What are /r/Ask_Politics' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Republicans ideologically value authority, hierarchy and loyalty more then Democrats, who value independent thinking and dissent more. This translates into Republicans being a party that’s organized more from the top down.

See Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory for more on this.

James Garfield was without a doubt one of the most extraordinary men ever elected president. He literally came from nothing and was on trajectory to be the hero the country needed when he was tragically assassinated--he may be the only reluctant president we have had aside from George Washington himself. I highly recommend Candice Millard's biography, Destiny of the Republic.

It's Russia. They aren't "liberal," they're authoritarian. The entire nation is filled with conquered strongmen and the tribes they've subjugated. The person after Putin will be a worse strongman. This is the way it's been for hundreds of years, from conscription under the Empire to invading Ukraine in 2014. The only national pride is them invading neighbors and declaring they were "always Russian anyway." This is the reason NATO was born, and still exists to this day, despite the collapse of the Soviets.

Edit: downvotes without comments? Cmon cowards, read a book.

https://www.amazon.com/Putins-Footsteps-Searching-Empire-Russias/dp/1250163234

I'm a little slow today, so I'm not exactly sure I understand your question, but it brings back memories of the 2004 election:

In 2005, following the Bush-Kerry election, there were multiple reports of election fraud in Ohio, documented fully in John Conyers' report What Went Wrong In Ohio?. Ohio was where this election was ultimately decided. Election results in a number of crucial districts were considerably out of line with exit-poll results. Among other things, the president of Diebold, the maker of electronic voting machines that were used in Ohio promised to deliver the election to Bush and he did so publicly. How this did not raise a billion red flags at the FEC (or wherever) will always be a mystery to me.

In the aftermath of the election, there were scattered reports of potential election fraud, but the problem did not gather enough momentum such that those in a position of authority for acting on such issues needed to take action. The system was simply not set up in a way to handle such crises. I question whether, 14 years later, the government's ability to deal with election fraud has improved or not.

The fillibuster is a senate rule. It is not in the constitution and until very recently it required a senator to literally stand and speak until they could not anymore, then a vote would go on. Today's fillibuster is literally an email from a staffer stating their senator will object.
There is serious reform that needs to happen.

Great resource here about the history of the fillibuster - https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Switch-Crippling-American-Democracy/dp/1631497774

>It makes no sense that you can get an auto loan today with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades.

It makes perfect sense. Uncollateralized loans are much riskier and thus more expensive.

The default rate on student loans (11.7%) is roughly 10 times higher than auto and home loans, and ~4 times higher than credit cards.

As a financial vehicle, student loans are terrible, which is part of the reason private loans are almost nonexistent. The government owns the majority and they can make it "work" because people can't discharge student loans. The government WILL get some amount of money back on the loans.

Edit: I realize that this is a bit of a pedantic response, but student loans don't really compare well with any other types of loans any longer.

Because the federalist papers are not court rulings or part of the constitution and thus SCOTUS is not going to factor them into rulings.

Once they broke the flood gates on the matter during the great depression it has been hard to build an argument against applying it broadly, unless the court wants to overturn jurisprudence on the matter.

Thankfully Lopez showed there is some limit to the power of the commerce clause, but it definately is not on your side if you smoke pot based on the Gonzolas ruling.

But if you want a sense of where the transition happened, look to the great depression and world war II, the both made the commerce clause something of a monster.

Although I'm not going to answer each question, the fundamental conflict at hand is an issue of Paternalism vs Liberalism. By liberalism I mean it in the sense that Milton Friedman would use it (which is quite the opposite of neo-liberalism), in the sense that people should be given a choice whether or not they want these things. Paternalism dictates to people what these people need. It is essentially the use of force. What if I don't want to wear a seatbelt? I can be ticketed for that. Quite literally that is someone saying "you will be safe or we will punish you." So the idea is that people should have a choice whether they would like to use their money to purchase health care or to spend it on hookers and crack, it shouldn't be dictated to them.

I know i didn't address a lot of your concerns but I think this provides helpful insight and if you REALLY want to understand the point I would recommend Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom."

A great companion piece is Democracy for Realists by Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels.

They demonstrate that voters―even those who are well informed and politically engaged―mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.

If you consult Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom", it has a section on education that has largely been DeVos' playbook, and it would be the most generous to ascribe her behavior to that economic philosophy. For the relevant rebuttal to Friedman's sense of what makes an economy flourish, Check out John Maynard Keynes, or I would recommend David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism".

Many in the Republican Party have despised her since she was First Lady. Some people fault her for the 2012 Benghazi attack, which occured while she was Secretary of State. She was not indicted as a result of many investigations, and the Democrats mostly regard them as a political ploy by the Republicans.

The FBI investigation into her regarding her using a private email server while Secretary of State is the main reason people are saying that now. This investigation is the one thing at this point that has the potential to result in a prison sentence. However, there is a lot of disagreement on whether or not she will be recommended for indictment by the FBI.

The main reason people hope she goes to prison is that it would mean the end of her political career. This sentiment is common since she runs a high chance of being elected president next year.

That's my (hopefully) objective summary. If you want to try to get in the heads of the people who are shouting this from the rooftops, you might want to check out r/hillaryforprison

You might enjoy reading The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan. I think it provides a well-researched and thorough answer to your question. When you're done with that, if you enjoyed it, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman might be of interest to you.

My short summary, which does not do these works justice, is that people make political decisions in the reverse of the way that we typically assume. They do not start with facts, apply reasoning, and arrive at a conclusion. Instead, they start with a conclusion, and then collect facts and reasoning that confirms/justifies their conclusion.

