary and general) by creating a feeling that he would be different. Trump's winning the republican primary by creating a feeling among disenchanted voters that he's going to come in and make it right, no matter what his background or prior policy preferences were.

    Clinton has done a decent job creating an emotional connection with certain demographics.Women over 40, African Americans, Hispanics. She fails at it markedly among millennials and to some extent among men.

    Not speaking truth to power, but rather telling the truth to the mob, or at least answering a question deliberately asked about what the defenses of clinton are.
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/adlerchen · 11 pointsr/politics

It's actually more heart breaking when you know that basically the entire midwest once once considered the home of radical left politics in the US. As Thomas Frank notes in What's The Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America:

>I do not want to minimize the change that this represents. Certain parts of the Midwest were once so reliably leftist that the historian Walter Prescott Webb, in his classic 1931 history of the region, pointed to its persistent radicalism as one of the “Mysteries of the Great Plains.” Today the mystery is only heightened; it seems inconceivable that the Midwest was ever thought of as a “radical” place, as anything but the land of the bland, the easy snoozing flyover. Readers in the thirties, on the other hand, would have known instantly what Webb was talking about, since so many of the great political upheavals of their part of the twentieth century were launched from the territory west of the Ohio River. The region as they knew it was what gave the country Socialists like Eugene Debs, fiery progressives like Robert La Follette, and practical unionists like Walter Reuther; it spawned the anarchist IWW and the coldly calculating UAW; and it was periodically convulsed in gargantuan and often bloody industrial disputes. They might even have known that there were once Socialist newspapers in Kansas and Socialist voters in Oklahoma and Socialist mayors in Milwaukee, and that there were radical farmers across the region forever enlisting in militant agrarian organizations with names like the Farmers’ Alliance, or the Farmer-Labor Party, or the Non-Partisan League, or the Farm Holiday Association. And they would surely have been aware that Social Security, the basic element of the liberal welfare state, was largely a product of the midwestern mind.

>Almost all of these associations have evaporated today. That the region’s character has been altered so thoroughly—that so much of the Midwest now regards the welfare state as an alien imposition; that we have trouble even believing there was a time when progressives were described with adjectives like fiery, rather than snooty or bossy or wimpy—has to stand as one of the great reversals of American history.

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.


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?

> 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.

> 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.

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).

u/MrMagPi · 0 pointsr/politics

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.

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.

u/kanooker · 1 pointr/politics

>Now, anyone who discusses this process without also mentioning minimization procedures is also either very uninformed or intentionally hyping the story. Minimization is a term of art in the world of NSA intercepts which essentially means “stay out of American citizen’s business.” If information about specific Americans (or even foreigners inside the United States) is captured, those details must be removed from all records and cannot be shared with any other entity in the government unless it is necessary to understand and interpret related foreign intelligence or to protect lives from criminal threats. But passing intelligence information to criminal investigators requires several layers of review and is not easily approved; minimization procedures are meant to insure that information collected by the NSA isn’t used in routine criminal investigations.

>Sigh. These last 2 stories have been little more than boilerplate recitation of Sec 702. I doubt ill persuade u, but so be it... are anonymized, meaning the info has been run through an algorithm that spits out an anonymous designator, such as XDSVC...

Marc Anbinder

Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry

>as I said, I think the programs are good. Transparency by/ trust in USG lacking

Joshua Foust
>Yet, to even begin the discussion of reform, we have to grapple with why things got to where they are. One document published in the Guardian shows a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court order for Verizon, the telecommunications giant, to hand over phone metadata (telephone numbers, call length, and location). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the Fourth Amendment does not protect such metadata. Similarly, the PRISM data-mining program, which automates access to Internet company databases, was, misreporting aside, publicly discussed as a software platform used by the military and intelligence community for many years

>The Committee report says the IC and DOJ requested additional queries authorities, which the Committee considered then rejected while studies of existing capabilities were finished. While Marcy is correct that this passage shows the Intelligence Community requested the ability to search on this data, the text of the report also shows that the Committee rejected that request and made the Intelligence Community and Department of Justice reaffirm that any queries adhere to the letter of the law and not circumvent “the general requirement to obtain a court order.

