What are
/r/AskConservatives'
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/AskConservatives:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/AskConservatives:
Rumble
Project Gutenberg
Gab
Parler
Careerbuilder
Moment.js
Startpage
MasterClass
Wordnik
SemanticScholar
Uncyclopedia
Odysee
BBC iPlayer
Acorns
Ludwig.guru
The most popular reviews in /r/AskConservatives:
Reflections on the Revolution in France since Edmund Burke is pretty much the root of all conservative thought in the Anglosphere, but if you want something more contemporary I’d recommend Conservatism by Roger Scruton.
Left/ Right means different things in the US and Europe
Europe is:
More Liberty / Less Liberty
US is:
more govrenment / less government
This because Liberty and Liberalism is a core value in the US. US Conservatives are actually Liberals.
When people on the left say "Far Right" they often mean the European Model.
When people on right say "Far Left" they are using the US Model
​
While this guy gets it a little bit wrong I think it's still pretty good.
https://prezi.com/mc7vxlmepscz/sliding-scale-anarchy-to-totalitarianism/
You should pick up a copy of <em>Hamilton</em> by Chernow. There is an entire body of literature written about the scale of their accomplishment - to say nothing about being the subject of the 6th highest grossing Broadway production of all time.
The Righteous Mind is the book he wrote about the topic.
Note that he thinks that narrative is more compelling so he tells the story of how he arrived at his conclusions in chronological order. The result is that a lot of the data and graphs in earlier chapters are outdated and superseded by data and graphs in the later chapters of the book. Specifically he later came to believe he misdefined "fairness" in a way that was really just a repeat of the "care/harm" axis and he redid a bunch of later research with new questions that better distinguished fairness as reciprocity (basically karma) rather than another form of care/harm.
As a side note I think that's one of the reasons he's so passionate these days about ideological diversity on college campuses... As a guy on the left he had a rather left-wing view of what the word "fairness" meant and because all of his colleagues were leftists as well they all saw nothing wrong with it. It wasn't until he wrote an OP-ed based on his research for the New York Times and got an earful of conservatives and libertarians writing him to tell him he was an idiot who had no clue what "fairness" means that he even realized there was another way to use that word... and after reflection he basically agreed with a viewpoint he wasn't exposed to among his colleagues because they all share the same biases.
I really don't know what his personal politics are, but I can recommend criminology texts by Dr. Lonnie Athens. His books follow his decades of in-person interviews with violent criminals and set out his Violentization theory of criminality. And following on that, Why They Kill by Richard Rhodes that goes over the life and methods of Dr. Athens himself.
Lol, the guy who was stoned for 24 years. That's your source?
Here's a tip, if the story is "mainstream (people with expertise/authority)" ignore XXX but (person with no formal training) knows what's really going on!", it's probably a bullshit conspiracy theory. Such generic anti-intellectualism is everywhere:
- "9/11 was an inside job!"
- "The Earth is Flat!"
- "The Pyramids aren't 3000 years old!"
- "Aliens at Roswell!"
Idiots who believe in one of these things usually believe in several, because it's more about how conspiracy theories make them feel than about the facts. "I'm not wrong, everyone else is!"
For your particular brand of nonsense, I'd recommend this book, which tears it apart piece by piece. And, to be clear, I have zero expectations you'll ever read this. You can't reason people out of a mindset they didn't reason themselves into. But I'm posting it for the benefit of others who have to suffer reading this far.
There's a good book out by a guy named Matthew Continetti called The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism, and it details the different battles that happened over the course of the American conservative movement. It's pretty interesting reading, and it shows just how heated the battles became between, say, the neoconservatives and the Buchananites (who are pretty analogous to the current "national conservative" movement in the GOP).
Now groups like CPAC have transformed from broad conservative outlets to what I would consider borderline treasonous, and definitely un-American groups, given their fawning over foreign dictators like Orban.
Ironically, there was a fairly detailed book written about this. And it's an issue of the party that far pre-dates Trump.
Well as not everyone in Kuwait and SE Iraq is dead, presumably yes.
Also, have we really gone from "what are the mechanisms by which everyone will die or be in peril of death" to "will the map of places nobody sane wants to live change". You might appreciate this article, if we're going to talk about which policies are going to produce the most human prosperity.
If these people were such criminals they'd have been imprisoned prior to 2016. These were all process crimes where you create a situation to trap people.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
This book lays it out well. You mean you the poster could be in prison if the force of the FBI was put on you.
For this entire thing nobody every really listed real crimes, it's all well election law says X and usually it Y so lets bust down their door and get them.
Here's hypothetically it how it would go:
OP: Do you agree with Kingsbury that "Only cowards ban books?"
Desired response of OP: "Absolutely! I'm no coward! We shouldn't ban books and should have free speech!"
OP: "Oh? Then why do you conservatives ban Gender Queer, you coward!?"
The original question is not the topic OP wants to address. They want to talk about removing Gender Queer from school libraries. They set up a false equivalency: the book is not banned. You can buy it here. People just don't want an 18+ book in a school library. In fact, you can still get it from your public library.
From the very first question, the entire premise is disingenuous and misleading. The person who responded cut the fat and pretense out of the argument by directly addressing what OP really wanted to talk about. You know that was the intended book of discussion as well by how people said the title was arguing in bad faith. They knew he was referring to that book specifically.
