He had 34 felony charges against him at one point, but the bigger issue to me is the legalized bribes both parties take. They were illegal not too long ago.
With the billion Harris got, she could have helped improve conditions in battleground states, but she got celebrities instead.
The system in general is corrupt, and probably beyond repair.
All 34 of those were because of an error on the memo line of a check, a crime for which no one is ever charged, much less with a felony. Oh, and it was past the statute of limitations. And the person doing the charging had prosecuting Trump with SOMETHING as the central plank of his campaign.
You’re not going to have much success with this “I believe 95% of the nonsense Democrats say, but maybe we should be a little more open to other perspectives”.
Mostly agree with your article except this part: "If I had committed any one of Trump’s crimes, I’d already be in prison, and that’s not how the system should work." Its actually the opposite. If you had committed what Trump got "34 felonies" for, you would have been ignored or at most a misdemeanor. See more here: https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1796373456818242041
Which is to say that your point is stronger than it is: when you disagree with the left, its not just all of the above, but they throw the full legal weight of the justice system to try and shut you up!
My stock response. If you have seen it before I’m sorry, if not enjoy.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party. We are no longer the patriotic, sensible party of FDR and JFK.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that gay kids should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No, you can’t camp in our city. No, you can’t shit in our streets. No, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bail to commit more crimes.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Hard agree. 100%. Democratic candidates are also held accountable for all the crazy shit that the most Left of Leftists push between elections. One thing that really pisses people off is when you go for their kids. The moment that gender ideology went viral, trans activists practically SPRINTED to elementary schools to put this stuff in the curriculum, while other activists ran home immediately to write trans children books. We don't even agree with this as adults and they thought it would be a great idea to start teaching kids this stuff in elementary school? I'm seeing a lot of pretty reasonable moderates who voted Trump simply to keep Democrats out of office in case this was the kind of legislation they had planned. Trump is a POS, but I can't deny that I'm a little bit relieved that Republicans will take power for a few years and put an end to some of this insanity.
Yes, the Left created the success of Trump the politician. Politicians in general handed Trump his success. People are tired of politicians. Politicians are part of the underbelly of democracy. To me, one thing that defines a politician is their perennial air of desperation. Unlike a hereditary monarch, you have to win folks' favor, over and over and over and over. What a life and what a grotesque spectacle it is. The players are grotesque, the people are tired of them. Trump is not a politician clearly, the people find this refreshing. So do i, though i've never liked him. Harris was a characature of a politician. She was literally everything a person comes to hate about politics. At any rate, politics are the side-show. The real driving force behind things being in decline indeed since the 80's was the peaking of conventional oil in North America in 1970. Cheap uber abundant oil made our modern civilization, and its waning is what's unmaking it. And for sure, the pirates are making off with the bulk of the spoils.
Republicans don’t actually want to ban books, for any reasonable definition of the word “ban.” They mostly just don’t want schools to give young children books with anatomically correct illustrations of guys performing oral sex on one another. They don’t have any problem with such books being generally available; they just don’t want them distributed in schools.
Charlotte's Web was banned in 2006 after parents on religious grounds objected to talking animals.
The Catcher in the Rye was banned. At the time, administrators complained because of the book's liberal use of swear words, its preoccupation with teen sexuality, and its intensely dark meditations on society.
Several works of poetry and fiction were banned because they acknowledged racial and sexual inequalities of the past which persist to this day, but have generally improved.
And it isn't just schools. Public libraries are getting heat, too.
Republicans aren’t “banning books”. They’re excluding specific titles (sexually explicit queer content) from inclusion in school and public libraries. If you want your six year old to read the Gay-B-Cs, you’re free to purchase it yourself.
IMO, the progressive Left is vastly worse about censorship (online and in mass media) than the Right, yet somehow still finds the time to point a finger at the Right over book “bannings”. Peter already made the point extensively, so I’ll leave it at that.
I wish Catcher In The Rye had been banned in my school. What a terrible book. That and Billy Budd were the worst literary experiences of my life.
