What are
/r/hillaryclinton's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/hillaryclinton:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/hillaryclinton:
Scribd
The New York Times
Giphy
The Guardian
MarketWatch
Dictionary.com
Pastebin.com
Wikiquote
Merriam-Webster
The Intercept
Reddit Enhancement Suite
NPR News
Encyclopedia.com
DocDroid
Opera Add-ons
The most popular Android Apps mentioned in /r/hillaryclinton:
Chess - Play & Learn
Podcast Player
The most popular reviews in /r/hillaryclinton:
The state of gaming journalism has been crap since we were arguing about unethical reviews <u>on Slashdot</u>, fifteen years ago. I remember reading people argue on the internet about this repeatedly in the early 2000s. What changed in fall 2014?
Saying "Well, I'd been upset about ethics in game journalism for a while but nobody was going to take me seriously until the Zoe post" is sort of like saying, oh, "Well, I'd been upset about the two-party system for a while but nobody was going to take me seriously until Trump ran". Gaming journalism sucks. The two-party system sucks. Latching on to Gamergate or Trump as a vehicle for conveying this is not getting your cause any attention, it is abandoning your cause to give some other cause attention.
>"Bernie alienates his natural allies," he said. "He is completely ineffective as a lobbyist because he offends just about everyone. His holier-than-thou attitude - saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else - really undercuts his effectiveness," said Frank. “To him, anybody who disagrees with him is a crook; there are no honest disagreements with people. Bernie's view of the world is that the great majority of the people agree with him on all the issues and the only reason he does not win is that the Congress is crooked."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vqJJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Xg0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4293%2C3641940
Reminds me of the apocryphal Adlai Stevenson quote.
"Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person"
Here is a great quote from Muhammad Ali last time trump was saying this.
"I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world, True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion. They have alienated many from learning about Islam. True Muslims know or should know that it goes against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody. Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people’s views on what Islam really is"
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/09/muhammad-ali-responds-to-donald-trumps-muslim-ban-plan
As we all know, Populism isn't new... and populist movements tend to arise in response to something. In this case it's shifting demographics, globalization and a technological revolution that are all working together to place enormous pressure on the post war way of life that folks have taken for granted for so long.
Populist leaders pose simple solutions to complex problems. That's what makes them so popular.
We are indeed lucky to have dodged the scenario of two populist candidacies in 2016. The outcome would have been less than good no matter who won.
Yeah, if you just conveniently ignore the FEC's warning that he's taken thousands of illegal campaign contributions.
EDIT: Here's the letter for anyone who's curious.
Since we are being brigaded, 2 reads.
The Women of Hillary Clinton's Campaign Are Not Done Fighting
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8612574/former-hillary-clinton-staffers-speak-out/
Intercepted Russian Communications With Trump Campaign Being Investigated
And once again I ask, HOW ARE WE LETTING HIM BE SWORN IN???
Looking at the poll, I don't think this is actually true. Previous polls have given her 90% of Bernie's support when only two candidates are listed, but they give her ~70% of support when all four candidates are listed. In the Marist poll, support from Sanders backers drops to 65% when all four candidates are listed. Just 5% go to Trump, the rest are third party.
Interestingly Trump is getting only 60% of Republican voters who supported another candidate in the primaries, and 10% of them are voting for Hillary.
> Presidents likely have much more influence on politics than anyone in congress.
nope. remember the do-nothingest congress in recent history 3 years ago? remember the tea party in 2010 when everyone but angry seniors forgot to vote, rendering Obama all but worthless to congress?
Her minority report just made accusations but showed no proof of wrongdoing. And the fact that it was a minority report means at least one (and perhaps several) Bernie supporters on that committee did not agree with her assessment.
According to the Democratic party in Nevada:
>The credentials committee heard the cases of fourteen Sanders supporters whose information could not be verified and sat six of them after they were verified as registered democrats. Eight Sanders supporters were deemed ineligible after the credentials committee verified they were not registered Democrats, including one that had changed their registration from Democratic to Green in April and several that were not registered voters. The rest, 50individuals, never showed up at the convention to attempt to register and, therefore, would not have affected the outcome of the convention at all
That last claim should be pretty easy for Bernie camp to disprove. Can the Bernie camp show that those 50 people actually did show up to the convention and get turned away by this "bi-partisan" committee?
Bernie has criticized HIllary, and he has been harsh.