> "It Wasn't The Stork" targeted at 4 year old
I did look it up, it has stellar reviews from and is recommended by tons of prestegious institutions:
https://www.amazon.com/Its-Not-Stork-Families-Friends/dp/0763633313
>"It's Perfectly Normal" targeted at 8
Same here:
https://www.amazon.com/Its-Perfectly-Normal-Changing-Growing/dp/1536207217
Well according to Friedman, it still is. Everything would go up if gas went up. But, you still wouldn’t have inflation, meaning your dollar would be worth just as much, you just have less of them.
So movie prices might go up, but it won’t be reflected because no one has the money to go, because they use it for gas and food. So there is no aggregate increase in movie revenue.
Without the monetary aspect, it’s just broadly localized price increases.
If you’re really interested the book to read is here.
https://www.amazon.com/Milton-Friedmans-Monetary-Framework-Critics/dp/0226264084
I’m not smart enough to understand it completely, but you may get more out of it and even come away with a different understanding than I did.
I don’t own any political clothing/flags, the only thing I’ve ever had is a Blue Lives Matter Flag that used to be on the back of my car before it weathered away. I didn’t think twice about it and felt comfortable driving everywhere (even think it might have gotten me out of a ticket), only place I felt uncomfortable was driving it to my (very very liberal) college during the BLM riots. Was afraid I’d get my windows smashed so I always parked backing in against a wall.
It's not the LGBT content they are complaining about, it's the graphic sex in the books they are complaining about.
Such as with 'Gender Queer: A Memoir' for example. Which has graphic descriptions about pegging and strap ons.
Is the book appropriate for children no, even Amazon and other book sellers rate it as "18 and over". See Amazon Gender Queer: A Memoir. Yet its found is schools.
Even the School boards which allow it for children have refused to allow parents to read from that book in meetings because the content is inappropriate even for adults apparently!
>Can u ease provide some examples of this "elimination"?
Sure. Here are 90 million of examples: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
>Nice demeaning tone, followed by another generality with no evidence.
This isn't a debate forum, buddy. If that's what you're looking for, find someone else. I'm not interested in that crap.
You will be unable unable to find an empirical study that shows the effectiveness of masks. All of the studies showing their effectiveness were based around spraying water on mannequins. Meanwhile, here is an entire book of peer reviewed studies showing why they aren't doing anything:
https://www.amazon.com/Unmasked-Global-Failure-COVID-Mandates/dp/1637583761
​
But go ahead and keep virtue signaling.
I’ll have to check out Douglas’ book! Yea, I’m currently reading The Evangelicals which talked a lot about what you just mentioned.
While the abolitionist in the North DID use religion to justify their cause, the southern Baptists did the same thing in opposite direction. So it’s sort of a muted point imo.
As for the last point I’m saying your religious belief or value shouldn’t not be present with you a the poll. An elementary example is; say a Muslim who doesnt eat pork. When they go to the voting booth and see a proposition saying “should pork be allowed in grocery stores?” DESPITE their personal beliefs about pork, I’d argue they should check yes in the voting booth because that grants liberty to OTHERS who might not be Muslim to consume pork. That is what i mean by someone’s religious values should be separate from that of a nation. If we are a nation that values liberty then we must value the ability to sometimes eat pork
Some suspect that it's a possibility.
Some more suspect that a lower level of violent conflict (like the Troubles in Ireland) as a possibility.
Still others suspect that a a largely (but not completely) peaceful breakup of the US is possible.
I had a personal experience with the media in my late teenage years that really opened my eyes to how even seemingly unbiased news can be incredibly biased (and by biased I mean leading a reader to certain conclusions, not necessarily in a partisan manner). IMO, there is no greater teacher than experience.
That being said, two great places to start would be a couple of books that specifically address how media bias rears it's head.
The first is about 20 yers old but the lessons contained are as relevant today as ever before - Bernard Goldberg Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
The second is a more recent book by another award winning journalist - Sharyl Attkinson: Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism
These are books by two long-time and well-respected journalists who felt the need to call out the entire industry.
I don't know that you can "undo" leftwing influence until actually experience what it means to be on the other side of an issue.
Okay. Here's the Encyclopædia Britannica article that outlines it.
For further reading, I recommend <em>Critical Race Theory: An Introduction</em> by Richard Delgado which describes it further.
I wish I was lying. I don’t have access to the syllabus nor course material anymore (I took the class in early 2020), but this was our textbook:
You really ought to read something like <em>The Rise of Early Modern Science</em>.
Around the year 1000, no one would have predicted that pitiful Western Europe would soon drive the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Arabic, Chinese, and Indian societies were all much more advanced. So why did it happen in Western Europe? Read through the book - the answer is because of the culture which Christianity engendered.
Not without doxxing myself, lol. I will say the book The Anatomy of Fascism, is a book that is actually a super interesting and engaging read on the subject and his examination of the KKK as proto-fascist is awesome.
https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton/dp/1400033918
> The insider trading
Have not heard of this. Can you explain?
> The tax laws that benefit the rich
I can assure you that the left has known & actively worked against tax laws benefitting the rich. (Note that 'the left' is distinct from 'the Democrat party'.)
> the reason why border security was ignored
Which was?
> the women who were raped by Bill Clinton and threatened by Hillary
> the fake dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary campaign
Yeah, that dossier was a massive joke. In total agreement there. Hillary being ruthlessly self-serving and corrupt is not news to me.
> the voter fraud
L-O-fuckin-L. Sorry but... yikes.
> the gain of function research created in the Wuhan lab that gave us COVID-19
Trump didn't expose this at all.