To my knowledge, there aren't any laws forbidding contact with an alien civilization. It's conceivable that some governments won't like the fact that they aren't involved in first contact (not to mention the various national security issues this raises), and some religious groups may be upset that someone is beating them to interstellar evangelism, but it's unlikely there will be any legal ramifications at the outset.

The discovery of an alien civilization will probably cause the nations of Earth to start making rules about contact but it sounds like your hypothetical mission wouldn't be affected since they would be passed after you gone through with it.

I should also point out that this scenario is basically the plot of <em>The Sparrow</em> by Mary Doria Russell,

Concerning the "grad student tax": the current tax code allows university employees' tuition to be counted as non-taxable income. This way, graduate students do not have to pay tax on the tuition that they never touch (which is often in the $20k - $50k range). The tax bill that just passed through Congress kills this loophole, meaning that graduate students living on $20k stipends would be responsible for income tax as if they earned $70k or even $100k in some cases. From NPR: https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/563879136/house-gop-tax-plan-would-hit-grad-students-with-massive-tax-hike Some have argued that this would put many current PhD students under the poverty line, and discourage brilliant but not independently wealthy undergrads from getting graduate degrees. Why could universities not just choose not to charge tuition to PhD students for whom they are currently waiving tuition?

>but when I look into Hillary I see that she has done way worse things than Trump in her life

https://giphy.com/gifs/opinion-the-big-lebowski-well-thats-just-like-your-man-26BRrSvJUa0crqw4E

>yet nobody talks about that?

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11949860/media-coverage-hillary-clinton

>Hillary can't pay off every news outlet in the world

This isn't even a thing. ... This isn't a thing, right?

>why a man that said "pussy" 11 years ago

It's really more about bragging about sexual assault than saying a bad word... An important distinction.

>someone who defended a rapist?

Yeah, as a court appointed attorney. It's not like she defended him morally or something. She just afforded him due process of law. (It's in our constitution.)

Now that we've parsed your priors, let's move on to your premise:

>Why does mainstream media focus so much on hating on Donald Trump?

Because he does and says things that are newsworthy.

> she has the highest unfavorables

And, as I said, that's largely among Republicans. She has 61% (+41) favorability among Democrats. She's at 88% (-82) among Republicans. Given the rest of what I said in my comment, this is unsurprising. Her unfavorables don't undermine my point.

> or do you really think she is the best cattle futures trader in history?

This is entirely off-topic.

> At least try not be be a partisan hack.

Given the lack of substance, this is a personal attack. Avoid these.

> Hillary clinton was the most hawkish person to run this election

Which was my point. Thanks!

So, there are some contingency plans even for this because the United States military is paranoid AF.

Short version, the various cabinet secretaries have entire chains of deputies below them which include career civil servants (ie, not elected officials). So, in the event that a nuclear strike wipes out DC at the moment of Presidential transition there exists a path wherein the US Attorney for the Central District of California inherits nuclear command authority.

In moments of national crisis -- 9/11 is a good example -- these people find themselves suddenly being treated like a national security asset just in case.

Check out Raven Rock by Garrett M Graff for a pretty accessible treatment of US Cold War era Continuity of Government plans.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/heres-what-clintons-paid-speaking-contract-looks-like/

>Recording Clinton’s speech is prohibited, but the sponsor must agree to pay $1,250 to a stenographer, who will transcribe the speech for Clinton’s records.

An 18-year old arguably has sufficient life experience to serve as an effective member of the military. I would hazard that literally zero 18-year olds have sufficient experience and maturity to serve as an effective president. 35 is a somewhat arbitrary number, but the framers likely thought that it was better to play it safe.

For more modern reasoning (although I don't believe this actually informs any policy), there is substantial evidence suggesting that brain development (and in particular, development of the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in decision-making) continues until at <em>least</em> age 25. This article is 6 years old, and I've heard some professors say that maturation may continue into the late 20's and early 30's. Again - this doesn't mean that people in this age range are in any way unqualified to do a huge range of other jobs, including serving in the military. It just means that we should probably err on the side of caution and only hand the reigns to the most powerful country on Earth over to people we're certain have reached mental maturity.

I did a cursory search and I can't really find any modern happenings in a single election, but there have been rapid shifts. Probably the closest I could think of is Texas from 1994-2002. The Democratic incumbent governor, Ann Richards, lost to George W Bush. The last piece fell to Republicans in 2002 when they regained the House.

Brad Schneider is hiring all kinds of people.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/jobsthatareleft is your best friend if you're liberal.

What way do you lean? If you're working at a media buying group you might get to stick around after the cycle regardless of what they tell you now. It's all about networking. See who is moving up and tether your "horse" to theirs. Does Chicago have 2015 elections for municipal? If not, others (e.g. Indianapolis) do. Politics doesn't really allow you to always stay in one place, especially at the beginning.

Want to lobby? Get a law degree or rise REALLY high in the leadership echelon in the legislature.

These sorts of comparisons make little sense without also considering what you get in return for your taxes. If you took that into account, Americans probably are the most highly taxed because most other rich countries provide a much higher level of benefits, which Americans have to pay out of their own private pockets with much less bargaining power on price.

Where tax goes up to 60 per cent, and everybody's happy paying it

Look at the legislative history. It was passed in 1941. This would never survive a court challenge under today's First Amendment doctrines. "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

I don't have a real answer for you, but there is a recent novel that is causing something of a stir in Germany, called Look Who's Back. The premise is that Hitler awakens in 2011 Germany and tries to deal with modern society. They touch on him interacting with groups similar to neo-nazis. It's satirical and seems very well researched. I enjoyed the translation.

This link or this link may give a better answer to that question than the article you couldn't read.

