Scan barcode
jazzab1971's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
jeffphilly's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
5.0
One of the funniest books that I have ever read!! This book is written by a political punditt who is described a die hard Republican. That being said the author pokes fun at both sides. He pokes fun at all parties in the democratic and republican primaries, Hillary and Donald in the national election and he also pokes fun at the mess that is the American process of electing a president.
bparkinson31's review against another edition
1.0
Huge asshole. No insight. Not a lick funny. If the sarcasm was supposed to be meaningful or humorous it didn't hit.
For example, these are actual things that O'Rourke said -
"No candidate went commando, no candidate went Goth, or gangsta, or - trendy though it may be - transgender." (p.100)
"Men are famously bad at translating the language of women's clothing. We often wrongly think an outfit is saying, "Come hither." (p.110)
He also made statements that are blatantly false -
"Democratic politicians care so much about poverty that - far from warring on it - they have become a kind of conservationist group, devoted to preserving it forever." (p.114 - he was referring to the time period from LBJ - present, as if Republican presidents and Republican-controlled Congresses have not blocked progressive bills during that time).
"Bernie doesn't just promise to take things from people. He thinks it's a sin not to. His faith demands stealing." (p.114 - not only is this an obviously unfair and inaccurate characterization of socialism, it falls into the category of "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.")
"Maybe the billionaires got rich by 'exploiting the workers.' Three of the Forbes list's six richest people created industries from scratch. There'd never been any workers in these industries because these industries didn't exist, making the workers in them hard to exploit because they weren't there." (p.127 - I mean, what the fuck are you on about? Is your point that billionaires created industries where people who were previously unemployed can now be exploited in a new industry? Again, I don't know how to explain to you...)
"That American politics is controlled by big-money campaign donors turns out to be a myth. Charles and David Koch had about as much influence on the selection of candidates and the outcome of the election as the National Pork Producers Council has on Middle East peace negotiations." (p.184 - I direct you to Dark Money by Jane Meyer, which will, in 600 pages, spell out for you why that statement is entirely inaccurate from start to finish).
Regarding Melania Trump's plagarism of Michelle Obama's speech, he said -
"What pour soul, fresh out of journalism school, down in the bowels of some news organization, is forced to fact-check these things?" (I don't know, a normal journalist who fact-checks?)
And then he went on to provide an example of the very clear plagarism, but argues that it's not plagirism because Michelle Obama's words had nothing of value. Genuine question, O'Rourke, how the hell did you become such an asshole?
And then he concludes the book with a libertarian love letter. Nope. I'm done.
For example, these are actual things that O'Rourke said -
"No candidate went commando, no candidate went Goth, or gangsta, or - trendy though it may be - transgender." (p.100)
"Men are famously bad at translating the language of women's clothing. We often wrongly think an outfit is saying, "Come hither." (p.110)
He also made statements that are blatantly false -
"Democratic politicians care so much about poverty that - far from warring on it - they have become a kind of conservationist group, devoted to preserving it forever." (p.114 - he was referring to the time period from LBJ - present, as if Republican presidents and Republican-controlled Congresses have not blocked progressive bills during that time).
"Bernie doesn't just promise to take things from people. He thinks it's a sin not to. His faith demands stealing." (p.114 - not only is this an obviously unfair and inaccurate characterization of socialism, it falls into the category of "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.")
"Maybe the billionaires got rich by 'exploiting the workers.' Three of the Forbes list's six richest people created industries from scratch. There'd never been any workers in these industries because these industries didn't exist, making the workers in them hard to exploit because they weren't there." (p.127 - I mean, what the fuck are you on about? Is your point that billionaires created industries where people who were previously unemployed can now be exploited in a new industry? Again, I don't know how to explain to you...)
"That American politics is controlled by big-money campaign donors turns out to be a myth. Charles and David Koch had about as much influence on the selection of candidates and the outcome of the election as the National Pork Producers Council has on Middle East peace negotiations." (p.184 - I direct you to Dark Money by Jane Meyer, which will, in 600 pages, spell out for you why that statement is entirely inaccurate from start to finish).
Regarding Melania Trump's plagarism of Michelle Obama's speech, he said -
"What pour soul, fresh out of journalism school, down in the bowels of some news organization, is forced to fact-check these things?" (I don't know, a normal journalist who fact-checks?)
And then he went on to provide an example of the very clear plagarism, but argues that it's not plagirism because Michelle Obama's words had nothing of value. Genuine question, O'Rourke, how the hell did you become such an asshole?
And then he concludes the book with a libertarian love letter. Nope. I'm done.
More...