> the Hunter Biden laptop
Trump didn't expose this at all.
> and Biden's illegal dealings with China, Russia, and the Ukraine
Not familiar with those. Please let me know.
We aren't overriding anything. You are perfectly free to order a book from Amazon or take your kid to the public library. That's where my kids got most of their books anyway. I need you to tell me why "Gender Queer" belongs in an elementary school library.
It's not your fault that some rando jumped to conclusions, unless there's something I don't know about flag etiquette. Lots of people feel entitled to share their opinions on how people should live their lives. When I hear something less than useful, I just smile, thank them for the advice, then immediately forget it as soon as the person leaves.
If you really want to minimize the confusion, you could have some sort of plaque describing it as an Eagle Scout flag. There are also special shadow boxes for Eagle Scout displays like this.
I could give you some massive overwhelming list, but I never find that to be particularly helpful since that's more or less asking you to enroll in a university course on the topic. I think it's better to take things step by step and explore conservatism in your own way.
In my opinion, the core of conservative political thinking is Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. It's very dense and difficult to read, but it's worth it. A supplement can be helpful to read alongside it. I always suggest this edition because it fills in a lot of the context that might go over your head.
Biden would have won.
But, Obama really disliked Biden and thought he was a buffoon. He actively lobbied against him in the 2020 Dem primaries until he literally couldn't lobby for anyone else.
https://www.amazon.com/Lucky-How-Biden-Barely-Presidency/dp/0525574220 This book was, enlightening.
This will feed one person fairly comfortably for a month at only 4 dollars a day. Shelf life 25 years.
"our military that keeps us safe?"
the usual myth of the neocon historians to justify over spending in the army
Buffered by TWO oceans and rather inoffensive neighbors ( canada, mexico, caribbean islands)
exactly WHO threatens the USA? Brazil? Argentina?
I always wonder what would have been if the USA was located REALLY CLOSE to rivals and enemies...like European and Asian nations have done historically.
However
If the argument was : the US army and navy are 2 of the bigger employers for the US people -as it really happens---..... then, it would be a valid and REAL one
If you want to learn more about crt You can read this https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Writings-Movement/dp/1565842715/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?crid=2HN6NCCTTFQ22&keywords=critical+race+theory&qid=1643593339&sprefix=critical+race+theory+%2Caps%2C215&sr=8-4.
It's largely from this book, which widely predates the current protests and is by one of the founders of the legal movement.
I don't know how anyone can say they know what CRT is and not understand these basic tenets.
I hate it when people like you continuously lie while picking these absurd border line cases where someone paid extra once and then got their lawful refund. Or where a company filed their losses in their taxes.
Here are the stats for Tax rate based on wages:
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
Or:
The rich's effective tax rate is much much higher than the middle class. In fact, the whole government is operating just because of the insane amount of taxes the rich pay (both total and effective tax rate)
Okay, but you understand Rumble and Parler also benefit from Section 230 immensely. Here's Parler's community guidelines which read, in part:
> Posting spam and using bots are nuisances and are not conducive to productive and polite discourse. In addition, it is unjust to our Influencers and creators, who have put time and effort into building their following and goodwill, and who deserve unfettered enjoyment of the effects of their hard work. The use of our mute and block features, by individual users, is often adequate to address problems with spam. But whenever it is not, and particularly when the behavior negatively affects the ability of those participating in our Influencer Network to monetize themselves, Parler will remove accounts of those who engage in this behavior.
Imagine if Parler were responsible for literally all content they host just because they removed a bot spamming furry hentai porn. That's what would happen without Section 230. So in that sense Parler is also "having its cake and eating it too".
Japan has nationally mandated maternity leave, paternity leave, far more holidays and cultural events, and also have stricter regulations on overtime and over work. Japan is on a relative decline and US surpassed Japan in no of hours worked few years ago.
https://clockify.me/assets/images/working-hours/average-hours-trend-2.png
You might find This Book interesting. Not that you'll agree with all or most of it, but maybe interesting. I like it, but we likely have different taste.
Anyway...
>The only people in real life who have thought it’s a good idea are 80 percent people who don’t do a lot,
Let's call this Person 1.
>and then 20 percent people who automated stuff away, not realizing that that is part of their job,
Let's call this Person 2.
>we didn’t pay them to automate some thing and then never work again. They get paid well to automate stuff, then find something else to automate
Let's call the person who would do this Person 3.
I am somewhere between Person 2 and Person 3. Person 2 most of the time, but Person 3 enough to seem like I am someone who is that "go getter." The issue is there is no incentive for most workers (not owners or co-opers) do do more, and it takes really in-tune management to catch it.
I know people who are Person 3 in my same job... but I do more with less time, so why SHOULD I work even more for no extra pay (salary bands in my firm are tight).
Any way you can theorize as to how to balance this?
I think Dinesh had put it the best way
https://rumble.com/viypt7-epidemic-of-racism-or-racial-hoaxes.html?mref=23gga&mrefc=3
i.e. people build their identity around being victims, so being unable to find evidence of their victim-hood in real life, they have an urge to fake it.
For this, I see you as being in a bubble. So, chances are, we all are living in our own bubbles, perceiving them as truth and assuming the other one is delusional.
>but they are not peddled abject untruths
How's about 'Russian collusion'? They paddled it for like two years, then dropped it overnight. How's about slandering Nick Sandman for smiling back at that crazy Indian dude?
By the way, I'm not watching Fox, Oann, or, even worst qanaon. The latest clearly seems to be a leftist troll.