This subreddit's booklist recommends an excellent book on this exact subject: <em>The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy</em> by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

The reasons for such staunch support of Israel in the United States are legion. They include, but are not limited to:

• Israel is a consistent and reliable U.S. ally in its wars and incursions in the Middle East.
• Evangelical Christians within the United States demand support for Israel (also for numerous reasons).
• When Israel was declared to be a country, the United States was in the opening rounds of the Cold War and was actively recruiting countries to its "side." Maintaining those relations with Israel became an important bulwark against Soviet support for the Arab nations. When the Cold War ended, the support had become entrenched U.S. Foreign Policy.

> Some observers outside of the U.S. tend to refer to both the Republican and Democratic Party’s economic policies from the seventies onwards as neoliberal policies.

That would be incorrect.

> If you’d like to learn more about neoliberalism, you can read or listen to some of Noam Chomsky’s lectures.

I think it's unhelpful to hear the critique before the original idea. Start with Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom", and then move on to the ideological retorts from other political philosophies.

Austrian is an economic school.

>So with all this profit Coca Cola is making why can't they contribute more to our economy when they have a vast surplus of money coming in from all over the world?

What do you think they do with their money? Stick it in their mattress? No they reinvest or pay dividends to share holders. Or they hold onto a small portion of it to weather bad times.

Here's some reading to help explain some basic economic functions to lay the basis for the discussion.

The General Theory of Money, Interest, and Employment - Keynes

The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith

A Theory of the Consumption Function - Friedman

Capitalism and Freedom - (Also) Friedman

If you look at economics from like 1700 forward and don't want to dig in too much, and think of it this way. Adam Smith argued for the existence and moral good of free markets, Keynes wrote about how they worked, Austrians say Keynes is wrong, and everyone else argues in Keynes's terms and world view over which is more right.

This is an enormous question with a complicated set of answers, and so while you can follow the points listed here, I personally prefer the big thinkers.

Certainly not exhaustive: Adam Smith, esp. The Wealth of Nations Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom Ayn Rand, esp. Atlas Shrugged Ludwig Von Mises/Frederich Hayek Max Weber, esp. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Unfortunately I'm not as good with a bibliography for critics, but Marx is a strong starting point. Generally, anarchist, socialist, and feminist authors will have concerns with a capitalist system.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War explains the use of this tactic, instead of completely surrounding an opposing army give them a single route of escape and you can kill them as they try to flee.

I'm sure in this scenario it also helped that the longer the situation was drawn out for the harder attrition would hit the suspect vs. the negotiators.

Perfect list, I would like to add The Magna Carta; The Prince by Machiavelli, Leviathan by Hobbes, The Republic by Plato, The Federalist Papers and their Anti-Federalist counterparts, and On the Social Contract by Rousseau

You can but it doesn't guarantee victory.

It may be because I'm a Planet Money(npr podcast) fantatic(and mod of /r/nprplanetmoney) but I'd recommend listening to this story:

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=521132960

A tax professor tries to help people by passing a state law so people would get pre filled in state income tax forms and many people wouldn't have to stress about income prep every year. He tries and doesn't have much success, he gets a discount from a friendly lobbyist and uses his own savings and gets much further before being defeated.

I'd recommend you listed/read the whole thing.

This is from Google scholar, and shows that even the Heller Supreme Court decision is citing this paper. The paper is cited 39 times in other peer reviewed publications.

> a master of international politics

Libya? The Iraq War?

The Iraq War alone killed half a million people. It killed more Americans than 9/11! It set back Iraq a generation or more - it cost the United States trillions of dollars.

Anyone involved with that decision should never be allowed near the reins of power again. And Hillary Clinton didn't just vote for that war - she cheerlead it for almost a decade.

And Libya was all hers - and she did it again, showing she's the sort of person who does not learn from even the most bitter experience.

It baffles me why Americans love their relentlessly incompetent "leaders" so much. You wouldn't accept this level of failure in your sports teams - why do you encourage it in your leaders? No wonder you get such wretched results...

> and our guns are largely to blame.

This is wrong, though.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with net murder rate across the united states in America of the United States of America. It doesn't even correlate with gun murders.

Seeing as how America's murder rate, violent crime rate and gun violence has gone down 50% since the 90's despite loosening gun laws and increased gun proliferation, I might as well say that what America's been doing has been effective in reducing gun violence. But I won't make that conclusion, because that would be lousy statistical analysis.

Read the email yourself.

She asked her staff to remove the classification heading and send nonsecure.

Pretty straightforward.

Are they? Its a pretty close split for all adults whether they support a temporary ban. I'll look later (on vacation, but that came through my news feed) for illegal immigration, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's getting closer too.

A lot of what is driving people nuts is that he's taking the Overton Window and smashing it. No politician would have dreamed of staying that we should temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US, but finally when someone did, we find its not entirely unreasonable in terms of support. If anything, Trump is showing that the window is much larger than people thought. The window is based on what the public will accept and it turns out, its quite a bit.

Another item that needs to be included is due to gerrymandering, often times it takes years for the actual popular political shifts to be seen in non-state-wide races (state houses, US House, etc). A great example of this is actually Texas.

Zephyr Teachout was recently on the Ezra Klein show and they talked extensively about this issue if you are interested.

well, there isn't a one size fits all solution for the price of gas, but while gas cost $3.50 where I live, you can't get gas for less than $3.14 in america today. (source: http://www.gasbuddy.com/) similarly, you can't buy wood for less than X, you can't buy land for less than Y, etc. etc. etc.

the free market is good for many things, it adds an element of competition that is good for an economy in both the short and long run, however there are things the free market does not do well, including providing for a population as a whole while industries change.