But at the end of the day, don't things like this show how highly Bernie still regards both Hillary and Bill? This has been a hard primary, and the relationship between Hillary and Bernie is strained. But there remains a mutual respect between the two, with Bernie pledging to work with her to defeat Trump. I know Bernie will endorse Hillary.
What makes us Democrats, at least in my opinion, is out capacity to unify and reconcile differences. The Republicans have splintered and fractured over Trump, and we're in so much better a position because of both Hillary and Bernie.
To be honest, Baldwin seems like he has a much better grasp on the issue than Kaepernick. He's also the son of a cop, apparently. He would probably make a good spokesperson.
DCCC internal poll in NY03 shows Team Blue nominee Tom Suozzi up 16. This is Steve Israel's seat, but it's actually quite moderate - Obama's margin in NY03 was almost exactly his margin nationwide.
More important, Clinton is also winning this district by 16, running 13 points ahead of Obama. Obama won New York 63-35 in 2012, so Hillary could be in the ballpark of a 35-40 point win.
This could be huge. There are 9 Republican reps in New York, and most of them are in swingy districts, and some even in light blue districts. If Hillary can blow out NY, we could maybe take seats in NY-1, NY-11, NY-24, NY-27, etc. Seriously, there's lots of inexperienced Republicans reps in swing districts in New York, that cannot run 10-15 points ahead of Trump.
Let's run up the score in New York.
EDIT: Also I would love nothing more than to kick Peter King's bigoted ass out of office as well. That'd be worth almost anything.
I've already posted this lower down, but the difference between Hillary's 2008 convention speech for Obama and Bernie's convention speech "for" Hillary is staggering.
Why does everything Trump say have to be such hyperbole?
>"NAFTA is the worst deal ever made in the history of the world!"
Seriously? Has he never heard of Bobby Bonilla?
Chris Colfer, an actor/singer/author/gay icon who recently headlined a fundraising event for HRC, is apparently a big dorky superfan of hers. His friends keep giving him HRC merch, and he's started putting it all in a little shrine. He just put out this snapchat of him singing to the shrine, captioned: “I used to be so hard to shop for…”
"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." — Will Rogers.
Was that sarcasm? It's Arrested Development A sitcom television series from the early oughts about the family of a wealthy realestate developer who was embezzling from his own company and got caught.
Seriously. They're probably similar to theguy who hates seeing homeless people on the street.
I am totally jumping to a conclusion but idgaf.
Is anyone else super excited for Hillary's book!??!?!?!
This thing is already #1 best seller on Amazon, I was laughing. I literally saw the tweet like two seconds after it was posted, pressed the Amazon link, and it was already #1 best seller in civics. Now it's just #1 best seller period. Hooray!
I mean, maybe they could have pleaded their case if they had actually shown up. 14 of them showed up and made their case. 6 of them were let in. The other 50 didn't bother to show up.
It's like arresting meteorologists for a bad forecast and a tornado destroys the area. Sure, they weren't equipped. Sure, there's a lot of bad systems at play. But to say that they had malicious intent to do...something instead of negligence or, holy shit, an honest mistake is McCarthy-level bullshit.
>Perhaps I should have specified "hands off" by party leadership. The following article seems to indicate that party leadership took a hands-on approach already in March of 2015, and also highlights some of the drawbacks to that approach. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/democrats-see-a-field-of-one-heading-to-2016.html Obama and Biden didn't endorse anybody until June. Maybe more or even most public and party officials should adopt that practice, not just incumbent Presidents. Maximize voter empowerment, and the degree to which candidates have to generate their own enthusiasm. Save the ammo for the general.
I guess I don't understand why people think we should put less value, not more, on the endorsements of democratic leaders that we elected. I don't see a problem with a room full of smart, experienced democrats saying they agree on who the best candidate will be to make the country a better place, then deciding to tell the world. The endorsement of Hillary by so many incredible, humane, intelligent peolple, both in government and out, is part of how I knew she was the right choice. The endorsement list between her and bernie was so lopsided, and it wasn't because of some grand conspiracy. These people weren't doing it against their will, or because the feared the "wrath" of the "DNC machine."
And the worst part is that she did release a statement on her health.
In remembrance of her, take inspiration in some of her quotes:
- Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.
- Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.
- The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.
- The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God.
- The worst censors are those prohibiting criticism of the theory of evolution in the classroom.
- Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women
RIP Phyllis Schlafly. You certainly were somethin'.
(Edit: Here's a better list than mine that is also sourced! https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly)
My favorite part is the Wall Street Speculation Tax.
"Shit, stocks are falling. I'd invest capital to re-stabilize it and make a profit but I'm going to take a huge hit on transactions that would eat my profit margin. Better wait til it gets worse."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-would-bernie-sanders-wall-st-tax-look-like-2016-02-14
This is my favorite bit:
>The economy, too, could suffer. When the European Commission looked at the issue, it found that a tax of 0.1% would reduce gross domestic product by 1.76% in the long run. That's mainly because the tax raises the cost of capital, resulting in less investment and diminished economic output.
You are correct.
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/312952650/nsdp mobile link
Of those that whose credentials could not be verified by the credentials committee made of an equal number of people from each side, only 14 showed up. 6 were seated 8 were sent home because they were not Democrats.
EDIT: Ignore this. Mapleyy clears it all up.
One very strange thing about the New York poll is that it appears to include unaffiliated voters.
Here are the expanded results:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309313848/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-New-York-April-17-2016
Note that on page 8, question 31, it actually asks for the party registration, and 13% of people say they are unaffiliated.
Then on page 75, there's a breakdown by party. It shows Clinton up 57-38 among Democrats and behind 72-26 among independents.
As everyone knows, New York is a closed primary. So I'm not sure what to make of it. On the surface, that suggests the real topline number should be Clinton +19 instead of +10. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing a major polling organization and major news organization could make such an obvious mistake.
Just listened to a guy on PBS from the John Locke Foundation explain why minimum wage is unnecessary. To paraphrase him: We shouldn't punish someone for their prosperity. We should rejoice in the prosperity that will come to the others from them.
Rather than posting complaints about Sanders -- install Reddit Enhancement Suite. You can easily filter by keywords and just remove all mentions of Bernie from your world. You can live in peaceful bliss, while the people who are interested in what a newly joined surrogate has to say can still see it.
His crowds are shrinking.
Plenty of other articles from various sites pointing out the same re: recent rallies.
That's a good question; I'm not sure. Here's the full poll if you want to look through it.
So, you can't make your own case about what you don't find trustworthy about her?
I guess you've proved my point for me.
The very first thing in that list is BS anyway. Learn to speak for yourself instead of googling 'Hillary lies" Dick Morris? Give me a break.
You mean like Rick Perry who had no idea what it did when he accepted the position (which indicates Trump might very well not have known either given that I doubt their conversation was centered on nuclear the way the DoE is).
The NYT write up had a particularly gut-wrenching paragraph.
>Mr. Perry, who once called for the elimination of the Energy Department, will begin the confirmation process Thursday with a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee. If approved by the Senate, he will take over from a secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Before Mr. Moniz, the job belonged to Steven Chu, a physicist who won a Nobel Prize.
It's getting harder and harder to maintain composure when reacting to this shit.
This clip is what's upsetting to Bernie and many of his supporters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs. She acknowledged in 1993 that single-payer would be a good reform, but that powerful interests would make it a tough fight. Now, she says it'll never happen.
It's fine to argue that it's an uphill battle, but I don't believe that means we need to give up on single payer or a public option.
> [this] is not enough, IMO. The narrative that "Hillary sucks but I'll hold my nose and vote for her" by people on the left was very damaging, IMO. We need to not only fall behind whoever wins the primary but be vocally enthusiastic about it as well.
Exactly this. Hillary's 2008 convention speech is a perfect example.
Bastard is gender neutral I believe so no. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bastard
I'd be perfectly fine giving up 'dick'.
One theory is the less of this there is overall, the harder people may have to work to make their points and the better discussion may be (well, one could only hope, r/politics can't get much worse). There are plenty of candidate-specific subreddits for shitposting and trash talking after all.
I've learned more about political data from Margie Omero and Kristin Anderson from their podcast "The Pollsters" than anything else this past year. Give them a shot, they're extremely nice and accessible on Twitter as well!
Lolz. Long time lgtb/ womens movement activist here, please dont pretend to speak for anyone but your own bigoted ass.
