Top products from r/POLITIC

We found 23 product mentions on r/POLITIC. We ranked the 38 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/POLITIC:

u/AL3X_j_M · 1 pointr/POLITIC

Can't define? But he just defined it in the interview. Do you have a better definition? He accurately described something akin to neoconservatism. Not paleoconservatism, but he accurately defined neoconservatism. Actually, he defined what neocons want people to think is neoconservatism.

-Fiscal responsibility. Of course, neocons aren't actually fiscally conservative in practice, they have no opposition to Ponzi schemes like Social Security which take from the youngest most indebted generation to give it the oldest generations that lived in the time of greatest economic opportunity. Nor do they oppose economically protectionist tariffs, nor do they oppose wealth redistribution. Because neoconservatism is not about ensuring the success of the American economy, they only care about it as a means to the ends of their foreign policy.
-Militarism. Trump accurately identified the founding principle of neoconservatism, which is a policy of overwhelming strength sprinkled in with a seasoning of Jingoism (interventionism.) Now, this is probably going to send a bit offensive to some people but I urge you to withhold your outrage until you've actually finished reading my post: neocons care about the military as a means to an end, and that end is protecting Israel. Some of the people that might read this will probably think, woah what does this guy have against Jews- nothing, in fact Ashkenazi Jews are the most intelligent ethnic group on Earth so I do not consider their successes a result of some global conspiracy, nor do I think Jews are inherently cursed by some sort of deceitfulness. No, in fact, people who ascribe some global Jewish cabal to the fact that Jews care about Israel are ignoring the basic fact that you do not need an immensely complicated and powerful secret organization to get people to act in their own self-interest, and it if I was Jewish who had family in Israel and a strong attachment to Jerusalem you would not need to force me to care about Israel; I am a libertarian, if I had significant power in the media, no one would have to coerce me into promoting the values I hold. The true core principle of neoconservatism is to protect Israel, which sounds like anti-Jewish propaganda until you realize that the founders of neoconservatives were anti-Stalinist leftists who wanted a strong military, and that "Many early neoconservative thinkers were Zionist and published articles in Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee." Oh wow, that have been written by a Nazi, well actually that information is based on the book I will link below this paragraph which was written by a Jew who was the Middle-Atlantic Regional Director of the American Jewish Committee and Director of the Myer and Rosaline Feinstein Center for American Jewish History at Temple University.

Most neoconservatives were just leftists, often Zionists, that didn't like communists (specifically after the beginning of anti-Jewish policies in places like the Soviet Union) and basically took their leftism + militarism, gave it a coat of paint, voila neoconservatism. Neoconservatives, having formed essentially for the sole purpose of being leftism + militarism, have no fundamental differences to Democrats on economic policy (neocons are supply-siders when Democrats pass spending for their constituents, and Keynesians as soon as military spending is mentioned), they have no principled opposition to the left's abandoning of Federalism and states' rights. Leftists who did not oppose interventionism needed a school of thought to promote their interests, and that party is neoconservatism.

These are the main goals of neoconservatism, and before listing them I am going to encourage you to think each one of these policies in relation to their maximum benefit to Israel vs. America, put simply, is each one of these policies more important to the interests of Israel or to America: promotion of democracy in the Middle East, buildup of American military force and presence globally, and a readiness to use military force.

Since the U.S. is well-insulated by two oceans from post potential threats, the massive costs of our military presence isn't really helping us. In fact, our interventionism has won us a variety of enemies, and our support of Saudi Arabia and occupation of holy lands (Saudi Arabia) is part of the reason the U.S. is more hated by Arab Muslims than Switzerland, Switzerland being a non-interventionist example of a nation with roughly the same freedoms. However, our destabilizing of secular dictatorships in the middle east has eliminated a potential threat to Israeli interests, while we did not achieve democracy we certainly achieved the goal of preventing any potential foe in the region from presenting a serious and organized threat to Israel. So, we've spent billions, created enemies, and on the bright side Israel seems to be a bit safer. This is not a policy that would be supported by people whose primary interest was protecting America, which is the stated justification for these policies.

The core values of paleoconservatism: generally non-interventionist (see: Washington, Jefferson), state's rights (see: Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions), limited government (read a fucking book if this isn't obvious), and a strong skepticism of democracy (again, read a book, this isn't controversial.)

Of course, he didn't describe paleoconservatism, because paleocons are basically libertarians that are unabashed in their pride for the Western World's achievements in, for example, achieving freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, separation of church and state, separation of economy and state (we almost had that for a while), actually ENDING slavery (everyone did it up until that point, the West was the first to stop it, and in fact went on a moral crusade to end it internationally), and anyone who talks about these things in the media will be painted as fundamentally evil.

u/vanulovesyou · 1 pointr/POLITIC

> Wow, Your delusions are powerfull,

The Democrats were the conservative party in 1861. They certainly weren't radical liberals.