Bob Cesca

>But here’s the most revealing part of Greenwald’s article: the program was stopped by the Obama administration in 2011. As Charles Johnson tweeted yesterday, the article’s headline could actually be “Obama discontinued NSA email program started under Bush.”

>Furthermore, Greenwald wrote: “It did not include the content of emails.” The NSA only collected metadata, authorized by bulk FISA court warrants. The program, like everything else, sought overseas communications, and those communications might have inadvertently included some data from US persons connected with the overseas emails. And, again, reminder: any data from US persons that’s inadvertently collected is anonymized, encrypted and destroyed. It’s only decrypted with an individual warrant.

And from the comments sections of the last:

>Just before that article went up, Glenn and Ackermann had another one go up, "How the NSA is still harvesting your online data". Now when you read that you instantly think any email we send here in the U.S. is going to the NSA. Well there's nothing but speculation in that article about that, but the kicker they are focusing on is that the NSA bragged about processing their "trillionth" piece of metadata in 2012. In 2009 it was estimated the 294 billion emails were sent globally every single day, so that trillion is hardly anything, when you consider that 294 billion per day translates to about 90 trillion PER YEAR.

Another Edit:

Just found a great AMA!

Also FYI I have posted this comment multiple times because I think there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Disclosure I also work on the helpdesk for a gov agency that is no way affiliated with anything military etc....

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/ejpusa · 0 pointsr/politics





"'You cannot accept that we don't fear you'"

I've pointed this out a few times, Trump is a "Father Figure", and it's a CLASSIC Father that abuses his wife and children, year, after year, after year. And they take the abuse. But yet the wife and kids will stay. Until one day, "Dad" goes too far. The kid's rebel.

Trump supporters are wired to "LOVE DAD", but one day Dad goes too far, and the kids rebel, and walk out saying, "WE ARE NO LONGER AFRAID OF YOU, DAD!" That happens. The sense of freedom is unbelievable.

A Trump supporters brain can be rewired, it takes a very strong jolt of reality to do it, but this could.

PLEASE read Lakoff, ($4 on Amazon used will CHANGE your life) he is brilliant at taking apart the "Father Figure" aspect of Trump voters. And one day, the kids do leave. It's not impossible to reprogram a brain. Think this quote by AOC will live on in the history of Ameria, for generations. 4 women, take on Dad, and he will crumble. It can happen.

"You cannot accept that we don't fear you'" 1000 years from now, they'll look back at AOC, and the teachers of the day will say to the 3rd graders, "See what you are capable of? Yes, these women changed the world, you can too."

\> Ten years after writing the definitive, international bestselling book on political debate and messaging, George Lakoff returns with new strategies about how to frame today’s essential issues.

Called the “father of framing” by The New York Times, Lakoff explains how framing is about ideas―ideas that come before policy, ideas that make sense of facts, ideas that are proactive not reactive, positive not negative, ideas that need to be communicated out loud every day in public.

u/SuperJew113 · 1 pointr/politics

These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.

The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.

A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.

Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.

This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.

It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.

u/ovoutland · 5 pointsr/politics


>The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.

u/ExtremsTivianne · 2 pointsr/politics

I took APUSH to and there's actually a number of pitfalls to it. Remember that APUSH is focused towards the AP test, so while everyone else will be starting from the Civil War/WWI to the present, you'll be racing through American History from Columbus to Bush Jr all about a month before you have to take the test. The teachers that take AP responsibilities are good, but the knowledge is still incomplete. If you want to get more knowledge (going through my history BA right now) check out a couple of these resources:

A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn:

In the interest of impartiality, I'll mention the more right leaning version of the People's History, A Patriot's History of the United States: Note that a large amount of it was written not by the centrist historian Michael Allen, but the more politically motivated Larry Schweikart. Regardless, both of these books are used by APUSH classes throughout the country. I'd just pick one.