Here you can inform yourself about 30 years of Hillary fighting for lgtb rights: https://wakelet.com/wake/19515f0d-de85-402c-b6bb-ac9a4b71da6c
Anyway: Im pretty sure youre just a troll, cya🙋
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-trump-and-putin-thing-a-detailed-response
point 2 has cited sources.
additionally "A review of FEC documents showed "no indication that entities associated with Mr. Trump had lending relationships with most of the country’s biggest banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley."
FEC filing below. Page 47 -- no US loans other than DeutscheBank for about the last decade (LLCs are not banks).
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/272297762/Donald-Trump-s-Financial-Disclosures
To be fair to Donald (as much as I vehemently disagree with him and dislike him, I think we should strive for fairness), it's ambiguous whether his deferrals during the Vietnam War were legitimate or illegitimate. The only thing that seems clear is that Donald later lied about the reasons for his deferrals. (See this excellent NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html)
That being said, Evan McMullin is correct in saying that Donald has no standing to question anybody for their faith to the country . . . whether it's the Khan family or Rep. Lewis.
When Bill and Hillary met in college he was a country bumpkin in an ivy college from a family poorer than her own.
This is his childhood home:
http://wikimapia.org/9847932/Bill-Clinton-Boyhood-Home#/photo/479580
Of the two Hillary was frequently the higher salary earner early in their marriage..
Politifact's conclusions is not to be trusted but the actual facts they list are well vetted, its just when they list the facts that a = 2 and b = 2 but then rate a+b = 4 to be "half true" that the bullshit comes in. So I'm perfectly willing to cite it for the facts they list:
> The Clintons did not move into the White House with old money akin to the political dynasties of the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes. And unlike nearly every other president, Clinton’s wife was the breadwinner ahead of his run for the Oval Office.
> Clinton sought a political career not long after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973 and marrying Hillary Rodham two years later, first winning a term as Arkansas’ attorney general in 1976 and following it up with five terms as governor.
> He earned $35,000 a year as governor, consistent with the lower pay of other Southern governors, as well as some speaking fees, honorariums and in-kind income, such as living in the governor’s residence. Hillary Clinton, then a lawyer and senior partner in the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, earned $92,000 salary and listed her share of her law firm’s profit-sharing and retirement plan between $100,001 and $250,000, according to a New York Times examination of the couple’s finances in 1992.
If anyone is a golddigger in this couple, it's Bill. And if that were so he'd have left her for a sweet young thing 15 years ago when he started getting gigantic speaking fees.
With only an 83% success rate for predicting the Dem side of the primary this cycle, Bing predicts HRC will win CA (with HRC +14.8)
Is anyone else a little worried about the Women's March getting unnecessarily politicized? I mean, I'm a guy who is relatively clued into this stuff. I'm not going because it's not a good time to go all the way to DC, and there isn't one in my area. But, I support it and if there was one in Boston I'd probably head down.
At the same time - I've generally gotten the feeling that men weren't exactly encouraged to come - that it was sort of a "For us, by us" thing. It has nothing to do with worrying about appearing "unmasculine."
This is so infuriating especially when I have to keep reading whiney posts from Bernie Bros about how unfairly the media treated him (bullshit).
Out of the entire conversation between Chimamanda and Hillary, THIS is the headline CNN came away with:
"Why is Nigerian author Chimamanda upset with Hillary Clinton?"
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/24/africa/chimamanda-adichie-hillary-clinton-wife-africa/index.html
Which is complete bullshit. I watched the discussion and this is a such a misrepresentation of it. And of course they don't even bother to cover the rest of the conversation that was so much more than this - it was such a nuanced and in depth conversation but of course all of that is ignored.
You can read the whole thing online here (The website alone should tell you this is next level crazy):
Amazon has a page for the book, which on its inside cover boasts it's in its 124th print run and has over 40 million copies (most of which were probably sent as junk mail). The reviews are kinda funny:
https://www.amazon.com/National-Sunday-Law-Jan-Marcussen/dp/0912145080
The NYT wrote a more in-depth article on the issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/womens-march-abortion.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Becalm thyselves. This poll is within the margin of error just as every poll we've seen in Nevada in the past month has been. This poll is no worse than the Marist poll last week showing Hillary +1. It's still a statistical tie and has been since the summer.
I have confidence that Sen. Harry Reid will come through for us once the Senate recesses for the fall.
Probably a false quote :
""Wrongly attributed" to Trump, who said the book with the alleged quote was "written by a fired and totally disgruntled employee who was terrible at the job he did and who I hardly knew.""