In comparison, the Republican party, founded by abolitionists and some socialists, were the progressive, insurgent party of the time. That's why an entire book called Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War was written that talked about the leftists in Lincoln's administration.

Why do you think Karl Marx (who was an astute observer of the American civil war) wrote to Lincoln? Why do you think so many leftists, veterans from the 1848 revolutions, especially German officers, were in the Union army?

Why do you think Lincoln himself said that labor becomes before capital, a very socialistic concept?

I can't even imagine what you think about the early history of the Republican party, but it certainly doesn't resemble today's reactionary GOP.

> Here is a concept for you to try and grasp, Conservatives are the Brake, Progressives are the Gas.

The way that radical conservatives have been trying to dismantle long-standing programs and court decisions, in addition to attacking long-standing institutions, shows that your assertion is inaccurate.

> Conservatives want to go slow, Progressives want to go fast,

> Do you accept that framing?

No, because the modern conservatism is dependent on moving fast and acting quickly to dismantle regulations and overturn laws without any thought on slippery slopes and unintended consequences.

Today's conservatives are not very conservative at all, especially under Trump. The idea that they are cautiously rational is out the window.

Why do you think George Will left the Republican party?

u/ronintetsuro · 1 pointr/POLITIC

I haven't found a cover exactly like that one, but the book is real.

Amazon's blurb:

>“This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else.” So begins Fareed Zakaria’s blockbuster on the United States in the twenty-first century, and the trends he identifies have proceeded faster than anyone anticipated. How might the nation continue to thrive in a truly global era? In this fully updated 2.0 edition, Zakaria answers these questions with his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination.

The entire goal here is to get dumbshit ignorant incurious Americans to literally judge a book by it's cover. Appears to be working.

u/lawless68 · 1 pointr/POLITIC

He even wrote a book about it!! Welcome to history my sloow leftists-

Trump: The Art of the Comeback

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.

u/detestrian · 1 pointr/POLITIC

This might be semantics, but it does say 'American' soil - that would include both NA, SA and the bits in the middle. I won't touch on the other points... But I would recommend 1491 by Charles C. Mann for a great book on pre-European contact Americas.

u/ghgfiojhgo · 1 pointr/POLITIC

—->>> if YOU AGREE- this should go VIRAL
 If the Government won’t protect America’s Elections

u/gmscreamingmemes · 1 pointr/POLITIC

Change the Election in your Neighborhood

—->>> if YOU AGREE- this should go VIRAL
 If the Government won’t protect America’s Elections

u/conantheking · 1 pointr/POLITIC

The seeds go further back than that. '47 National Security Agency was the beginning of the end. From Korea to now...

u/lollitics · 3 pointsr/POLITIC

you're a fucking idiot LOL. Sea_Still is officially illiterate. here's a book on teaching kids how to read for dummies, it's about $16 so I'm sure you can skip out on some meth for a bit so you can afford it!


here's another one for you, some easy to read books for beginners. after some practice you can probably learn to read the reports rather than listening to morons talking on AM radio.

u/morebeansplease · 1 pointr/POLITIC

> You have been given voice and you used it.

This is not an exercise of using voices, we were supposedly discussing getting work done. If you won't back up your priority of race and ethics on how we should be making decisions in reality you should not be talking to other people. I would rather you stay until we resolve the issue but also I understand how hard it is to understand other perspectives. I dare you to stop running away and confront the counter point.

u/fuckswithboats · 1 pointr/POLITIC

>Historical context is irrelevant.

Says the guy who thinks the only racism is anti-white racism.

> Jim Crow has been gone longer than 95% of blacks have been alive.

Read this and let's discuss.

u/Poor_Irishman · 2 pointsr/POLITIC

Donald Barr is AG William Barr's dad

Donald Barr was in the OSS, which was the precursor to the CIA

Donald Barr gave Epstein his first job as a math teacher in an elite, politically connected school, even though Epstein did not have any qualifications or even a college degree.

Donald Barr wrote a book called Space Relations, about a race of aliens that are so rich they become bored with everything and start a sex slavery ring and are also aroused by fear

Why downvote the truth?

u/SuperCharged2000 · 2 pointsr/POLITIC

We're told that the old crop of government agents were trying hard enough. Or that they didn't have the right intentions. While it's true that there are plenty of incompetent and ill-intentioned people in government, we can't always blame the people involved. Often, the likelihood of failure is simply built in to the institution of government itself. In other words, politicians and bureaucrats don't succeed because they can't succeed. The very nature of government administration is weighted against success.