I more tend to watch Bill Whittle ( here's a good episode he did lately https://rumble.com/vgpixd-alone-from-winston-churchill-to-the-zuckerberg-baby-naming-to-wuhan.html?mref=6f1ej&mc=aj60t ), Dinesh D'Souza , Candace Owens , a bit of Michael Knowles sometimes.
Do you also see them as crazy conspiracy theorists? :D
As for BLM/Antifa, clearly they are Marxist terrorist organizations, created to sew racial division, i.e. Marxist class struggle theory. To set blacks against whites, whites against blacks, etc.
About the un-American thing... I am trying to view things in context and sometimes you have to sacrifice a little to protect a lot. While you seem to be missing the broader context and keep focusing on procedures, rather then the outcome.
For example, I want maximum freedom from coercion. From BML burning down my business or the government taxing me into oblivion, or from indoctrinating children into critical race or gender theory, etc. I don't really care how it is achieved. If it can be achieved following the constitution, fine. If not, if it takes a strong-man, who would wipe his ass with the constitution and take leftists for a helicopter ride, totally cool with me.
While you seem to be focused on the procedure - we should follow the constitution, no matter what the outcome.
Trump has invested a lot of money into HIV research. Every time someone gets infected with HIV, that means you're that much more likely to be infected with HIV yourself. No one is safe from HIV. Everyone wins with HIV infection is prevented and/or cured.
It's tiring, but I'm more tired of left wing and center media talking about it than right wing media (mostly since I'm more likely to agree with them).
Not just media, the left wing culture war is all over the place. I'm reading documentation for a javascript library we use at work, and there's messaging about what political causes I should donate to? I'm trying to do work here.
>Parler advertises themselves as a right-wint talking platform and band anyone who is a left-winger.
No they didn't. They specifically advertised themselves as aiming to "...provide a nonpartisan public square". Direct quote from Parler:
>We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both.
It was a Q supporter pushing Q conspiracy theories.
If what you want is engaged back and forth, that's gone from Twitter, because Twitter has banned over 100k Q related accounts, and deleted their posts.
So the type of content you want has been permanently deleted.
You have to go to places like Gab to find it now:
https://gab.com/StormIsUponUs/posts/105566412810515288
There's an example. That entire account is filled with them.
I don’t know if this is a good spot for this but I’ll try it
Join minds with my referral link. It’s like Facebook Twitter and Reddit combined but better in every way. There’s a website and a mobile app. Drawbacks are: not many people using it, most of the people that use it were banned from other platforms, and most (not all) of the content is politics. However, you can earn cryptocurrency (minds tokens which can be converted into bitcoin, Etherium, and USD and more) The value is always changing, and I am always earning tokens. I definitely recommend it, especially if you support free speech. Also, you can monetize your content with ads and membership tiers. https://www.minds.com/register?referrer=skyward8skyfall
There's a lot of revisionism about Palin, but she basically made McCain competitive for the first time in the race and anyone who was not a moderate-leaning Republican not only loved that she was on the ticket, but kind of wished she was leading it.
It's important to understand that Palin circa 2008 was not the Palin we know today, or even the Palin from 2010. She absolutely hit the populist strains early, but the messaging from the left hit her really hard and did her in.
I was very excited for her, but she leaned in hard on the Tea Party stuff and lost her way, and that's truly unfortunate. There's a great book about her, <em>The Persecution of Sarah Palin</em>, that really does a great job outlining the ways she was absolutely crushed by the media apparatus that I wholeheartedly recommend. With that said, the fact that her standing legacy is an entire political party believing a Tina Fey quote was actually a sitting politician tells you a lot of what she had to deal with, and probably did more to foster distrust in the media and fuel the rise of the Tea Party than any other non-policy activity.
Two-Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren
> We had her income to keep us afloat, which allowed me to go back to college for a real degree. That decision has easily quadrupled my earning potential since then.
Sounds like making better choices earlier in your life would've prevented you from needing a woman to pay your bills while you fix your shit. Either way, as you pointed out, totally validating my point, you've quadrupled your income. Her taking care of you financially was contingent on your potential earning potential. Men don't factor career potential whatsoever when caring for a woman. She could say she wants to be a CPA or a Preschool teacher, a dude isn't going to care about it, even if he's supportive. Meanwhile, a dude making 30k isn't even going to be noticed by a woman unless he's ripped and pursuing Tinder hookups.
>If you budget such that everything is affordable on either one of the two salaries, then you’re golden.
This is true of single-income as well. It's better to have one person making 80k than two people making 40k.
>What does that last part even mean? How are you in trouble with two incomes?
It's based on average American issues. As you have posted, this might not apply to you (you seem better off).
This book by Elizabeth Warren (pre politics) goes into it more. Suffice the arguments:
- Two incomes are now often required for "a good life" for your family and kids
- Any loss of one income is as bad as both, as you functionally go into debt to keep up (mostly if you have kids)
- A person not working is "reserve labor" who can work in times of struggle.
But, you know this, as you elaborated...
>If you budget such that everything is affordable on either one of the two salaries, then you’re golden. Whoever loses their job can just look for a new one. And isn’t forced into desperately taking something shitty. Because you have the other income to keep everything afloat.
>
>I can speak on this first hand because it happened to us back in 2009. We had her income to keep us afloat, which allowed me to go back to college for a real degree. That decision has easily quadrupled my earning potential since then.
And that's not typical, because the average household is competing with others for basics which require 90-95% of their incomes. You are better off than most, so yes, you could do so.
