World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Book and Film Discussions
>
2020 Election Insanity Reading List
date
newest »
newest »
Beau's titular plea, "Promise me, dad" was not a death bed request. According to Biden, the full quote was, "Promise me, dad, that you'll be alright", and was said by Beau well before his death. At first Biden interprets this request as his son wanting the family to be strong and move on after Beau's death. In later chapters Biden adds his community service to the measure of "alright", citing Beau's pride in both his own service and Joe's service.As to Biden's aborted 2016 campaign, in 2014 Biden had recruited a few trusted advisors to look into a run. However, Biden remained understandably non-committal until after Beau's death on May 30th 2015. Biden does write that during this time Obama was applying light pressure for Biden to make a decision (to not run), but Joe refused to give any answer, save promising that if he ran against HRC it would be on policy issues.
During the summer of 2015 Biden's advisors began to put together the people and donors that would be needed if Biden decided to run. Biden also began teasing a run in public. In his book, Biden writes that they believed that beating HRC would be a tough fight, but it was doable.
Then in October of 2015, Politico ran an article which claimed that Joe Biden himself had started rumors about a deathbed plea by Beau for him to run for President. Biden claims to have been enraged, and that that emotion convinced him that he had yet to work through the loss of his son. It was then that he talked to his family and called Obama.
Philip wrote: "An IT take on email and I have been a system Admin for email servers including highly classified military and government ones. Email is complex it requires IT skill to set up and maintain a serve..."
My take is that every competent intelligence service in the world has a full copy of all data on HRCs personal email server.
Make of that what you will.
It had to make it onto this list eventually, The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion.I'm not far into it, but I have gleaned a few interesting bits. The most revealing thing, so far, was the timeline. The alphabet agencies began investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians in July 2016, but they didn't brief President Elect Trump until January 6, 2017, in a meeting with all of the agency heads...
Trump's paranoid tendencies make a lot more sense now.
Phillip,Since you have experience in the IT field, I hope that you can answer a question that I have about the Mueller Report. The Report is certain that the Russian GRU carried out the hacks on the HRC server, DNC server, and John Podesta's laptop. How certain can they actually be?
The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and CollusionThis one was an infuriating slog. There were occasionally interesting bits, mostly in relation to the NKVD's on-line efforts. But everything that would have allowed me to gauge the quality of the information was redacted. How do you know that the NKVD did X? Redacted for methods. From where did that information come? Redacted for ongoing matter. Add to this the continuing revelations of misconduct within the Special Prosecutor's Office, and every paragraph is either blacked out or to be taken with a pinch of salt. The only sure thing is that they could not prove that Trump committed a crime.
I've found myself seeking out reliable sources in the hope of redeeming the time which I spent on this one. Strangely, one of the more interesting things that I've seen is an appearance which Attorney General Barr recently made at Hillsdale College.
https://youtu.be/I0Ho5_DiRdc
I agree with some of Barr's points, and I disagree with others. At least, I can do research and make an informed opinion about Barr's points. That's more than I can say about The Mueller Report.
Redacted, redacted, redacted - Sounds like watching a movie when parents prompt a teenager to close his/her eyes at most piquant scenes :)
Nik wrote: "Redacted, redacted, redacted - Sounds like watching a movie when parents prompt a teenager to close his/her eyes at most piquant scenes :)"Much of it is that methods and other potential cases are concealed for the rights of justice. This is not a political decision, but how the system works. No matter what politicians decry, it is how it is supposed to work.
Nik wrote: "Redacted, redacted, redacted - Sounds like watching a movie when parents prompt a teenager to close his/her eyes at most piquant scenes :)"No, it's not a matter of titillation. Imagine that you're in a jury. The case against the defendant is based on DNA evidence that can't be explained to you because it's classified, and testimony that you can't hear because releasing it could endanger a different case. How could you come to a verdict?
I know that things are classified for good reasons. But not having that information limits my ability to gauge the veracity of the report. So it doesn't matter what the report says, because I can't independently confirm it.
J. wrote: "The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and CollusionThis one was an infuriating slog. There were occasionally interesting bits, mos..."
What I've found problematic about the whole experience was that any allegations made on the core material of Russian collusion and Russian interference in the 2016 election is that none of them have been tested in a court of law, and it appears that they never will be.
There are always people who will believe an allegation made that accords with their own belief system (confirmation bias), especially when delivered by an authority figure.