In the USA, going from a farming society to an industrial society was great for the US as a whole and made us competitive, however we were left with many workers who had farming skills but no industry skills. a country works best when it's people are MOST productive, if a business isn't able to train it's employees to compete, or get their employees to be productive, they need to go out of business and create room for other businesses to compete. THAT is what the minimum wage is supposed to address.

People do what is best for theirselves. I have no problems with a business owner trying to keep wages of his employees down so he can bring home a bigger paycheck - that's his right. when he starts paying them so little that they an employee needs to work a full time job AND still needs the charity of others to eat, that employer should be forced to increase wages to it's employees, OR replace those employees with some sort of technology (self checkout) OR go out of business.

The United States has developed a vested interest in Israel for a lot of reasons. It's important to the US to have a stalwart, democratic, military ally in the region that will permit them access to the heart of the Middle East for their varied missions. (I won't address the United States' interests in the region since that is a different topic.)

The United States is also interested in Israel because of a substantial foreign policy lobby that continually lobbies the US government on Israel's behalf.

The US has also brokered peace agreements between Israel, Palestine, and other Arab nations. Seeing those agreements work in perpetuity is a priority for America because it demonstrates her power as a broker of peace and beneficial hegemon.

There are also religious, economic, and more diplomatic ties that keep the United States tethered to Israel.

Also recognize that people can be interested in both things: I can have strong views about the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also have important insights and opinions on COVID-19, my livelihood, etc. Just because Americans tend to have strong opinions on Israel and Palestine does not mean we are ignoring other priorities or disregarding our own welfare.

A good book is The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, found here on Amazon.

Skocpol is a famous sociologist who toured the country to speak to people in the Tea Party as it grew and after, and who did plenty of academic work on the subject. If you want a really in-depth knowledge of it, where it came from, and where it went, I'd recommend the book highly.

As I thought... blow jobs worse than plunging middle east into chaos with unwarranted war? And collapsing economy?

Weaksauce.

The only reason anyone knew about blowjobs was because of the relentless pursuit of dirt. No different from Kennedy or any number of other very powerful men. See Think and Grow Rich for examples.

http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTekTAGR29.html#gsc.tab=0

Another really good one is The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein

>Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy.

Robert Dahl's "Polyarchy" is an interesting approach to how the struggle for power between interest groups shapes the forms of democracy. And of course, in order to understand just about every economic and political discussion in the last 150 years you ought to read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Marx & Engel's The Communist Manifesto. The works of Theda Skocpol and Hannah Arendt are valuable in any understanding of the development of modern democracy, revolution and the historical roots of our totalitarian antipodes. If you're looking for a deeper look into the transition from feudalism to bourgeois democracy, I'd suggest Barrington Moore's "Social Origins". He's more of a historical sociologist than a philosopher but I feel like you ought to have a grasp of the timeline in order to understand the competing philosophies in play.

It's quite obvious from this reading list that my focus was comparative studies and not theory, but this ought to give you an overview of the basics.

You're right, it really doesn't. I think Read takes almost the polar opposite tack with I, Pencil: that without markets, even simple things like pencils would not exist, let alone more complex goods like cars and medicines.

I can't really think of a comparable short piece off the top of my head that addresses that viewpoint (I'm sure there are several, just nothing that comes to mind immediately), but in terms of larger works, I would recommend Freidman's Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom. It's also a favorite topic of Lew Rockwell's; maybe check out The Free Market Reader.

I'd reach out them to double check. Did you get your plan thru marketplace? ACA requirements through marketplace

Oscar Health Insurance and ACA

This is one of the earliest responses to a SOTU that I could find: Bill Clinton's response to Reagan's 1985 SOTU.

superthread of clinton + paid speeches

this link of all the speeches she gave: www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-speech-2013-fees

this link of the contract she used included mention of transcription service: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/heres-what-clintons-paid-speaking-contract-looks-like/

Here is a contract for a speech. These terms may not be identical for all venues or audiences, of course, but it specifies no recording, and that the transcript will belong only to her.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/05/heres-what-clintons-paid-speaking-contract-looks-like/

You should ask him how Hambone and Quaxlerod are doing.

Require health insurance to cover weight loss treatment.

In the US health insurance plans are required to cover ten "essential health benefits":

1. Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care you get without being admitted to a hospital)
2. Emergency services
3. Hospitalization (like surgery and overnight stays)
4. Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth)
5. Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy)
6. Prescription drugs
7. Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (services and devices to help people with injuries, disabilities, or chronic conditions gain or recover mental and physical skills)
8. Laboratory services
9. Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
10. Pediatric services, including oral and vision care (but adult dental and vision coverage aren’t essential health benefits)

It's great that these ten are covered, and it is much more than was required prior to the ACA. Plans however do not have to cover prescriptions or procedures for weight loss and obesity is not considered a chronic condition to be covered. The result is your type II diabetes prescription is covered, but not a prescription to support weight loss which could prevent or reverse type II diabetes.

Cynical part: there are greater profits for the insurance and drug companies to keep people paying for medicine and procedures related to obesity rather than paying to treat obesity.

It's possible that weight loss could be classified as a "chronic condition" through an executive order or rulemaking, however any order or rule would probably face a legitimate court challenge. This kind of expansion/interpretation is very unlikely during any Republican administration.

As an independent voter, I think Republicans and Democrats agree on too much.

But to answer your question, yes. The current political tribalism could definitely foster a civil war in America. It's not likely, but the people who you'd like to calming people down (like the president) are instead stoking the fires of conflict. I live in Kansas, and I know people, involved in malitias that honestly think they are training for an iminent civil war.

Here is podcast from a conflict journalist who has covered civil wars on the ground discussing this very topic: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-30717896/ It's a good listen, it is about as funny as a topic this serious can be.