The average income for one person in the US is $31K or so, and just a bit more for working parents... which is not enough to raise a family on based on contemporary standards on one income alone.
Good housing (schools), education (college), and medicine are only attainable to many working households if they are working at full capacity. This is due to competition with OTHER parents and households doing the same.
This is exasperated by DINKs (Double Income No Kids) like me who can pay for MORE housing than we need, and make it even harder to live off of one income.
So I can see your points here, and frankly, I agree with them mostly. It's funny how much they align with circa 2003 Elizabeth Warren's proposal in The Two-Income Trap to have all savings be tax free regardless of purpose (HSA; 529;IRA;etc). It's not a terrible proposal, IMO.
I will look into it more, but I do still have marginal concerns as to the "effective tax bill" relative to the ability to pay (revenues and wealth). I spoke upthread in favor of a different version of the same thing, but moving the locus point from income to sales, and having a prebate attached.
Thanks for the discussion!
Sorry I didn’t see this response.
I’ll take my own example in life. I went to diverse but highly successful LARGE secular public school. It’s size and education were hugely influential as to my later success in my view. Assuming a universal charter system (big assumption I know) that would likely be impossible. The community I grew up in was very religious, and thus non-secular schools would surely succeed. It’s selfishness on my part I suppose to want secular options to be “the default.”
That said, I have issues with most schools and their purposes. What I gained from that school was community more than anything, and much of the actual education was secondary.
If you want a perspective that mirrors my own, this book is quite close in its views.
> You think the left supports rioting and destruction?
Yes.
> Are you being serious
Yes.
First you have more than few who are upfront and honest about supporting riots and destruction.
The rest though play a game of Schrodinger's Protester/rioter where if the police stop a crowd from burning a building or looting a store during the rioting associated with leftist protests it's "police brutality against unarmed protestors" BUT if they do NOT stop the rioters and they DO burn down a building "Those were riots which had nothing to do with the peaceful protests".
Even then it's smothered in sympathy for the looters and arsonists. "Well it IS wrong of course for them to burn down their neighbors property. BUT, I understand their frustration... and that guy with the fire extinguisher they beat to shit? he shouldn't have been interfering. It's 'only' property and insurance will cover it."
What the hell? I guess not. He put everything behind a paywall now. That's obnoxious.
It looks like all of his stuff is on Slice and his own website but you have to pay for it now. https://dlive.tv/nickjfuentes https://nicholasjfuentes.com/
I wouldn't recommend giving him any money. There do seem to be some videos on bitchute though.
Also, for those that think inflation IS buying power, they're related but not the same
Rose City Antifa, John Brown gun club, Socialist rifle association
Further, there is a website called riseup.net that does communication for various antifa groups across the country.
> And can you name the conservative policy?
The Flat tax is a perennial favorite. The "Fair tax" replacement of income taxes with a national sales tax comes up in conservative policy circles from time to time. Trump's tax changes moved the ball a little way down the field by increasing the standard deduction and eliminating several of the smaller itemized deductions... I think it was a step forward in simplifying the tax code with it's increases to the standard deduction which will probably help future attempts politically since it reduces the size of the constituencies defending the loopholes. But sadly congress pulled back from actually following through elimination of deductions that were in the earlier drafts... by the time it passed through reconciliation most (though happily not all) of the deductions had been restored.
That's one of the problems with using the tax code to effect policy by "nudging" people via tax incentives. Once you create a loophole to "nudge" people to do what you want you create a constituency of "nudged" people who will passionately defend those loopholes. The left will defend those loopholes on principle as a way to direct the populace in the way politicians desire, the right often ends up defending them to avoid "raising taxes" on the people who had been "nudged".
Sorry, but the data does not support that. There is a wide body of research on that claim and none of it supports your statement.. I think the more detailed reporting I've read was a book by Neil Vidmar Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths about Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Damage Awards
It brings reason and fact to the debate in a way that puts the lie to the many myths surrounding medical negligence cases. For anyone genuinely interested in just solutions, this book should be required reading. To act in ignorance of its findings invites disaster." --Trial
If you would like a very well-written book on the subject, try George Will's <em>The Conservative Sensibility</em>.
I really liked <em>The Vanishing Tradition: Perspectives on American Conservatism</em> edited by Paul Gottfried. It's more or less a collection of essays by Conservative philosophers and scholars. I think it's an excellent collection that accurately portrays and diseminates the ideological content of Conservatism.
Easy. Gotta be <em>Cum for Bigfoot</em>
About the Author
>Virginia Wade is the author of the popular Cum For Bigfoot Series as well as The Stacy Series, which have entertained and aroused readers around the world. Lately she has dipped her toes in historical erotica, infusing the stories with her trademark humor, fast-paced plotlines, and super hot, Kindle scorching sex. Married and the mother of two, Virginia's other passions include traveling, figure skating, collecting art, and shopping. Visit her website at virginia-wade-erotica.com or follow her on Twitter: @VirginiaErotica
Even endorsed by other names you know.
>"...I am in total awe!" - Anne Rice
It's all from the first chapter of this book. It's pro-CRT. If you think I'm misstating anything, by all means.
> The default for the human condition is starving to death and dying of preventable disease. Literally everything above that baseline requires a massive amount of individual effort from every member of society to actualize.
Well, no. Human beings are inherently inclined toward helping each other. It’s not until the introduction of trauma and fear do we start drawing lines and boundaries to separate ourselves from each other. This book expands on these ideas.
