Top products from r/hillaryclinton

We found 30 product mentions on r/hillaryclinton. We ranked the 95 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/hillaryclinton:

u/billycoolj · 9 pointsr/hillaryclinton

Is anyone else super excited for Hillary's book!??!?!?!

This thing is already #1 best seller on Amazon, I was laughing. I literally saw the tweet like two seconds after it was posted, pressed the Amazon link, and it was already #1 best seller in civics. Now it's just #1 best seller period. Hooray!

u/flyingdragon8 · 5 pointsr/hillaryclinton

Intermediate econ if you're up for it:

EDIT: For intro econ, you can just get started with the books by Krugman and Wells. I'm sure we all love Krugman here yea?

As far as history goes, just FYI, Zinn's People's History has a very poor reputation among (even left leaning) academic historians. You can ask about it at /r/askhistorians if you want to know more. You can also check their excellent book list, organized by region and topic.

EDIT: For an overview of US history, The Oxford History of the US series is an excellent primer.

I know less about sociology, but I think a good intro would be Khan's Privilege in that it touches on a contemporary sociological issue in a lay friendly manner but also goes into some theoretical foundations in the tradition of Bourdieu.

u/Swarthykins · 5 pointsr/hillaryclinton

Yeah, pretty much. Obviously, I only know about it historically, but yeah. Peace and love and all that, which I believe in, but they really took it to an extreme. One of the more horrific scenes I've ever seen was a documentary about the time, and this guy is interviewing these parents who had given their 3-5 year old child acid. The kid is freaking out, and the interviewer is asking them why they did it and the parents are just like "acid is beautiful" or something (I forget the details, sorry). The point is, there was something to the liberalization of society, but there were definitely people who took it way too far.

There's a book called 1968 - The Year that Rocked The World by Mark Kurlansky that goes into detail about the era. It's really well-done and both sympathetic and critical:

You still get the reflexively anti-war people at rallies all the time, who basically are against any military engagement regardless of the situation. Again, I'm not saying you can't make the case for pacifism, but I always point out that Ghandi was a medic in two wars, had a deep respect for soldiers because of their civic courage, and that non-violence as he practiced it is a step above conventional warfare in that it's basically a willingness to go to war without weapons, rather than a means to avoid conflict.

There was also real stuff happening, just like there is today. My understanding is that Vietnam really drove people nuts. From what I've read, it was kind of this underlying thing that really stirred the pot. As much as people might talk about Iraq and Bush 1) there were far, far fewer casualties, and 2) There was no draft.

u/AATRWY · 1 pointr/hillaryclinton

If you're actually trying to understand, George Packer had a big article in The New Yorker about it recently. I haven't finished it yet, but it's good so far, and Packer's a superb journalist who has been looking at this question since before the election (he wrote a book called The Unwinding).

u/BumBiddlyBiddlyBum · 2 pointsr/hillaryclinton

That's awesome!!! This book about Hillary looks sooooo cute!

u/autopoietic_hegemony · 1 pointr/hillaryclinton

The thing is that Trump is not completely wrong (although he would have been a bit more correct about the currency manipulation a few years ago). The Japanese, South Korea, Taiwanese... and now the Chinese got rich protecting their own markets/currencies and selling to markets in North American and Europe (they did it by applying variations on what's called the 'developmental state" model). You could buy a South Korea car in the US long before you could buy an American car in South Korea. Their explicit national policy was to prioritize their growth over and above any "free market" considerations. In other words, they ignored the rules of free trade when it suited them. This is in fact not free or fair, and the costs of these policies are often borne by a concentrated unlucky few (even though everyone else benefits).

There is a fairly established literature on the politics surrounding trade, if anyone is interested. (I always tell people to start here and here to get in the proper analytical mindset). Notice that that NYT article never really quoted political economists, but only economists? That because the math of economics pretends the political consequences of trade do not exist. Trade absolutely needs to be accompanied by a generous welfare state to compensate the losers and keep them invested in the process.

Don't dismiss the anger of working class democratic voters. It's not sourced in irrationality.

u/Hexofin · 1 pointr/hillaryclinton

His autobiography has quite good reviews. It's all about his decisions of course.

u/the_dragon01 · 1 pointr/hillaryclinton

Pick up a Spigen ToughArmor. I've got one on my iPhone 6 and I've dropped that thing about seven thousand times. No scratches. It's great.

u/InconvienientFacts · 28 pointsr/hillaryclinton

> Campaigning on the sole basis of "Hey, at least we're not the other guy" and half-hearted centrist policies isn't enough.