Okay I have begun the fight!
The Twitter Account is: https://twitter.com/h1llary4prez The Tumblr Account is: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/hilldawgmemes The Instagram Account is: h1lldawgmemes
I would GLADLY appreciate any help officiating this madness. I am a huge Twitter person but my experience is somewhat limited with Instagram and VERY limited with Tumblr. But here I am just doing' my best...
And I have no idea what pasta thing you're talking about but it sounds delicious.
Yes there is - I am denying it. Look at the definition of grassroots: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/grassroots
The number one definition is having support of the ordinary members/rank and file of a group. Clinton had a lot of popular support in '08. I'm not going to go with the "she won the popular vote" thing, because Michigan blah blah blah. But, in '08 it was very close. And in '16, she's absolutely winning among rank and file, regular ordinary voters. By more than 3 million votes. So yes. She has grassroots support. If you know what all of the words mean, there is no denying that she has grassroots support. That she ALSO has support from the elites in the party doesn't remove the fact that she has grassroots support as well.
Nah, Redman has nothing to do with this. We broke with him ages ago. You should look at this fascinating 12-part documentary. We do a lot of good for the community.
I see..
semantics argument.
then you are correct. Hillary did not win the majority based on the definition of more than half.
However, based on this definition:
>: the group or political party having the greater number of votes (as in a legislature)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
Hillary won the majority of votes.
The only way they could spin this without looking like asshats is arguing that they meant the second definition. Even then it would make no sense.
This was a dumb move. They tried to pull a Rove and attacked Hillary's strength, but I guess it doesn't work when the strength being attacked is obvious.
You mean this?
>A book so powerful that Mark Cuban named his mega-yacht after it, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand is a must-read for all entrepreneurs ...
I haven't read the book but reviews on Amazon are excellent. I don't think every review was written by a republican. Sometimes you find a book well written, even if you disagree with its characters and the author's philosophy.
It scares me that we think the party could just stop him, given that this is supposed to be a Democracy. Also, I didn't say anything about rigging, although I think you're making a pretty weak argument. I would recommend the book "Predictably Irrational" (https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/01/19/predictably-irrational-chapter-11-12-the-context-of-our-character/), which posts a lot of evidence that given ample opportunity, most people will cheat a little bit, but won't cheat to an extreme.
Hm, it can't find you. I think we're on different apps. This is the app I'm referring to "Chess - Play & Learn"
Link to Apple https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chess-play-learn/id329218549?mt=8
and Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chess&hl=en
Perhaps I should have specified "hands off" by party leadership. The following article seems to indicate that party leadership took a hands-on approach already in March of 2015, and also highlights some of the drawbacks to that approach. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/democrats-see-a-field-of-one-heading-to-2016.html Obama and Biden didn't endorse anybody until June. Maybe more or even most public and party officials should adopt that practice, not just incumbent Presidents. Maximize voter empowerment, and the degree to which candidates have to generate their own enthusiasm. Save the ammo for the general.
This one? I think he's just waiting until she's got a pledged delegate majority - they said he won't "see, meet, or appear with" Clinton tomorrow, but they didn't say anything about an endorsement.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/acronym
>noun
>1. a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words and pronounced as a separate word, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.
>2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately; an initialism.
For real. Bernie, you've been in Congress for decades. You're about as "anti-establishment" as the billionaire New Yorker who's openly admitted to "buying politicians".
Just because the party doesn't like you doesn't mean you're not part of "the establishment", it just means you're either an inflexible hypocrite (Sanders) or a loudmouthed jackass (Trump).
Edit: Hi, BernieBots!
NBC News / Survey Monkey tracking poll showed 8% on August 23rd poll. News article linked here.
"Full results" don't actually show that result, but either way I've linked them anyways.
Oh BTW Axelrod made an on-air bet with Corey the Donald would get less than the 6% that Romney managed in 2012. Although they didn't name stakes. I would have bet a ban from network TV (both regular and cable), if I was making it.
someone did a google image search on the published letter and found a nearly identical one dressed to an anti-scientologist group. It's rote. Here is the letter.
Or, rather than weeping, let it motivate you to ensure that we don't go back to the days when women attacking powerful women wasn't called out as backwards...
Given the pretty high un-favorability of Trumps response I doubt we will see much of anything: https://www.scribd.com/doc/315785475/CBS-News-poll-Gauging-Americans-views-on-Orlando-mass-shooting . But we'll see.