I’m not pushing for anything more authoritarian than we already have. We have the homes to house the homeless. We have the food. We have the clothes. We make way more than we actually use and it goes to waste. Instead, we could use what we produce, use what we subsidize, use the vast wealth of the United States to help people live whatever kind of life they want to live. Many, many people will work. And they will work harder than they did when starvation was their only incentive. We’re seeing this shift even now with many businesses showing increases in productivity the higher morale and home life satisfaction is.
I recognize your desire for human beings to reach their utmost potential. What I’m saying is imagine how much higher we can reach if we weren’t bogged down with the minutia of survival?
It seems you’re thinking if we provide these things to people, they will simply stop doing anything. Or that society will collapse due to the cost maybe? But neither of these things would happen, since science and sociology tell us that human beings choose to work even when not forced to. And we already have the resources.
If we can spend $2-4 trillion in Afghanistan, then we can spend that or more here to help our own people.
What are the fundamental reasons you are personally opposed to using the wealth of the USA to help vulnerable people?
> Why do women need men anymore? Men are treated like some sort of raging sexual idiots in the culture. Woman says yes or no to sex. The woman has control on abortion. Women will almost always get custody in a split. >
Someone should write a book...
We've come to a point in our culture where if we talk about people's sexual practices in a negative light, we're accused of "shaming" them. This needs to stop.
There are clearly behaviors, for both men and women, that lead to bad outcomes. And yes, having sex outside of marriage is one of them, sorry. You can advocate for abortion and/or birth control, but sex without commitment inevitably leads to fatherlessness.
And we aren't holding the men accountable in these situations, in large part because these now single mothers regret their choice of partner, and want nothing to do with him, relationally or financially. That may be fine for her well-being, but it robs a child of a parent.
Finally, we need to stop accidentally rewarding single mothers for making this choice and calling them heroic or anything of the sort. There's a great book on this topic and others: Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. Definitely check it out.
There is a great book by one of my heroes, Thomas Sowell, that covers this topic: Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
Odd title aside, Sowell dives into the history of antisemitism. Basically, after the diaspora when Jews migrated to various parts of Europe occurred, they remained a cohesive unit, bonded by their Jewish heritage and culture. When an economic downturn, this cohesiveness helped them survive better than their neighbors.
Their neighbors, in turn, suffered from both envy and xenophobia. Not only were the Jews "not one of us", they had the audacity to do better financially overall. Political leaders used this hatred to their advantage, and scapegoated the Jews as "money-loving" and greedy, out to screw over the Gentiles. Some leaders even went so far as to try and eliminate them as a people, which far too many turned a blind eye to.
I'm not sure if you know about these already, but have you seen the masks with "windows"? These might not help entirely with your children (since not everyone will be wearing these of course) but it might make it easier on them if they are able to see their parents mouths at the very least.
I sincerely hope that whatever happens with regards to new potential masking rules, that your children experience as few adverse effects as possible. I imagine this must be hard on any child, but especially so for those with conditions such as autism.
A load of rapists and cop-killers, whom I'm supposed to admire for running a school breakfast program. The Shadow Of The Panther is a good book about them; couldn't be written today.
Human society follows in a cyclical pattern, these patterns are unbroken for much of human history and seem to be a natural feature of humanity. These cycles have their own effects on society. The fourth turning is when things start going south. This obviously doesn't explain the issue outright, but it's important to note that this is a reoccurring thing rather than something unique that can be solved. In fact, things can be made worse if we overreact to this as we have been.
If you are interested in such subjects. This book is fantastic on the history and major world events surrounding Oil.
Oil and World Power: A Geographical Interpretation (Pelican Original)
>No, it's actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Asking someone why they think the left is demonizing people while we've seen through the past six years of the left demonizing people is incredibly disingenuous. But please, overwrite a "no u" response and then take the moral high ground when you get called out for your nonsense.
Did anyone in the GOP legitimately say that? Following the 2006 and 2008 Democratic landslides high-profile Democrats were literally writing books about how they were going to have a permanent majority. The GOP had total control of government 7 years after this was published.
Enjoyed it too. Would definitely recommend Robert Paxton if you want to read more about fascism from one of the premier experts in the world on the topic.
If podcasts are more your style, The History of the Second World War Podcast has a good 4 (#7-#10) episode mini-series on the rise of Mussolini and 19 (#15-#33) episode mini-series on the rise of the Nazis that is very thorough and well sourced.
The government's purpose is to protect rights.
Law enforcement does not undo or compensate, they do not redistribute. All they do is prevent rights violations from happening. Some might argue that they don't do a good job, but that's a different debate.
Firefighters do not replace your house. All they do is put out the fire, which will not bring back the house and is there to prevent the fire from spreading and damaging other properties. Again, they do not redistribute.
Single Payer and other forms of "free" healthcare redistribute.
This line of argumentation that socialism is when the government does something is a gross simplification of what these things are and it's time people reject it. Socialism is a serious threat to the citizenry and will end up killing people because these systems are not in a vacuum. You cannot say that the government needs to direct how people use their resources and not cause death.
Its free if you subscribe to kindle unlimited!
Yes, America. The first slaves brought to North America were overwhelmingly white, mostly Irish and Scottish war prisoners, British convicts, and many other "undesirable" groups.
Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Zero for two. It is a myth that the morality no longer applies. People just use the technological change as a false justification to ignore it.
​
Sexual purity isn't due to a lack of birth control and condoms. It is simply the truth of the world.