There will be people who will believe that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. That Trump is beholden to Putin. That Russia had a decisive impact on the 2016 election.
All ideas that do not stand up to objective scrutiny and which will never be tested in a court of law.
Graeme wrote: "J. wrote: "The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and CollusionThis one was an infuriating slog. There were occasionally interestin..."
The whole thing was not a matter of justice, but politics. It is a political move, the whole thing. It is not about the courts per se. Yet charges could be brought if there was something there.
J. wrote: "Phillip,Since you have experience in the IT field, I hope that you can answer a question that I have about the Mueller Report. The Report is certain that the Russian GRU carried out the hacks on ..."
Sorry J - completely missed this -and just catching up on this thread. Simple answer is you cannot be certain. that said there are strong indicators in any of these cases. Hackers are often broken down into 3 groups. Lone or small IT geeks (the script kiddies of fame), criminal enterprises (they want financial data primarily or ransomware encryption) and then state actors. The techniques used to break in are often the same, e.g. viruses, phishing and malware, but to break in undetected and steal/replace is harder. Tracing takes detective work and following routes or known techniques. The corroboration is the known work of Military or other Intelligence agencies with the alleged groups e.g. GRU and Cozy Bears group are not separate organisations. Likewise Chinese Nalkon and others which are part of Chinese Army.
If the NSA, in the end thinks it was a state actor then it probably was, after all they are the biggest state actor in terms of hacks
https://w3codemasters.in/best-ethical...
At one point i ran a small ethical hacking team doing penetration testing on commercial networks, I'll leave my military stuff out.
This is a cyber war between nations. unfortunately the actions of NSA and others creating exploits have made it easier for criminals and others to copy the techniques.
Thank you for the response, Philip.While reading the Report, I kept thinking about how they could say with certainty that it was the Russians, and not some other actor, like the Chinese or Israelis. It made sense that one group would frame another to cover their own actions. I guess that's the danger of looking into espionage, it is a giant maze of mirrors. And if you keep going for too long, you'll start to think the Illuminati really are controlling it all.
What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of AmericaThis one struck me as a almost hilarious from its lack of self awareness.
The author revels in telling us how the hateful and duplicitous conservatives have conned the good people of Kansas into turning against their own interests to vote Republican. The "Cons" accomplished this by using "wedge issues", like abortion and guns, to vilify the good Democrats as elitists. To the author these are irrelevant issues when compared to the class struggle between the normal people, who should be voting Dem, and the evil capitalists. It never seems to occur to the author that if you believe that a fetus is a baby, then abortion is murder. He doesn't even bother to address that or any premise. He just calls them nuts who aren't interested in listening to their betters.
The question isn't, "why are Democrats falling for Conservative political tricks?" The real question is, "why do these people not feel that the DNC is working for them?" There used to be Dems who believed in 2A, and who had qualms about things like late term abortions. There used to be Dems who viewed protectionist trade policies as necessary to preserving wages. Where are the pacifist lefties who decried throwing our sons and daughters into the meat grinder of military adventurism? What became of the liberals who sought to bind our wounds and unite us, instead of dividing us by our unchosen characteristics?
Any thoughts?
I have held this book in my hands more than I can count. I keep putting it down for another day. Maybe it is time to read it. Is it worth the time regardless of how the author is condescending. Is it well written?
J. wrote: "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of AmericaThis one struck me as a almost hilarious from its lack of self awareness.
The author revels in telling us ho..."
I haven't read this book, but there are questions I'd pose, which are actually summed up in this paragraph.
The "Cons" accomplished this by using "wedge issues", like abortion and guns, to vilify the good Democrats as elitists. To the author these are irrelevant issues when compared to the class struggle between the normal people, who should be voting Dem, and the evil capitalists. It never seems to occur to the author that if you believe that a fetus is a baby, then abortion is murder. He doesn't even bother to address that or any premise. He just calls them nuts who aren't interested in listening to their betters.
The questions that make me wonder can be summed up in one I posed a while back: Is there no nuance in US politics?
But things that make me wonder, both in the US, and also elsewhere, I'll define below.
As someone with a religious belief, I can understand that abortion is not the only issue when it comes to politics. While I would prefer that women did not feel the need to abort, I also understand why they do, when they see a future without health care, or a living wage. But I don't understand when abortion becomes the only reason to vote for a politician.
I have friends in the US who will vote only on this issue.