Sorry, my language was not as precise as I would have liked it to be. Yes, some "preventative" checkups and testing are mandated to be covered without charge (link: https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/), but that does not cover all situations where early intervention would benefit both the individual's health outcome and pocketbook. I would be surprised if you are saying that no one, even those covered under an ACA plan, avoids getting needed treatment because they can't afford it.
Timeline of Presidential elections goes into this. Basically yeah, mid august is when stuff starts to be reliable
'Patton actually believed what he was doing was right. So did Hitler.' - George C. Scott
And another: 'There are still things about him I hate and things I admire - which makes him a human being, I guess.'
The Sanders sub had a different site, with a case number: 16-CV-10631. Is that not a real case, or is it real and different, or something?
> Some of them have better lines than others, and some joke more or hector less. But to flip from Stephen Colbert’s winsome liberalism to Seth Meyers’s class-clown liberalism to Bee’s bluestocking feminism to John Oliver’s and Trevor Noah’s lectures on American benightedness is to enter an echo chamber from which the imagination struggles to escape.
Last time I checked, Colbert, Meyers, Oliver and Noah spout feminism on their shows, too. For that matter, Bee showcases liberalism on her show.
I get that the writer might have been looking for more words to use, because writing is hard, but when the only chick is also listed as the only feminist...you're overlooking something about your own writing.
Yeah, I also get attached to physical copies of books. I can still read On The Road from a different edition, for instance, but the Penguin 20th Century Classic with the cool cover that I first read it with when I was 20 just can't be replaced. It's so beautiful to me:
Sorry, couldn't respond because I had to go to bed. Glad you enjoyed it. Yeah, like I said, ultimately it's hard to get around the fact that it worked out about the way people predicted it would - that we would get ensnared in a conflict we couldn't "win" by our own definition. But, I do believe that Bush actually believed in spreading democracy and freedom, and had a (somewhat) reasonable goal compared to Trump's policies.
I haven't actually read either of them, but if you're interested in learning about Iraq (and military affairs in general) in a more nuanced way, check out:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEGHCS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
or
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008J4RONU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Admittedly, I've only read small parts of each, but both are excellent journalists/writers and they should be good.
It's way cheaper. I only do a few times with each blade, maybe 4-5 though you could probably get more. I get like 50 blades for $15 on Amazon.
Feather Double Edge Blades, 50 Count https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AGG3MNU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_Mshsyb12YQ268
Merkur Long Handled Safety Razor https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NL0T1G/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ithsybSPNB9Z7
I am not advocating taking steps to preserve democracy. I am advocating taking steps to preserve our lives in a world in which the nuclear dynamics are far more complicated than they were during the cold war, also referred to as the second nuclear age.
Good read: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Nuclear-Age-Strategy-Politics/dp/1250037352
If you're actually trying to understand, George Packer had a big article in The New Yorker about it recently. I haven't finished it yet, but it's good so far, and Packer's a superb journalist who has been looking at this question since before the election (he wrote a book called The Unwinding).
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt
https://www.amazon.com/Unwinding-Inner-History-New-America/dp/0374534608
Oh, another one I just thought of that I love, The Lady In White. https://www.amazon.com/Lady-White-Blu-ray-Lukas-Haas/dp/B0192PEQ7Q/ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Though, I would be careful because it's got a strong hint that the bad guy child murderer might also have been a molester. So it can be a bit triggery for some people. Still it's a fantastic ghost story with a great ending.
Amazon reviews are the best. You'll want to look at the bobble-head Jesus, and the communion wafers.
it's not important to believe Adams. it's important to understand the science behind what he's saying -- which is perfectly valid and deeply important to understanding human decision making and how to influence it.
Adams was early to see Trump's potential because he already was well aware of the science of persuasion and influence.
I'm currently reading <u>Turning Texas Blue</u>, by Mary Beth Rogers. I haven't gotten to the meat of it yet, but judging from her analysis of Wendy Davis's loss in the 2014 gubernatorial election, I'd guess winning involves hard work, dedication, intelligent use of resources, and skilled campaigning.
Of course generalities like that are obvious, so I'll have to report back on the specifics. As a Texan, one thing I wish the Democratic Party would do is tone down the anti-gun rhetoric. That just doesn't fly here, and it's even used against Democrats in local races.