One notable common feature of areas that devolve into violent conflict is usually food prices spike. That is a key indicator. If food prices suddenly rise by a factor of 3 or more, be prepared for violence to follow. So long as food prices are stable, expect non-violent revolution instead.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that not every civil war is an all encompassing one like the American civil war. If you remember the malitia led by the Bundy's who seized a national park building in Oregon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge Imagine that times 30 taking place over 2-3 years. That is one form a civil war could take that would be a bit smaller in scale than you might expect.

Yeah sure, So I think the tax is bad because it doesn't highlight what the real problem is, Supply! The reason you have such High housing prices is the supply of houses has not caught up to the demand and taxing foreign investors will not solve that problem and in fact, might make it worse.

The problem is that foreign investors account for a huge portion of Condos built in Toronto which provide buyers with affordable alternatives to the already skyrocketing price of houses and in fact with less of this money coming in we will for sure see less of those homes being built and will see even more price increases as the demand for them reaches past the supply.

As well the problem was already sorting itself out as Demand and housing construction was already starting to fill the massive demand for homes. For example existing home prices fell 14% since march and the OVERALL house price fell by 2% and housing constructions hit an all-time high over the past few moths.

The problem with San Fransisco is that they have really shitty zoning and permit laws and regulations which make it impossible to build anywhere, If San Fransisco would relax it's zoning laws it would be hugely benifical to the housing market. Here is a good study done on why Cali's zoning laws have had a huge effect on housing prices

Edit: I just saw how much i wrote...bit long sorry

This first.

And then this.

NAT. FEDN. OF INDEP. BUSINESS v. Sebelius

Section III

>The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress's power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.

III.C

>The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax. it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

III.D

>The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11973730494168859869&amp;q=NATIONAL+FEDERATION+OF+INDEPENDENT+BUSINESS+V.+SEBELIUS&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,50&amp;as_vis=1

>Start using encryption for everything. Make sure that your ISP never has any useful information to give the government. Use TOR for all activities which aren't bandwidth intensive, and pay for a proxy for activities which are. Set up a TOR node to help other people do the same.

I only know what that stuff means in a vague way. Can you offer some tips on where to start in order to learn about this stuff and how to actually do those things in a smart way as someone who doesn't know a lot about internet/computer security?

Also: link to download TOR browser

Poisonings of Navalny and Skripal' undoubtedly are failed assassination attempts:

>According to Blum, the use of chemical warfare agents always constitutes attempted murder. These substances can’t be used for “intimidation” because they’re highly likely to kill their victim. There’s no such thing as a relatively “safe” dose: the severity of the poisoning mostly depends on the amount of time between exposure and treatment (specifically, how soon the antidote is administered and how quickly the victim receives intensive care).

>“For each poison you can imagine a concentration curve, where the first symptoms occur at a particular concentration, after which they grow, and then the person dies. But in this case [poisoning by chemical warfare agents] the difference between these points — the first symptoms and a fatality — is very small,” Blum explained.

>However, chemical warfare agents are poorly suited for killing one, specific person, Blum says: these substances are designed for the mass destruction of enemy personnel during war. Therefore, the developers behind these agents are primarily concerned with ensuring that these substances have a sufficiently damaging effect at a low mass, remain stable in the environment, can spread over a large area, aren’t sensitive to changes in the weather, and can bypass personal protective equipment.

>As such, chemical warfare agents are too toxic for anyone to count on the victim surviving an attack — but not reliable enough for the perpetrator to be sure their victim will definitely die.

Source.

From what I recall from the 2000 election, anyone can access the votes themselves through the FOIA, though in practice it's usually only media outlets that have the resources to do a manual recount.

that's how a bunch of newspapers were able to determine that Gore actually got more votes in Florida in 2000.

From what I recall from the 2000 election, anyone can access the votes themselves through the FOIA, though in practice it's usually only media outlets that have the resources to do a manual recount.

that's how a bunch of newspapers were able to determine that Gore actually got more votes in Florida in 2000.

From what I recall from the 2000 election, anyone can access the votes themselves through the FOIA, though in practice it's usually only media outlets that have the resources to do a manual recount.

that's how a bunch of newspapers were able to determine that Gore actually got more votes in Florida in 2000.

From what I recall from the 2000 election, anyone can access the votes themselves through the FOIA, though in practice it's usually only media outlets that have the resources to do a manual recount.

(that's how a bunch of newspapers were able to determine that Gore actually got more votes in Florida in 2000. )

I got the view on the effect of federal deficits from this article:

https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/2020-mid-year-outlook-us-stocks-and-economy

The author also mentions there is no real risk of inflation because a lot of money is tied up in the financial system and unavailable for spending or lending.

Clinton email about conspiring against Libya (we all know how well that turned out, by the way. Libya is clearly the definition of a stable country, and not a hotbed for terrorism /s) https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659

Not on the floor, but here's a great IFTTT recipe for getting alerts when the President signs bills into law: https://ifttt.com/recipes/174619-a-weekly-digest-of-new-bills-signed-into-law-by-the-president

That was how I remember it, googling showed i was off. But on the other extreme we have this

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A ballot design that confused voters into chosing two candidates cost Democrat Al Gore 6,607 votes in Palm Beach County, The Palm Beach Post reported in its Sunday editions.

The newspaper counted more than 19,000 overvotes, or ballots on which more than one vote was recorded for a presidential candidate. It concluded the net gain of votes for Gore would have been 10 times more than he needed to erase Republican George W. Bush's slim margin of 537 votes in the state.

Many voters had complained that the butterfly ballot was confusing because candidates' names appeared on both sides of the punchcard with holes in the middle. They expected the holes to select Bush and Gore to be the first two choices as required by Florida statutes, but instead found Buchanan, on a facing page, located between them.