I could have expressed myself more clearly. I don’t think the term “ban” is appropriate for the decision to remove a book from a school curriculum, or even a school library. Pretty much everyone agrees that schools have to choose. Nobody thinks that grade schools should stock the complete works of the Marquis de Sade. But it’s silly to say his work is banned; it’s available from Amazon. The word ban is not appropriate because it suggests widespread lack of availability.
Sure, you sometimes get parents making stupid objections to innocuous books like Catcher In The Rye; such situations get a fair amount of publicity. Now, if I were teaching English to teenagers, I’d exclude that book on literary grounds. But I don’t think it will turn teenagers into pumpkins or something. However, such cases aren’t really that common. Nor is removing Salinger from school libraries a major Republican Party plank. Mostly these days it’s sex stuff, and parents who object to that aren’t crazy. I’m not sure why it’s all that repressive to say that schools shouldn’t give LGBTQ propaganda to third graders.
By the way, it’s a detail, but I don’t think the Charlotte’s Web story is true. I found a number of claims that parents in Kansas objected to Charlotte’s Web, but I couldn’t find any news reports, or any details of what school district it was. I suspect someone just made it up and others repeated it.
I agree a lot comes from the left, too, and Huckleberry Finn is widely considered to be the best US novel. I live in NYC, and the general attitude is not to ban or remove anything, but there are some on both sides who want to, and space in libraries, including the servers, is limited, and for all the talk, politicians try to defund the NYPL, arguably the best in the world, every year.
I appreciate the civil dialogue, enjoy the holidays.
The text of the article lists Charlotte’s Web, but it’s not listed in the attached Google Doc. Look for yourself! It’s not there. I mean, it’s not that important; I do agree that parents object to all sorts of things that you and I would think were silly to object to. I don’t object to Catcher on moral grounds; I just think it’s a bad book.
My point is threefold.
First, the term “ban” is inappropriate. It’s not a ban to not include a book in a school curriculum or library. Now you concede that, but say these books aren’t available for free to people who don’t have money. How many people who are just dying to have their kid read Catcher in the Rye can’t afford nine dollars?
Second, everyone agrees that books in libraries and schools have to be selected. Physical space alone means they can’t have every book. And nearly everyone agrees that kids ought not be given the collected works of the Marquis de Sade. Given that selection will be made, it seems reasonable for parents to have a say. Even if, sometimes, they make stupid choices.
Third, this stuff actually is pretty rare. I mean the Pen list you cited includes a number of books, including books that I would include in a high school curriculum. Such as Brave New World and !984, two books I think every educated adult should read. So they find a few schools that removed these books. But there are thousands of school districts in the US. it’s just that these controversies, when they arise, get a lot of publicity.
Let me add a fourth point, which is something I hadn’t noted before. You act as if censorious impulses come only from the right. But there is plenty of pressure from the left. Consider, for example, objections to To Kill a Mockingbird, perhaps the most anti-racist book ever written, because it has a “white savior” narrative. Or Huck Finn, on similar grounds. Now, most of the people doing the picking of books have a left-leaning sensibility, so there are fewer things for lefties to object to. But I wonder how parents in left-leaning districts would react if Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism and Freedom were added to school reading lists.
One final note: you had a recent essay that some objected to on various grounds. You complained that many of your critics failed to read what you had to say closely and engage with your actual arguments. I agree! You should try to practice the same virtue.
He had 34 felony charges against him at one point, but the bigger issue to me is the legalized bribes both parties take. They were illegal not too long ago.
With the billion Harris got, she could have helped improve conditions in battleground states, but she got celebrities instead.
The system in general is corrupt, and probably beyond repair.
All 34 of those were because of an error on the memo line of a check, a crime for which no one is ever charged, much less with a felony. Oh, and it was past the statute of limitations. And the person doing the charging had prosecuting Trump with SOMETHING as the central plank of his campaign.
You’re not going to have much success with this “I believe 95% of the nonsense Democrats say, but maybe we should be a little more open to other perspectives”.