The same applies to guns. We've already (in this group) established that I don't understand the love affair Americans have with guns, so I won't go into it, but again, it does appear to be an all or nothing thing.
The other questions I'd pose:
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who don't want to throw sons and daughters into the meat grinder of war?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who believe that a fair day's work deserves a fair day's wage?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who can see the humanity of the poor? Or the refugee? Or the person who is different?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who understand that death by lack of healthcare is the same as death by abortion?
I suspect that any book, when viewed through the lens of the opposite ideology will be hard to understand.
Papaphilly wrote: "I have held this book in my hands more than I can count. I keep putting it down for another day. Maybe it is time to read it. Is it worth the time regardless of how the author is condescending. Is ..."As far as writing, the narrative is smooth and the author does make citations (which is more than I can say for Tucker Carlson).
The author was definitely preaching to his choir, when the book was written in 2004. Consequently, he largely ignores the Democrat side of the equation, choosing to focus on the Republicans. He does make good criticisms of the Republican electoral strategies of martyrdom and resentment.
He critiques at length the process by which the Conservative (Traditionalist) Republicans eclipsed the Moderate Republicans through "wedge issues". In his critiques, I can see a lot of what is happening, now, between moderate and far left Democrats. The more I think about it, the more I think that Frank, unintentionally, created a prediction for the schism we are seeing in the current Democrats. For this reason and because it sounds like you already bought a copy, I recommend reading it with the caveat that you will roll your eyes at Frank's politics.
Leonie,I'll try to answer your questions. Others will disagree with my answers, so take them with a grain of salt.
Is there no nuance in US politics?
Not during elections. The two party system is set up to always be at odds over a handful of issues. The more polarized these issues are, the better it is for the parties. Pro-choice Dems can rally their voters with stories of abortion clinics being bombed and references to The Handmaid's Tale. And Pro-life Republicans can scream about Planned Parenthood murdering babies, and selling their parts. A resolution to the argument would be a disaster for the parties, because they would both lose their rallying cry.
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who don't want to throw sons and daughters into the meat grinder of war?
Do you mean like Trump choosing not to invade Syria, and drawing down troop deployments? Or Tulsi Gabbard calling for an end to "regime change" wars, and getting smeared for it?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who believe that a fair day's work deserves a fair day's wage?
Tough one. Typically Republicans believe that wages should be set by free market forces. Trump is actually at odds with this by imposing protectionist tariffs. Democrats talk about it, but don't do much, except somehow make themselves rich.
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who can see the humanity of the poor? Or the refugee? Or the person who is different?
That's a loaded question.
Republicans pontificate on how economic growth raises people out of poverty, and achieve mixed results. Democrats use welfare as political patronage, unless the Clintons need to use the "Southern Strategy" by talking about "welfare queens".
Refugees have been an point of contention around the world. Or have I misunderstood the issues in the EU?
As for "the different", we're all in this together. The goal is equality before the law.
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who understand that death by lack of healthcare is the same as death by abortion?
Please elaborate on the logic behind this statement of equivalence. I'm not seeing the connection. Are you commenting on the costs of not receiving preventative care?
Leonie wrote: "But I don't understand when abortion becomes the only reason to vote for a politician.I have friends in the US who will vote only on this issue.
The same applies to guns. We've already (in this group) established that I don't understand the love affair Americans have with guns, so I won't go into it, but again, it does appear to be an all or nothing thing.
The other questions I'd pose:
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who don't want to throw sons and daughters into the meat grinder of war?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who believe that a fair day's work deserves a fair day's wage?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who can see the humanity of the poor? Or the refugee? Or the person who is different?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who understand that death by lack of healthcare is the same as death by abortion?
I suspect that any book, when viewed through the lens of the opposite ideology will be hard to understand. ..."
I am going to try to answer this because it is such a great set of questions.
First: Americans are not nearly as polar as media makes us. The problem is that the loudest voices get the greatest coverage. A pretty small group can cause a big stink due to Facebook and the like. Twitter along with Facebook was a real game changer. It is about the soundbite right now and the soundbite leaves no room for nuance. It has also turned many into one camp or the other. Te middle ground is vacant right now because everyone is pushed into the two camps.
"But I don't understand when abortion becomes the only reason to vote for a politician.
This one is actually easy. This issue is what is referred to both a wedge issue, but also a one percent issue. One percent of the population will vote on this issue alone, either for or against. It is actually a wash. Make no mistake, there are plenty of good people on both sides that truly believe and will push their agenda because they think they are truly right. It is a moral issue for them. Most of the rest of us see it as a necessary evil.