Also (this is going to sound really stupid) but a series of documentaries entitled A Walk Through the 20th Century with Bill Moyers where LBJs press secretary Bill Moyers talks about history from a perspective that helps us understand what (in general) people were thinking at the time. Here's one episode on youtube:

Finally, if you want to have some entertaining yet deep history, check out Dan Carlin. He has plenty of extremely informative (if slightly editorialized for entertainment purposes) podcasts. His Blueprint for Armageddon series is one of the most intriguing narratives of World War One I've ever seen:

u/wheelward · 1 pointr/politics

The thing is, I think representatives have always been influenced by special interests ever since before the inception of the United States. However, the way in which special interests have influenced representatives has certainly changed through time.

When the Constitution was signed, "we the people" was not meant to include blacks, Indians, women, or indentured servants. The main reason why George Washington was elected as the first president was because he was by far the wealthiest American at the time. And all of those who signed the Constitution has their vested interests.

That's just one example. Right now I'm reading A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. And he makes it clear that oligarchic powers have always had a heavy influence on policy.

I guess I'm wondering when we were closest to having a representative democracy in the United States. I'm honestly not sure.

u/BolshevikMuppet · 1 pointr/politics

>He will actually honor his oath of office (to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution) via a strict constructionist/Jeffersonian interpretation

It's worth noting, of course, that every President honors the oath of office to protect and defend the constitution according to their interpretation of what the constitution means. To say Ron Paul is different in this regard is to claim that his interpretation is somehow "more right" than others, which is debatable at best.

So, the irony is that from my perspective, Ron Paul would not be honoring his oath of office by writing laws to make it impossible to bring federal suit over state violations of privacy, equal protection, or religious freedm. So, let's stop this whole "he's great because he'll actually protect the constitution" crap, when the entire argument is whether we agree with his interpretation of the constitution.

>If you want a good starting place for understanding who Ron Paul is and what he believes, check out his book "The Revolution - A Manifesto" - [1]

If you want to know what a man believes, don't listen to what he writes as a way of garnering support for himself. Look for what he does. Look at the laws he's written. Look at the causes he's championed. Ron Paul doesn't stand for anything close to individual liberty; he stands for state power, plain and simple.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/politics

>That's the kind of system that takes over when the power of government is limited and companies can do as they please to their employees.

There is absolutely no evidence for this. It's simply opinion.

Certain parts of Australia, for example, simply wouldn't house sweatshops (if we removed Government powers-that-be from the equation), because the Australian populace are educated enough to be able to leverage themselves more than otherwise uneducated people would in poverty-driven countries.

>Essentially, the incentive is to create more sweatshops, less blue collar jobs.

This is only partially correct; you're only looking at one half of the equation. You're looking at it from an employer's perspective, who want their workers to be paid less, and work longer, and spend less money on their conditions. But then from an employee's perspective, like any person, they don't desire to be treated like a slave, and will inevitably go towards a better position if it were available.

As the economic principle states: scarce resources in a market tend to go where they are most valuably utilized. This occurs also with people as the scarce resource--they tend to go to places where they are more efficiently utilized, by specializing.

It is the aspect in-between--when both employers and employees agree on wages, conditions and so on--that you have mutually beneficial transactions.

Have you ever read Basic Economics, by any chance?

I feel it would absolutely smash your world-view.

u/IllusiveObserver · 1 pointr/politics

I'm glad you liked it. Here is his Youtube channel. Here is a recent speech given by Wolff about a month ago with a colleague of his.

After a long speech like that, it's nice to see people take action. Here is a nice documentary of workers taking action by occupying factories in Argentina, and taking them over. Subtitles available in the video.

Here is the website for the Rosa-Luxemburg foundation in NYC, the foundation of Die Linke in Germany.

Here is a website with documentaries that cover a variety of political issues.

Here is a book that I strongly recommend you read. You can read it for free here.

If you have any other questions or comments, I'll be happy to respond.

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:

And I also like Jonathan Bernstein, who is one of the best: - who refers to this awesome book as well -

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/smallgovisbest · 1 pointr/politics

This is an example of intentionally selective representation of his support in order to portray those the actually defend constitutional governance as "wackos".

Doug Mataconis has spent a inordinate amount of time and effort into advance a dishonest portrayal of Ron Paul and of his followers.

It is starting to have the appearance that Doug is being paid to to smear Ron Paul and the freedom movement that has ignited.