It is eternal. Condoms and birth control have managed to delay the inevitable, but sexual decadence always still blows up in your face. The AIDS crisis happened because of technology making sex seem less dangerous -- and so the next disease to come along ripped through the decadent, promiscuous artistic communities.
Moreover, condoms and birth control are unethical to use in the first place and should not have been invented.
​
Historically, most women who were not wealthy did do work though usually not full-time outside the home. Home care advances mean that women suffer less drudgery, but public school has normalized a miserably authoritarian form of education that does not reliably teach children anything other than depression, neuroticism, and obdedience to bureaucratic authority. Meanwhile, women working outside the home as a matter of course has not actually brought wealth or happiness to these women or their families. It has caused most of the gains to be eaten up by competition. The liberal Elizabeth Warren wrote about this in her book: https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907. Additionally, having both the man and the woman work typical wage-slavery jobs means the children are neglected and there is not enough capacity to care for the extended family and do other things that must be done.
​
​
We must learn to live as if condoms and birth control did not exist.
And before Obama the W. administration and their mouthpieces on Fox News labelled everyone who opposed the Iraq war as traitors. Given that the anti-war crowd was overwhelmingly left of center, I think this was worse than anodyne comments from Obama about "playing politics".
And let's not ignore right-wing talk radio starting in the 90s either. Or conservative "thinkers" who wrote bestselling books like this.
> land was primarily unsettled and unused
I would have disputed that, but recently read part of "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus"
> "the books paints a picture of a hemisphere utterly devastated by plague following contact, and a cultural death spiral so rapid that both natives and colonizers largely forgot what the continents looked like before."
You really can't blame 15th century people - no knowledge of germ theory.
Do you believe the the left has abdicated the whip all that time?
Do you believe left-wing talking heads don't have all the same books?
I fully acknowledge that the right wing uses the whip when they can. I only stopped at Obama for the sake of brevity. But the idea that it's been one-sided is laughable. If you feel like it has, check your bias.
Are you old enough to remember this? Conservatives have been happy enough to use the whip since long before the Obama years. This goes back to the advent of right-wing talk radio in the early 90s.
The right also spent the entirety of Obama's presidency screaming that he was a Marxist, an Islamist, a Kenyan, and worse.
Until very recently, speaking out against the Iraq war was almost exclusively seen as a leftist behavior. Those of us who did were branded traitors to our own country and a large majority of conservatives nodded their heads in agreement. And now the right wants to act like they're somehow aggrieved like no other group of voters ever were before.
>it's time for Biden to return to the Democrats of the 90s.
Were you alive in the 90s? Before Obama conservatives spent years telling the country that everyone left of Reagan was a traitor. This goes back to the advent of conservative talk radio in the mid-90s.
For more than 20 years I've watched conservative family members fall deeper and deeper into right-wing hatred of everything other. Of Democrats, urbanites, non-Christians, and immigrants. I've been told that anyone who isn't conservative hates their own country, that we want to destroy America, that we hate freedom itself. The only thing more ridiculous are conservatives whining about how hated they are now. Did you really not recognize this game when it was your side who played it? Because it's been happening for a very long time and it's a little late to expect anyone else to treat you any better than you've treated others.
*You as in conservatives generally.
>Beyond that, I can't see anything else the Right is doing which would be a dealbreaker for continuing to maintain a civil society but let me know if I'm missing something.
The right has been demonizing its enemies for 30 years now.
https://www.amazon.com/Treason-Liberal-Treachery-Cold-Terrorism/dp/1400050324
I have family members who have been locked in to conservative talk radio since the mid-90s and as far as they're concerned, Democrats are somewhere between Satan and Jeffrey Dahmer. It's not just Democrats either, you can also add blue states and cities into the mix - remember Sarah Palin's "Real America" speech? That mentality has never changed, even though more Americans live in urban than rural counties.
The right has a problem with claiming to love America while despising most of the people who live here.
I'm not sure what it means to "support transgenderism" or to "not accept transgenderism." I'll try to reply to a few things you mention.
"assigned male or female at birth" -- This is false. At least 99.9% of people have their sex observed at birth. A doctor or nurse obviously does not have the power to assign a person's sex. There is an extremely tiny number of people who are born intersex, but I don't think those are the people you're talking about here.
I read all four of your links, and some of the papers linked within those. Most of those links are full of pseudoscientific garbage. For instance, that a handful of people having one tiny area of the brain being ever so slightly more similar to the brain of the opposite sex does not even remotely imply that "a biological male that wants to become a female has a brain more similar to a biological female than a biological male." I don't accept such anti-scientific claptrap.
I think adults that want to modify their bodies with surgery or consume high doses of sex hormones should probably be able to do so if doctors let them. I think children should not be given sex surgery or sex hormones. That's probably the main objection I have to the transgender agenda.
Since I read your links, I'd like to invite you to read at least part of Abigail Shrier's book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, as my objection to "treatment" for children who say they are transgender stems largely from this book and the studies it references.
Furthermore, you can buy food online if for some reason you managed to chase all the grocery stores out of town!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0787TC4ZP/
50 lbs potatoes = $35 (minimum needed for delivery) = 17,450 calories = ~6 days of food (unrefrigerated shelf life of potatoes is more since I know you'll say "poor people haven't figured out refrigeration"). Prime is $119 per year so that comes to about $6 per day with the membership.