According to the newspaper's review, 5,330 ballots were thrown out because voters punched chads for Gore and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, whose name appeared just above Gore's.

Another 2,908 voters punched Gore's name and Socialist David McReynolds, the candidate whose name appeared just below Gore's.

Bush lost 1,631 votes because people selected both Bush and Buchanan. Buchanan's name appeared just below Bush on the ballot.

The two Gore combinations, minus the Bush-Buchanan votes, add up to 6,607 lost votes for Gore.

``What it shows is what we've been saying all along there is no question that the majority of people on Election Day believed they left the booth voting for Al Gore,'' said Ron Klain, Gore's former chief of staff and his lead legal strategist in Florida.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/gore$20butterfly$20ballot/alt.politics.bush/TO9g0HkeEUw/_srKSX5zIyAJ

I suspect you're just making a joke, but in case you aren't both gender and race are fluid concepts.

Male or Female doesn't really capture the totality of gender in the same way that hetrosexual or homosexual doesn't really capture the totality of sexual orientation. Is xx or xy a choice or a biological fact?

On the other hand, Obama had a white mother and a black father, so he is 50% white and 50% black, but he identifies and is identified as black. Wouldn't it be just as reasonable for him to identify as white? If Michelle was white, would their girls still be black? What about someone who is 1/32 Cherokee? Are these objective facts or are choices being made?

It depends on the state.

NYAG conducts investigations and has brought cases to court. NYAG Schneiderman hired Howard Master as senior enforcement counsel. Master previously was Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of New York under Former USA for the Southern District Preet Bharara who was fired by President Trump.

> Master will lead "complex affirmative investigations and litigation as well as advise on important investigations and prosecutions in the criminal division," Schneiderman wrote. A person familiar with the matter said that includes issues involving the Trump administration.

Some of the laws giving the NYAG authority for these investigations allow both civil and criminal penalties.

Often the AG's office will bring a case only in civil court where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal court.

Of course if it goes to trial, rather than settling, evidence is presented in open court and that includes witness testimony.

How this evidence is then used in subsequent state or federal cases is up to prosecutors.

Don't expect something from the NYAG, or any AG for that matter, any time soon. These are complex investigations that take years and are often conducted out of the public's view so as to not prematurely alert the investigation's subjects and to protect the integrity of the investigation.

>Trump admitted, on tape, to serially sexually assaulting women. Hillary has nothing remotely comparable in leaked emails.

Not for the illiterate, I'm sure. 'RAPIST' is a pretty simplistic, grade-school level emotional attack that has basically shit to do with anything. It's embarrassing for the whole country that that was the best Clinton could do as an excuse for a campaign. It's a campaign for idiots.

Corruption, nepotism, trading influence for cash, this is the kind of shit that undermines a country and eventually brings it down. Hillary's contempt for the rules that govern her behavior is proven. Her willingness to lie, cheat and connive to get what she wants is evident. Did you notice what future career awaited the former chairman of the DNC who oversaw the election, and was summarily drummed out of office for corruption?

Trump is a cartoon character and it's embarrassing that you guys seem to think you're making a point for Clinton by ragging on him. We know he's an idiot. He's probably a boor. I'm a lot more worried about getting into a war that stands to kill thousands over Clinton's made-up bullshit about Russian hackers, most likely invented to cover up her cronies having hacked the Democratic primary.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-30717896/

This is a podcast called "it could happen here" it goes over how a civil war could start here. It's the guy from behind the bastards

This will likely get me banned (Hi Mods!)... for the record, Im a libertarian and not a Trump fan, but am absolutely appalled at the censorship taking place online and by activists in the judicial system.

Go take a look at hereistheevidence.com and gauge for yourself.

Anyone that says there is “no evidence” either has their head in the sand or has a stronger hatred for Trump than they have love for our country. I cant stand the man, but I dont want to lose my country to corruption either.

I’d also recommend you watch Jesse Binnalls opening statement he gave during the Senate hearing from a few days ago. It has since been removed (censored) by Youtube, but is on Rumble.

https://rumble.com/vc2rkj-trump-campaign-attorney-jesse-binnall-testimony-censored-by-youtube.html

Yes, you heard that right: Youtube is removing testimony given during a public Senate hearing because it alleges election fraud. To quote Jesse, “Our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.” His evidence is solid, comparing actual voter data to the states death reporting, change of address requests showing out of state moves, etc.

Also, go watch a few different clips of the Georgia video. You can clearly see them triple counting the same stacks of ballots. It is absolutely irrefutable, and matches up timewise with the suspect vote spikes.

And one more: statistical analysis has provided strong evidence against the accuracy of Dominions vote tabulating process. See video:

https://rumble.com/vbz2ld-2020-election-shows-joe-biden-over-performs-in-72-of-counties-using-dominio.html

Each of the affidavits and court cases are available for public review, but in short, it is true that he has been largely unable to be heard by the courts, despite evidence. An audit is the only way to conclusively determine the extent of the fraud and wether it changed the outcome of the election.

Not gonna answer bc tbh I'm lazy, but I listened to this podcast on it the other day and found it pretty informative and it covered basic history that I hadn't known:

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYXJ0MTkuY29tL3RoZS1kYWlseQ&amp;episode=Z2lkOi8vYXJ0MTktZXBpc29kZS1sb2NhdG9yL1YwLzBwWnFxWDA3c1JlRkdFRzFNWDBKUUdiRjdhTmh0bVJoNnlFVVVfYVZzQnc&amp;hl=en&amp;ep=6&amp;at=1565453062083

>the current events in Hong Kong have nothing to do with that, and 'huge economic ramifications' is just a vague and misleading thing to say.