Today, it is widely acknowledged that Barry Goldwaters' failed candidacy for President in 1964 marked the beginning of a movement that culminated in the ascendancy to power of the GOP.

Ron Paul's support comes from those that truly desire to save this country from imploding upon itself due to a unsustainable empire building as a well as an unsustainable, no matter how well meaning it may be, welfare system and a corrupted to the monetary system intentionally designed to steal the wealth of the poor and middle classes in favor of the wealthy and politically well connected.

Barry Goldwater, Jr. has a new book:

Ron Paul's new book is now available:

Ronald Reagan's famous nominating speech for Barry Goldwater shows that Ron Paul's ideas represent true conservative values:

u/ohxten · -1 pointsr/politics

Palin is no longer relevant. I think she was probably somewhat of a good political move for McCain, but Presidential candidate? No thanks.

We need someone who will bring real change -- get rid of/severely cut income taxes, stop policing the world (see: blowback), get rid of needless spending, and really cut the size of government. I hope Ron Paul runs in 2012.

If you're interested in freedom, prosperity, and peace, try to find this book at your local library. A short read but straight and to the point.

u/frEmn · 0 pointsr/politics

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with a consistent voting record. I honestly believe if elected, he will do what he says he will. I can't say this for any other candidates, R or D. He will actually honor his oath of office (to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution) via a strict constructionist/Jeffersonian interpretation. He will drastically reduce the size of the federal government starting with the executive branch (the only branch he actually has authority to act over) and urge congress to do the same for the areas they have authority over.

I've only known about Ron Paul for about 3 years, but in that time my politically philosophy has been turned on it's head (well, I really had NO political philosophy prior). In that same time frame, I have seen his support grow by leaps and bounds. I'm very encouraged by what I'm seeing as this campaign gets into gear, and the political data that's been coming in.

If you want a good starting place for understanding who Ron Paul is and what he believes, check out his book "The Revolution - A Manifesto" -

I hope this helps.

u/formerprof · 0 pointsr/politics

I am by no means an isolationist. The growth rate in 7 countries on the African continent is now double ours. Seriously, the connectivity that is shaping a beautiful world economy that runs like a 'Singer sewing machine' is remarkable. Every wanna be world leader should read Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization
I'm hoping and praying that we don't get a Pres that will strive to control it.

u/WaterNoGetEnemy · 1 pointr/politics

I think we've reached the point where we've each laid out what we have to say and gotten whatever clarification we can from one another. Thanks for the discussion and maybe we'll talk again.

Probably the one outstanding issue is you asked for a source to explain how the Oil Embargo (that extended to 1974, I just learned) was a major influence on US policy in the Middle East. My belief was formed by two books, Planet of Slums and Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

They're great books, and I totally recommend them, but they don't make for great proof (if that's what you're asking for) in an internet discussion. Let me know if you read either, because I'd really like to hear what you think!

Thanks again.

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/Holmes02 · 1 pointr/politics

Currently reading Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia by Peter Pomerantsev just to learn how Trump's administration will attempt to use propaganda to get away with pretty much everything.

Edit: I'm not the only one. Paperback is sold out on Amazon:

Edit 2: u/Deggit peaked my interest with this book from this comment

u/kygipper · 29 pointsr/politics

George Lakoff will help you understand conservatives (and swing voters) better than any pundit ever could.
He also does a great job of explaining the moral nature of politics, and how liberals can formulate better moral arguments to persuade what he calls "bi-conceptual" voters.

Edit: The poll referenced in this very post is one of many examples I've seen in recent years of actual data backing up Lakoff's theories. When combined with recent studies showing the differences between the parts of the brain liberals and conservatives use to process political/moral issues, Lakoff's concepts are dead-on.

u/KingofKona · 1 pointr/politics

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.

u/manisnotabird · 1 pointr/politics

Glenn Greenwald's 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful is a very good history of how elites have increasingly escaped the justice reservered for the rest of us.

u/thaway314156 · 3 pointsr/politics

Glenn Greenwald actually wrote a book about this topic, entitled "With Liberty and Justice for Some". Great title..

u/signtoin · 1 pointr/politics

It's not complex, it's very simple: the powerful and rich have gotten away with crimes for the past decades (to just cover recent history). Here's a great read on the subject.

u/Zenmachine83 · 1 pointr/politics

If you are interested, maybe check out one of Lakoff's books like "Don't Think of an Elephant. This critique rings true for me as I work in community mental health, mostly with children and families. I see the impact of differing parenting strategies/structures every day. I am biased I'm sure, but I think securing funding for basic access to healthcare, education and mental health services for children would go a long way towards solving our problems in this country. The right-wing worldview is not pro-social and in some cases is downright anti-social. Lakoff puts forward a number of solutions for this problem.