I don't know exactly what food poor people get at the convenience store or what they even sell at gas stations these days besides gasoline since I'm not a moron and don't buy food there, so I picked something that doesn't need to be refrigerated:
https://www.cvs.com/shop/snickers-bar-1-86-oz-prodid-268102 (I consider "CVS" a convenience store)
$1.39 for 250 calories. To get to 3,000 you'd need 12 of them so that's $16.68 / day.
Either way you cut it, highly processed, prepared foods are more expensive and even if you ship food to your home from Amazon, you're still getting a better deal!
Oh, and here, if you want more detail on why you’re wrong, it’s in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000TU6IKC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_IMp3FbCFBN70Y
And this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000V6J1GM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_DNp3FbTP5X67E
No, I can’t offer details on what they say- my argument is: the entire book(s). You just have to buy them, and read them, and tell me why they’re wrong.
Let me know when you’ve done that! 😂
I highly recommend reading/(or listening) to "The Storm before the Calm" by George Friedman. The book is focused on him making some predictions about the next 100 years or so, but he does a really great job (and spends a significant part of the book) explaining how America got to where it is politically and socially and what we're seeing now. As a bonus it's well written and an relatively easy read.
I am. My wife and kids already voted early. But I tend to procrastinate anyway and I really like the communal experience of waiting in line with other voters and voting on election day. The whole push for mail-in ballots which long predates covid feels like a very antisocial "Bowling Alone" kind of phenomena.
I may regret it this year. Lines are going to be crazy long due to social distancing and a lack of poll volunteers who are mostly little old ladies and a few little old men and many of them aren't doing it this year because of covid.
Op, if you want a real answer to your question, it's addressed in the book, "Quirk" by Hannah Holmes. It's a fascinating book, and really helped to illuminate me on exactly what you're asking. It talks about the reason why both liberal and conservative personality types have persisted and the evolutionary benefits and disadvantages to each. But in a nutshell, conservatism is a play-it-safe approach that sticks to "tried and true".
I'll take this one. "Hating America" can mean many things, but it definitely includes requiring public high school students read this tripe as it were fact, rather than a vile compendium of half-truths and erroneous logic. A first year college student could pick it apart, so they shove it in at high school level - pretty much the definition of indoctrination.
What do you mean "should this be acceptable?"
If you mean should this line of thought be excised from the public discourse. No, because shes right about the stats and probably right about the reality of the situation.
If you mean, is it acceptable for people to racial profile. Then, no. That is something we would strive against.
​
Realistically, this is a very complicated issue that occurs in more areas than just the scenario Abby outlines. Like in job interviews, if background checks are required for the position, they've found less discrimination based on names and appearance.
Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book about this. Discrimination and Disparities.
Yeah. I've never been a fan of the way that guy reasons. But apparently he wrote a book!
https://www.amazon.com/Nihilism-Philosophy-Based-Nothingness-Eternity/dp/0994595832
Didn't realize that until I saw the ads for it on his website.
Different value systems. I think Jonathan Haidt did a lot of good work on this in The Righteous Mind
He's a social psychologist who studied the psychology of morality across different cultures. He identified several different "moral foundations" which people base their notions of right/wrong upon and identified them as:
- Care/harm
- Fairness/cheating
- Loyalty/betrayal
- Authority/subversion
- Sanctity/degradation
- Liberty/oppression (This was a later addition to his theory)
He likens these foundations to moral "taste buds" noting that different foundations will naturally resonate with different people to varying degrees. In his testing he found that the left prioritized Care/Harm well above all others with Fairness/cheating coming in second and the others barely registering at all. Interestingly Conservatives did NOT place Care/harm significantly lower as liberals might suppose. Rather, they placed all other foundations higher to the point that all of the foundations were roughly equal. In other words by-and-large conservatives are NOT significantly less compassionate than liberals as most liberals might suppose BUT that their compassion might situationally be be tempered by competing moral considerations.
So, to find the liberal position on any issue you can just ask "Is someone not being cared for?" or "Is someone being harmed?" but to find the conservative position you have to further ask "Did they have it coming?" based on some violation of one of the other moral foundations.
You can see these moral considerations play out predictably as Haidt would predict in every single political controversy: Death penalty, welfare, taxes, immigration, kneeling during the anthem, etc. etc. etc.
I would recommend the The Black Book of Communism (expensive, but may be in a library) as well as Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe by Anne Applebaum.
I don't know what was the "light bulb" moment for you only, but frankly Republicans haven't been classically conservative since Nixon. They concentrated on unimportant but divisive issues (drugs, abortions, same sex marriage, guns, etc.) to win votes from one issue voters who constantly vote against their best interests just to piss off the other side.
Even Reagan, who is constantly brought up as the patron saint of conservatism, was not a conservative by almost any measure.
Check out What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Frank Thomas: https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=httpwwwkalelc-20&linkId=4603df6811f7dca14f6514e73f08d3b8&language=en_US
If you're interested in IR, there's a great book that goes into the 4 schools of thought. The interesting thing is that, domestically, a politician can be either left or right but still fall in line with any of the 4. The two globalist/interventionist/hawk positions deal with monetary (Hamiltonian school) and humanitarian issues (Wilsonian school). The two nationalist/isolationist/dove positions deal with libertarianism (Jeffersonian school) and populism (Jacksonian school). This was written well before Trump but the description for Jacksonian nationalist populist fits Trump so well you'd think the author was clairvoyant. The history behind each school and the evolution of US foreign policy is fascinating and its a great read.
​
Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World
by Walter Russell Mead
​
You can find one used on Amazon for only $37.