"The same applies to guns. We've already (in this group) established that I don't understand the love affair Americans have with guns, so I won't go into it, but again, it does appear to be an all or nothing thing.
The gun issue is another wedge issue, but it is bit more nuanced. Once again it is the wing nuts driving the argument. Except the average American says on thing and does another. Americans will say they are for gun control, but when it gets proposed, the pitchforks come out and gun sales increase dramatically. Politicians tend to talk a good game not do much because this one they get. The reason the National Rifle Association (NRA) is so vilified is that they tend to back Republicans over Democrats. Get it?
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who don't want to throw sons and daughters into the meat grinder of war?
They are there and it is tough for both sides. Very few politicians are truly for war, but since 911, it is almost impossible to not be pro military. They are country's most respected institution and they do the tough job. Trump for all of his foibles has gone far out of the way to keep us from escalating war.
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who believe that a fair day's work deserves a fair day's wage?
In this one, they are not nearly as far apart as one would think. Everyone is for a good economy. The question is how to have one. It is the devil in the details. It is not really about the jobs, but the approach.
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who can see the humanity of the poor? Or the refugee? Or the person who is different?
This one makes me laugh. The United States is the number one immigrant destination in the world. 40 million here are immigrants. One country has about 20% of all immigrants, the United States. Literally every country is represented here in the United States.
So where is the rub? Well, of the immigrants, about 23% are here unlawfully. That is where the fight actually happens. There are certainly people that would not allow any immigrants, but they are really a very small number, just as those that would allow anyone to enter. Americans in general are accepting of outsiders once we get acclimated to them and they to us. Every incoming group becomes American over three generations. That is, they will share their values as Americans rather than the old country of their grandparents.
Americans also have a real hatred for those that cheat. Believe it or not, Americans believe in fair play. It is how we were raised. Illegal immigrants cheat to get or remain here and that rubs everyone wrong. The fact that most of them do not look like the rest of us does not help their cause, but if they were from England and illegal, there would be trouble for them too. What mostly everyone hears about is the loud politics and the shaming. It actually is a losing issue for Democrats because the vast majority is against it. With all of the public screaming, opinions are hardened. Being called a racist because one does not believe in illegals does not make one kowtow, but makes one quiet and go vote against the measure.
Where are the Republicans/Democrats who understand that death by lack of healthcare is the same as death by abortion?
It is not the same, but your point is taken. Once again, anyone can get health care by going to a public hospital. All politicians want healthcare for their constituents. It is once again the approach. There are differing opinions. Lots of overlap, but some real disagreements. Once again the politics are involved with all of the screaming. Part of the issue is the lack of trust with the politicians.
Mostly we are divided, but not nearly as one would think. It is mostly a very vocal minority pushing the pile. there is also a generational shift occurring which is complicating the process. This will pass.
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I have held this book in my hands more than I can count. I keep putting it down for another day. Maybe it is time to read it. Is it worth the time regardless of how the author is..."Ok great thanks
Please elaborate on the logic behind this statement of equivalence. I'm not seeing the connection. Are you commenting on the costs of not receiving preventative care?Thanks to both J and Papaphilly for taking the time to reply in such detail.
J, it's about the costs of healthcare, that I'm querying. From what I understand, there really isn't public healthcare in the US in the way I'm accustomed to public healthcare operating. Here, anyone can access any kind of care without cost to themselves.
From friends who've struggled with the US system, I hear stories of not being able to afford basic life preserving medication (insulin, or epipens for example), or of going broke when someone is ill, or not being able to access cancer treatment, or at least having an absolute limit of how much treatment.
A friend had to take her daughter to emergency some years ago, and wasn't even able to be seen if she hadn't signed that she would pay whatever was required. Later, she incurred a debt for surgery for herself. In an ED here, that wouldn't even be a consideration. Nor would a debt be incurred in the public system.
To be clear: For some, abortion is murder of the unborn. For others, not being able to afford healthcare is murder of the born.
J. wrote: "Any thoughts?..."I can only offer my impressions from afar and it won't be about the book, which I haven't read, but rather about the questions that you raise...
In my opinion, dems try to encompass contradictory issues and went a bit too far from human nature of most voters, plus career politicians like Hillary or Biden are not the best presenters.