I agree that the structure of our democracy most likely needs to be altered. This could mean moving towards a parliamentary system and/or it should include efforts to increase voter participation and civil society.

u/Always_Excited · 19 pointsr/politics

Yes. You can find so many writings about how poor are the worst and they deserve every cruelty, and how god meant it to be this way. We romantacized the american revolution a little bit.

It did create a break from monarchy, but it wasn't the kind of inclusive cause that we're thinking today. It still did spark the creation of today, so I'm still glad it happened, but a lot of founding fathers would have a stroke if they saw today's america.

If you want to learn about unromanticized of history; try People's history of the United States by Howard Zinn.

It'll give you a much deeper understanding of world order.

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

u/AnonJian · 14 pointsr/politics

Stellar Wind called for the very Utah data center the NSA is in the process of finishing. Not closing. Not turning into a warehouse for outdated office equipment. Nor is the government re-purposing all the storage and computing power for some serious online gaming.

The Program is now called Ragtime or Ragtime-P. Status is operational. As is X-Keyscore. This may have been a redesign of Stellar Wind to meet metadata provisions put forth by Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

== Source ==

Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry Details Ragtime-A US-based interception of all foreign-to-foreign, Ragtime-B intercepts from foreign governments that transits through the US, Ragtime-C counterproliferation actvities and Ragtime-P which is all domestic.

Elliot Spitzer's use of prostitutes, General Petraeus or just mundane chit-chat that has not been flagged. Not PRISM alone, it's Ragtime.

>Faulk described the personal nature of many of the calls, and how he and his colleagues would encourage each other to listen into a call where “there’s good phone sex” or “some colonel making pillow talk.”

u/shelly_gordon · 1 pointr/politics

Actually we probably agree on most things (except the rioting, my heroes have always been pacifists Frederick Douglas, Susan Anthony, Thoreau, Gandhi and King). I have ordered the Marjorie Kelly book you recommended. You might be interested in this podcast or this book. I was suggesting we write to our representatives as a small step but most people I know are too lazy or brainwashed to even attempt any action. Good luck with the unionizing - here's some inspiration

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,, 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 (

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?



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/mrsgarrison · 8 pointsr/politics

Yeah, this is very true. We've been blackmailing foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and giving contracts to American business for over a half-century. A really good read on how this topic: Confessions of an Economic Hitman - John Perkins.

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:


>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/ImInterested · 1 pointr/politics

> I'm now convinced I missed it just because there is so much nonsense that came out of that campaign, and now the white house that I can't keep up.

Realize that it is a political strategy, Chaos and Confusion. Putin used it in Russia with great success.

I try to do the following ( Not always successful ) :

  • ignore soap opera Whitehouse stories

  • wheels of justice turn slow let Mueller do his work, especially if you are not a lawyer

  • outrageous statements made by Trump etc, don't waste much time. Ask what else is going on?

  • try to find what Trump and his cabinet are doing

  • blog posts 6 paragraphs / 2 sentences each do not make us informed

  • don't forget you need breaks

    Post I saw the other day, did not confirm.

    During Election the day Trump "grab by pussy" came out the Obama admin said Russia was playing around in the election.

    Chaos and Confusion

    Book : Nothing is true, everything is possible

    RAND Paper
u/SporkOfThor · 6 pointsr/politics

This guy nails it. "A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People."

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/troglodave · 27 pointsr/politics

You are correct on the title, "What's the Matter With Kansas", but it goes onto much greater depth than the single issue voting. It really delves into and explains why the social conservatives are being played to go against the fiscal conservative values they once held and who is profiting from them.