She didn't though. The biggest word in the word cloud of her speeches in "Jobs" and there is an actual book you can download called Stronger Together about her gazillion policy proposals that supplements her web page and many many policy oriented speeches.

Which you would know if you went to her web site, read her book, listened to her campaign speeches (hers or her surrogates), or subscribed to her mailing list (which sent me awesome policy videos like this one).

If you don't know these things then you probably got all your news from Bernie and yeah, Bernie did an absolutely horrible job promoting her. After spending all primary slandering her character and record he couldn't wave pom poms for her without admitting he'd been lying himself blue in the face during the primary so instead Bernie pushed the narrative, "At least she's not trump".

And I agree, thats a stupid horrible useless narrative. I'm proud to say that when Hillary lost to Obama in 2016 she showed massively more class than Bernie and honestly supported him with a whole heart.

u/TemporarilyOnEarth · 5 pointsr/hillaryclinton

Does anyone know the difference between these two versions of What Happened:

u/woowoo293 · 9 pointsr/hillaryclinton

This does not remotely surprise me. Expect much more of this.

On another note, there's this very strange parody book.

u/GogglesPisano · 1 pointr/hillaryclinton

Maybe because in the years following the invasion, no evidence was found to support the administration's main justifications for the war: namely, Iraq was engaging in large-scale manufacture of biological/nuclear WMDs and Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks?

Or maybe because of the numerous revelations in the years since that indicate Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and was seeking an excuse to justify it?

This happened pretty recently - it was in all the papers. Maybe read a book or two and educate yourself?

u/Phi_ZeroEscape · 22 pointsr/hillaryclinton

She had more policy than any other candidate, including during the primaries. The notion that her entire campaign was "Trump bad" is an invention by Bernie Bros who don't like to listen to what women actually say.

u/dude_pirate_roberts · 3 pointsr/hillaryclinton

Galifianakis : We chatted about a book I didn’t expect her to know about. We kind of bonded over this book called “Amusing Ourselves to Death” [by Neil Postman].

Now I feel bonded to the two of them!! I read Amusing Ourselves to Death about 30 years ago! TV IS BAD, IIRC. ;)

u/jonathansfox · 1 pointr/hillaryclinton

Excerpt from an opinion piece published in USA Today back in 2012:

> I realize, of course, that a dualistic world view is an effective way to rally supporters and get out the vote. As Bill Reidway, a politically astute member of my congregation, said to me, "It's easiest to get votes when you can convince people the stakes are high — that is, that the other side is evil, as opposed to just wrong."

> Since good and responsible people know that they should never compromise with evil, they end up entering the polling place with a battle mentality. But such an approach only makes sense when Satan is running for president — and despite what you might hear in the darkest recesses of the online world, Satan is not running in 2012.

Excerpt from a review published on Slate, of Alan Wolfe's book Political Evil: What It Is and How To Combat It:

> Nothing is gained, and much is lost, if, in seeking to mobilize opinion to stop a massacre, you call it genocide. You debase the coinage of outrage. Next time you cry wolf, no one will believe you.

> We are indiscriminate in our use of the language of evil, Wolfe argues, because we like what the language does to our own moral standing. It makes us self-righteous. To call others wicked is to give us a moral privilege we may not deserve and a moral permission we are likely to misuse. The language of good and evil only seems to create moral clarity: It actually creates moral entitlement.

> Moral clarity mobilizes: Who does not want to enlist on the side of good against absolute evil? But clarity also anaesthetizes. If I am on the side of good, they on the side of evil, what am I not permitted to do? The authors of President Bush's torture memos claimed the privilege of moral superiority after 9/11 and used it to justify torture.

Reducing politics into a righteous struggle of us vs them, good vs evil, is how people like Trump stir supporters into supporting vile policies that really do destroy lives. There's always some villain in the stories they whip up; the immigrants, the Muslims, the democrats, the media, Wall Street, the republicans, the one percent... they're all convincing from a certain point of view. Both sides have their bugbears, both sides have their "Jews that are destroying Germany."

Just be careful. Remember that you can be smart without calling the people you disagree with stupid, that you can be good without calling the people you disagree with evil, and that the most horrific atrocities are rarely the result of mustache-twirling villains who know right and wrong and choose to be bad, but from otherwise decent people engaging in reductionist thinking that allows them to forgive even the most horrific acts against their enemies.