1/3 of Hong Kongs foreign direct investment is from Chinese capital and over 1/2 of Hong Kong's foreign direct investment goes to China. Capital flight out of China happens thru Hong Kong. To think that protests in Hong Kong won't have any economic ramifications in China is silly.

While language is no doubt contextual, that context is constructed by structure. In this case, part of that structure include the adjective “all”. For comparison, suppose the sentence read “believe one-legged women”, “believe purple-haired women”, or “believe hyperactive women”. Each of those phrases would determine the set of women who should be believed. Meanwhile, the word “all” fixes that set of women to the largest one: all.

So, the question is whether “believe all women” means to believe them all or not. I know of no definition for “all” which doesn’t mean “all”.

Meanwhile, with respect to “believe”, I know of no meaning for that word which doesn’t mean at least one of those definitions found here.

So, what I am asking is whether words mean what they say or not. If there is any secondary question, it would be “Can we rely on words having the meaning we expect them to or not?”

I agree. But the true innovation that happens in industries, or any type of major/exponential improvement, usually happens at the hands of the minority who do turn down a lot of offers, or are heavily being poached. I feel a bit stupid doing this (since it's an oversimplification) but if you take a look at this list, https://www.brainscape.com/blog/2015/06/biology-breakthroughs-and-discoveries/ - as well as today's great announcement from DeepMind, a lot of the stuff seems to be coming out of universities or private enterprises.

I do think that if government agencies across fields upped their compensation, you would see a positive effect but generally, it doesn't address how you would outperform industries in domains of science, technology, etc.

If you and/or /u/thedurka are looking for a more in-depth read, I'd recommend The Master Switch by Tim Wu. It covers the history of mass media in the United States and briefly discusses how those historical models may or may not apply to the Internet.

• Amazon
• WorldCat

Also, he was just announced as a prime time speaker at the DNC convention and will be endorsing Clinton

https://getpocket.com/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJZBtyaBQua&amp;formCheck=245ce4b06952a072593a0ef5b99a22e8

Tell that to the former US Secretary of State, she should probably know all "the facts" in case she becomes President:

>We will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multipolar world and toward a multipartner world

Many others disagree with your fact, read this abstract that explains how European soft power is intentionally different from American hard power, but not necessarily weaker.

What's the problem, the replacement of menial jobs with machines? I don't think that's a problem - if we handle it well.

For a viewpoint on it, try this interesting essay on why a post-scarcity economy may not be so bad

> Someone in the comments mentioned that apparently 90% of the Natives don;t even care about the Redskins logo. Which shows you that at least in that regard the "cultural appropriation" argument is nothing but a racist tokenization of people for political gain.

You seem to be pretty invested in the position you hold on this issue so I will try my best to reply again later this weekend and address your statements more broadly. But for now I should just point out that the 9/10 statistic shouldn't be taken at face value and that survey results will vary greatly depending on methodology (for example, many Americans who do not belong to a tribe still claim Native heritage, is it fair to include them in a survey?). In a similar study, conversely, 68% of Native Americans surveyed find the Redskins logo and term "Redskin" to be offensive. http://anyflip.com/tsak/priv/basic

It's a neat website, but frankly, it ignores a lot of what actually drives people to align with one ideology or another. Long story short, views on specific issues matter a lot less than we'd all like to believe.

Liliana Mason has an excellent that's extremely well researched and backed up with loads of data on this subject. Link if you're interested.

To answer your question - yes, the media attempts to portray anarchy as chaos and disorganization. Any establishment with an interest in maintaining a specific narrative is going to negatively portray anarchy because it makes people less pliable to their goals.

Is anarchy feasible? Personally, I don’t really think that pure anarchy is. I think that limiting the scope and power of the government is both feasible and moral, but there are some things that need a central body to function effectively. However, I’d recommend that you read the writings of actual anarchists to get their take on why anarchy is feasible - Michael Malice just released the Anarchist Handbook, which is an anthology of the writings of anarchists on the left, right, and middle.

So you think we should force people to “donate” kidneys to others? That would save a lot of life-years, but it’s an extremely unpopular position. In my professional experience (ethicist), no one holds that opinion.

EDIT: Also, if you really want to learn about other opinions, read some professional writings on the subject, rather than asking reddit. Or, don’t ask reddit why people think X; instead ask where you can learn why people think X. Anyway, this book is a good starting point for a position similar to mine, though more radical:

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650/

Good luck.

Don’t Burn This Book- Dave Rubin

Don't Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593084292/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabc_Cr0UFbK40M9V3

I think this book brings up a lot of good questions. Author used to be very left.

Blackout by Candace Owens

Blackout: How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation https://www.amazon.com/dp/1982133279/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabc_Su0UFb7YMSM04

is also interesting. A left leaning girl that became a conservative.

I think those ideas help for understanding.

Now since I am pretty conservative financial but liberal on how people should live. What would you recommend to me. I grew up in a conservative Christian home. So I am ok a mission to learn as much as I can about other thoughts.

Barack and Joe. Gives a background about how Obama and Biden became good friends during Obama's presidency, and how their relationship is unique among presidents and vice presidents.

Read Kenneth Waltz's <em>Theory of International Policies</em> (1979).

It's primary focus is how the structure of the international system creates the conditions for war and peace. The book is a little dense, but his theory (structural realism, later renamed neorealism) has been the dominant theory among international relations scholars and practitioners for forty years.

You're the only one mentioning Israel, and if you think the Saudis and Israelis are a team you have gone deep down a well of conspiracy. They do not even have diplomatic relations, Saudi Arabia does not even recognize Israel's right to exist. Yet you seem to think they're in a plot together that no one but this book's author knows about, and that has to my knowledge no other corroborating evidence.