At the time it was written, 10 years ago, Thomas Frank made the prediction that this was the direction American "Conservatism" would head, and he has been dead on the money! An excellent read for those completely baffled by the ignorance of the average American voter.

u/Tbbhxf · 2 pointsr/politics


Deer Hunting With Jesus and What’s The Matter With Kansas are good reads. They explore the reasons people give for voting against their best interests.

u/res0nat0r · 8 pointsr/politics

> What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

Replace the title with any GOP controlled state.

u/iyzie · 2 pointsr/politics

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).

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/MrXfromPlanetX · 1 pointr/politics

Can we trust Eric Holder? Why did Obama appoint this guy as Attorney General?

“Most notorious was his role defending the food giant Chiquita Brands International, Inc., whose multimillionaire executives were facing potential charges of aiding terrorism because of their financing and arming of right-wing death squads in Colombia. Using his Justice Department connections—and taking advantage of the Bush administration's sympathy for the Colombian fascists

—Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a small fine, despite overwhelming evidence that it had hired gunmen to kidnap, torture and murder Colombian workers, peasants and union officials.”

According to John Perkins “Economic Hit Man” the Bush family owns a stake in Chiquita

This company used to be United Fruit who was responsible for the 1954 coup in Guatemala. The coup over threw Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Arbenz nationalized the land in the country taking it away from United Fruit to giving it back to the poor. (1987 Bill Moyers PBS Documentary)

Jesse Ventura: “Politics is like pro wrestling.” On the camera they pretend to hate each other, but when they're off the camera they're all best friends and go out to dinner together

u/genida · 145 pointsr/politics

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.

u/ImpeachObomber · 1 pointr/politics

Sorry, you don't understand how all those are connected together? Ok, I will be more than glad to inform you.

First, imperialism and its relationship to our recent foreign policy disasters:

Imperialism and its relation to Islamic terrorism:

The economics of imperialism. What drives it, and its relation to neoliberalism:

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions.

And I hope you don't go all like "WAAAaaah! Book learnin'? I don't need no stinkin' book learnin' Rachel MadCow and MSNBC tell me everything I need to know! WaaaaAAAh!" like so many of the BlackBushsheep are wont to do.

u/en1gma5712 · 12 pointsr/politics

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 :

u/makehertalk · 12 pointsr/politics

A People's History of the United States discusses the subject of manufactured racial strife extensively.
I recommend this book for this, as well as many other highly useful facts that are typically omitted from the normal discussions of US history.

u/mysterious_baker · 40 pointsr/politics

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.

u/Domhnal · 1 pointr/politics

Kinda funny you mention that. For a overall left leaning place, reddit sure has its share of multiple personalities.

I think we retain our status mostly by this and something along these lines. We really don't seem to be that awesome anymore except maybe to the infantile countries who like grandpa's war stories but aren't old enough to understand that he lives mostly alone because he molested a few children. Or the ones we pay to say we're awesome like Saudi Arabia.

u/clawedjird · 1 pointr/politics

>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.

u/Phuqued · 58 pointsr/politics

I'd recommend checking this thread.

u/category5 · 3 pointsr/politics

"What's The Matter With Kansas" is actually the title of a pretty interesting book.

u/_Sheva_ · 2 pointsr/politics

He already wrote that book.

'With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used To Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful'

I am sure Dick Cheney is mentioned once or twice. He was already well aware of the Dick's crimes when he wrote it.

u/TheFoolishWit · 2 pointsr/politics

I think you're thinking of one particular book, which is really good: Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, by Peter Pomerantsev.

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/pablo95 · 8 pointsr/politics

A Peoples History Of the United States is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in politics, history, or sociology.

u/lemon_meringue · 25 pointsr/politics

The book Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia is a really excellent (if terrifying) look at the way that the media operated by Putin's authoritarian state has manipulated and brainwashed entire populations. And it was published a solid year before the 2016 election. It's a rough read but I think it's a book everyone in America should be familiar with.

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/kathleen65 · 2 pointsr/politics

Great book on this is Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Written by John Perkins an ex-CIA agent who was involved. We have a lot of blood on our hands around the world and it is all for corporations.

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.