Here are ten reasons why:

I. Knowledge

Government policies suffer from the pretense of knowledge . In order to perform a successful market intervention, politicians need to know more than they can. Market knowledge is not centralized, systematic, organized and general, but dispersed, heterogeneous, specific, and individual. Different from a market economy where there are many operators and a constant process of trial and error, the correction of government errors is limited because the government is a monopoly. For the politician, to admit an error is often worse than sticking with a wrong decision - even against own insight.

II. Information Asymmetries

While there are also information asymmetries in the market, for example between the insurer and the insured, or between the seller of a used car and its buyer, the information asymmetry is more profound in the public sector than in the private economy. While there are, for example, several insurance companies and many car dealers, there is only one government. The politicians as the representatives of the state have no skin in the game and because they are not stakeholders, they will not spend much efforts to investigate and avoid information asymmetries. On the contrary, politicians are typically eager to provide funds not to those who need them most but to those who are most relevant in the political power game.

III. Crowding out of the Private Sector

Government intervention does not eliminate what seem market deficiencies but creates them by crowding outthe private supply. If there were not a public dominance in the areas of schooling and social assistance, private supply and private charity would fill the gap as it was the case before government usurped these activities. Crowding-out of the private sector through government policies is constantly at work because politicians can get votes by offering additional public services although the public administration will not improve but deteriorate the matter.

IV. Time Lags

Government policies suffer from extended lags between diagnosis and effect. The governmental process is concerned with power and has its antenna captures those signals that are relevant for the power game. Only when an issue is sufficiently politicized will it find the attention of the government. After the lag, until an issue finds attention and gets diagnosed, another lag emerges until the authorities have found a consensus on how to tackle the political problem. From there it takes a further time span until the appropriate political means have found the necessary political support. After the measures get implemented, a further time elapses until they show their effects. The lapse of time between the articulation of a problem and the effect is so long that the nature of the problem and its context have changed - often fundamentally. It comes as no surprise that results of state interventions, including monetary policy , do not only deviate from the original goal but may produce the opposite of the intentions.

V. Rent Seeking and Rent Creation

Government intervention attracts rent-seekers. Rent seeking is the endeavor of gaining privileges through government policies. In a voter democracy, there is a constant pressure to add new rents to the existing rents in order to gain support and votes. This rent creation expands the number of rent-seekers and over time the distinction between corruption and a decent and legal conduct gets blurred. The more a government gives in to rent-seeking and rent creation, the more the country will fall victim to clientelism, corruption, and the misallocation of resources.

u/fullbloodedwhitemale · 0 pointsr/POLITIC

"the only racism is anti-white racism."

I didn't write that. I wrote the only institutional discrimination is against whites via affirmative action, quotas, bonus SAT points, and racial preferences.

Read this and let's discuss.

OK, lets discuss. Blacks are in prison more than whites for several reasons: The commit exponentially more crime, their sentences are tougher due to recidivism, they are much more likely to be busted for drugs since they're more likely to be taking, possessing, or selling drugs.

The US Department of Health and Human Services does regular surveys, and asks people if they take illegal drugs. Blacks are only about 10 to 20 percent more likely than whites to SAY that they do.

But if you look at the arrest data, blacks are 2-1/2 times more likely to be arrested for drug possession and 3.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for trafficking. So, is this proof of police discrimination?

Do police suddenly go nuts if drugs are involved? Every mayor in Wash DC has been black since 1975. Two thirds of the police officers are black. And yet, the ACLU itself black reports a black DC resident was 8 times more likely than a white resident to be arrested for marijuana possession.

The idea that blacks don’t use illegal drugs much more often than whites comes from surveys. But when you ask people if they take illegal drugs do they tell the truth? Researchers ask people if they have taken drugs and then take urine or hair samples to find out. And almost every time, blacks are a lot mowhite pre likely than whites to say they haven’t taken drugs but the test then proves they were lying. A study in the Journal of Urban Health, for example, found that blacks were ten times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine. Hispanics were five times more likely. When it came to marijuana, not one of the 109 whites in the sample lied, but one in eight of the 191 blacks lied.

A study of Vietnam-era veterans in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that blacks were more than 20 times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine, and twice as likely to lie about marijuana.

This behavior goes back a long way. In 1994, more than 20 years ago, a large study of young people, aged nine to 20, found that blacks were six times more likely than whites to claim they didn’t use cocaine–but have it show up in a urine test.

Want more data? Every year, the US Department of Health and Human Services tells us how many people went to the emergency room because they took an illegal drug and got sick or went crazy. Since the government tabulates these numbers by race, we can calculate rates. Blacks are 3-1/2 times more likely than whites to go to the emergency room because they took an illegal drug.