It's much easier to support universally good issues like "diversity", or commiserate with poor illegal immigrants or worry about some distant polluted river, when you are well fed, so are your kids and you are generally well off and don't worry about your tomorrow's bread & butter. When your situ is less spectacular, one would worry more about personal agenda and simpler, more "personal" messages - safekeeping of jobs, protectionism, "America" first, lower taxes, etc... In this sense dems, that with their social policies should prima facie benefit working class more, lost touch with the real people, when they promote "general" values.. Contradictory as it is, I find that often superrich and media might be left leaning (and that supposedly for the benefit of others as they have already succeeded and don't mind helping others), while those that fight their everyday struggle would stick with more "traditional" approach. The equilibrium is always delicate – you need to have healthy, running biz and favorable environment for economy and work, but also to be there with social security to help those in trouble.
Obama was a charismatic, "new face", who swept with his "honest", "people's" approach. Hillary and Joe, on the other hand are career politicians and in this sense represent establishment. Nancy may be a remarkable woman, but they all sound "phony" - distant, the way they talk, live and do.
Donald is "honest" in the crudest sense of it. Moreover, he pointedly tried to deliver on most of his promises. Many get it and appreciate. Many others can't stand the man, because of his manners and attitudes and think he's a disgrace.
Plus there is sometimes a pendulum – after Obama – a left choice and a minority representative no less, it went the other extreme with Trump, when people voting for him maybe even more voted against traditional detached establishment..
The “swingers” now will likely go with their instinct who can deliver best on economy and survival, rather than “wedge” issues. In this sense Joe might’ve indeed lost some voters in Pennsylvania and other places with his remarks on oil industry, for example.
Yet, Trump is coping with the event, which just may turn out to be overwhelming, so I guess we should see 😊
As of sending "sons and daughters", my opinion is this:The States want disengagement and recoiling, while Russia and China are clearly at an expansionist stance.. There is no unoccupied "void". The moment States took their foot of the gas pedal on Syria, Putin was there to snatch a decisive role. China is courting ayatollahs with fantastic deals and money and so on..
Wherever radicals feel "weakness" they grow ballsier, like Iran did assuming Trump was a paper tiger until he needed to demonstrate otherwise ..
If the States wants to keep their presence and influence for various reasons: to keep selling arms, to be economically dominant, to uphold democratic approaches and human values, they'll need to prove they are there militarily, economically, etc, time and again until the entire world evolves to a less competitive/aggressive approach.. Anywhere they withdraw, they'd see Russians or Chinese or both the day after.
And radicals and warmongers won't disappear anywhere unless contained..
So, from a strategic point of view of the States, they can achieve their goals acting smart - withdrawing troops, but leaving control and influences. Thus, for example, the States attempt to forge a strong alliance in the ME, based on US armaments and theoretical military backing, but less "boots on the ground"..
Nik wrote: "As of sending "sons and daughters", my opinion is this:The States want disengagement and recoiling, while Russia and China are clearly at an expansionist stance.. There is no unoccupied "void". Th..."
Nik, your comments in this post reminded me of Reagan's political debut.
A Time for Choosing
https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY
J. wrote: "Nik, your comments in this post reminded me of Reagan's political debut.A Time for Choosing
https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY..."
Was interesting to watch parts of it. What can I say - Reagan would've been a rather strong contestant among the two contemporary candidates :)
I'm just being realistic and understand that unilateral approach won't work, but at the same time hope that the entire globe will transcend and shift to a truly peaceful, non-violent mode. Might take some time though
Well, I only got ten out of twelve books read. I want to thank everyone who commented and suggested books on this thread. You've been excellent guides. Tomorrow, I'll go to the polls. Then we'll see what happens.
The 2024 Election Insanity Reading List will begin this fall. Please make book suggestions.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
The Handmaid’s Tale (other topics)What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (other topics)
What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (other topics)
What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (other topics)
Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Tucker Carlson (other topics)Christopher Hitchens (other topics)
Matt Taibbi (other topics)
Frank Herbert (other topics)
David McCullough (other topics)
More...
The first book is t..."
Interesting and elaborate account of the book and your impressions about it. The cynicism in the given situ is understandable, since he's competing and probably views the book as an additional instrument to "sell himself" to the public as the best prospective president. In this sense, a memoir of someone, who's already after the job, might have more value.
Does he explain, why he didn't compete the previous time and let Hillary run under Obama's blessing? Or does he mean that his son's "last will" made him run?