Just because a book on amazon says something doesn't mean it's true. Here's a book explaining how the earth is flat. Here's one that says LBJ orchestrated the Kennedy Assasination.

But I'm taking you at your word that you believe this. So if this is true, why as Saudi Arabia attacked Israel so much? Why does Saudi Arabia still fund terrorism targeting Israel? Is that all part of the rouse? And if this alliance with Israel is the only reason for animosity, why was there animosity that predates this alliance? Are you suggesting the old reasons for animosity have gone away without being resolved?

Occam's razor this for a second. Either all of that is true but all the world is organized around hiding that fact, or maybe just maybe someone's doing something that also goes back a thousand years: they're claiming without evidence that the Jews are part of a large international conspiracy to manipulate world affairs in secret.

It's true, Saudi Arabia and Iran are at odds and so are Israel and Saudi Arabia. That doesn't make them allies, the middle east is easy proof that the enemy of my enemy is not always my fried. Because we are flying air support for Iranian forces in Syria while bombing Iranian forces in Yemen. We oppose Iran but we also oppose ISIS, who has only been contained in large part because Iran is fighting them.

The argument for is that the North Vietnamese were moving large amounts of soldiers and supplies through Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, and were using it as a staging area.

Also, many of those bombs were dropped as close air support for clandestine US soldiers operating in Laos. Here is a book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Sog-Secret-Americas-Commandos-Vietnam/dp/0451195086

The Victory Lab is a fascinating read. I read it back when I was in grad school, before I started working in politics.

Read Kenneth Waltz's <em>Theory of International Policies</em> (1979).

It's a little dense, but his theory (structural realism, later renamed neorealism) has been the dominant theory among international relations scholars and practitioners for forty years.

Other IR theories (e.g., liberalism or constructivism) are influential but not to the same degree.

It's not differences on issues that drives the polarity, it's partisan politics as identity. Read: Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity by Lilliana Mason on the phenomena.

Most people are closer to the center than the extremes politically, and on issues aren't that far apart. It's when those issues become part of partisan politics that the disagreement and polarization happens.

The Two Party Doom Loop is a must-read. It's much bigger than ranked choice itself, but in a good way. It's about the fundamental problems with politics today and how ranked choice, among other reforms, is necessary to fix the state of affairs.

Henry Kissinger's World Order is a book that's worth reading. The first half is a history of different world orders that have existed throughout history. The second half dives more into his personal thoughts on the future. The sections pertaining to China are particularly interesting. I found it to be a very quick and easy read despite being very information dense.

You can read a review of the book in The Guardian if you are interested.

Japanese history education is fair and neutral.

www.amazon.com/History-Textbooks-Wars-Asia-Contemporary/dp/041560303X

I think Hayek's The Road to Serfdom is what you're looking for.

You're full of opinions with no basis and I have better things to do that teach you

You didn't read the book -- it discusses why the Israelis (and Saudis) fear Iran: it has nothing to do with Persian v Arab, Sunni v Shia, Muslim v Jew, it is because the Israeli and Saudis see the chance of US-Iran detente as coming at their expense

https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117

Now don't bother me if you cna't be bothered Therefore we have nothing to discuss

I would recommend <em>Global Political Economy</em> by Theodore H. Cohn or <em>Introduction to International Political Economy</em> by David N. Balaam and Bradford Dillman.

Both serve as good overviews of basic IPE concepts and evaluative frameworks.

This isn’t an answer to the question, but I recently had a similar interest in discerning the features of these different political movements and read “The Primacy of Politics” by Sheri Berman . It was an interesting read and good review of social democratic politics in Europe. Can heartily recommend.

Just the Marxist piece: The Communist Manifesto is a quick read, and worth it, although be aware it's more propaganda than a serious presentation of Marx's ideas. Capital is hugely influential, but also a beast to read. Don't bother. Read a secondary text instead. Peter Singer's Marx: An Introduction is a good choice. The really good Marxist thought actually shows up several decades after him from mid 20th Century European Marxists developing his theories. Althusser's Lenin and Philosophy is my favorite. For modern Marxist influenced thought (i.e. anti-capitalist) I'd recommend Rogue States by Chomsky, The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism by Harvey and Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement ed Bircham and Charlton. A crucial left-wing text is A People's History of the United States by Zinn. The accompanying Voices of A People's History is also superb and a great introduction to left wing practical political thought.

Finally, I'd highly recommend Paul Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal. It's not the most revolutionary or influential thought. But I think it does a really sharp (and very readable) job of explaining the core perspective of the mainstream center-left on the last 100 years of political history. Why do liberals love FDR and hate Reagan? This explains it the best. Robert Reich's Aftershock is also an easy read and very influential. I'd also recommend George Lakoff's Moral Politics for a discussion of the connections between how liberals and conservatives speak, think, and what they believe.

Left Wing tl:dr A People's History, Zinn. Rogue States, Chomsky. Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman.

I'm a raging Marxist myself, so I'm not the best person to recommend right wing books. But influential books that most leftists should at least respect for their serious thought are Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom and Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative.

Niccolo Machievelli - The Prince: good introduction to the mindset of politics as rational and amoral self interest.

Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan: explains the structure and theory of the state.

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations: basics of economics and trade.

The Federalist Papers: theoretical background for American government.

Karl Marx - Capital: critique of capitalism and explains the importance of social class.

Hannah Arendt - Origins of Totalitarianism: the impact of mass politics and how the Nazis and Soviets came to power.

Henry Kissinger - Diplomacy: history and theory of international relations.

John Maynard Keynes - The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money: modern approach to economic policy.

These give a classical background for political theory, but it's not a complete picture. Modern works need to be read to get a picture of what political science looks like today. Just make sure the things you get into are academic and published by universities or academic journals.