Mostly agree with your article except this part: "If I had committed any one of Trump’s crimes, I’d already be in prison, and that’s not how the system should work." Its actually the opposite. If you had committed what Trump got "34 felonies" for, you would have been ignored or at most a misdemeanor. See more here: https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1796373456818242041
Which is to say that your point is stronger than it is: when you disagree with the left, its not just all of the above, but they throw the full legal weight of the justice system to try and shut you up!
Cuz Americans don’t understand history repeats itself.
My stock response. If you have seen it before I’m sorry, if not enjoy.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party. We are no longer the patriotic, sensible party of FDR and JFK.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that gay kids should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No, you can’t camp in our city. No, you can’t shit in our streets. No, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bail to commit more crimes.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Hard agree. 100%. Democratic candidates are also held accountable for all the crazy shit that the most Left of Leftists push between elections. One thing that really pisses people off is when you go for their kids. The moment that gender ideology went viral, trans activists practically SPRINTED to elementary schools to put this stuff in the curriculum, while other activists ran home immediately to write trans children books. We don't even agree with this as adults and they thought it would be a great idea to start teaching kids this stuff in elementary school? I'm seeing a lot of pretty reasonable moderates who voted Trump simply to keep Democrats out of office in case this was the kind of legislation they had planned. Trump is a POS, but I can't deny that I'm a little bit relieved that Republicans will take power for a few years and put an end to some of this insanity.
Yes, the Left created the success of Trump the politician. Politicians in general handed Trump his success. People are tired of politicians. Politicians are part of the underbelly of democracy. To me, one thing that defines a politician is their perennial air of desperation. Unlike a hereditary monarch, you have to win folks' favor, over and over and over and over. What a life and what a grotesque spectacle it is. The players are grotesque, the people are tired of them. Trump is not a politician clearly, the people find this refreshing. So do i, though i've never liked him. Harris was a characature of a politician. She was literally everything a person comes to hate about politics. At any rate, politics are the side-show. The real driving force behind things being in decline indeed since the 80's was the peaking of conventional oil in North America in 1970. Cheap uber abundant oil made our modern civilization, and its waning is what's unmaking it. And for sure, the pirates are making off with the bulk of the spoils.
Republicans don’t actually want to ban books, for any reasonable definition of the word “ban.” They mostly just don’t want schools to give young children books with anatomically correct illustrations of guys performing oral sex on one another. They don’t have any problem with such books being generally available; they just don’t want them distributed in schools.
Charlotte's Web was banned in 2006 after parents on religious grounds objected to talking animals.
The Catcher in the Rye was banned. At the time, administrators complained because of the book's liberal use of swear words, its preoccupation with teen sexuality, and its intensely dark meditations on society.
Several works of poetry and fiction were banned because they acknowledged racial and sexual inequalities of the past which persist to this day, but have generally improved.
And it isn't just schools. Public libraries are getting heat, too.
Republicans aren’t “banning books”. They’re excluding specific titles (sexually explicit queer content) from inclusion in school and public libraries. If you want your six year old to read the Gay-B-Cs, you’re free to purchase it yourself.
IMO, the progressive Left is vastly worse about censorship (online and in mass media) than the Right, yet somehow still finds the time to point a finger at the Right over book “bannings”. Peter already made the point extensively, so I’ll leave it at that.
I wish Catcher In The Rye had been banned in my school. What a terrible book. That and Billy Budd were the worst literary experiences of my life.
I could have expressed myself more clearly. I don’t think the term “ban” is appropriate for the decision to remove a book from a school curriculum, or even a school library. Pretty much everyone agrees that schools have to choose. Nobody thinks that grade schools should stock the complete works of the Marquis de Sade. But it’s silly to say his work is banned; it’s available from Amazon. The word ban is not appropriate because it suggests widespread lack of availability.
Sure, you sometimes get parents making stupid objections to innocuous books like Catcher In The Rye; such situations get a fair amount of publicity. Now, if I were teaching English to teenagers, I’d exclude that book on literary grounds. But I don’t think it will turn teenagers into pumpkins or something. However, such cases aren’t really that common. Nor is removing Salinger from school libraries a major Republican Party plank. Mostly these days it’s sex stuff, and parents who object to that aren’t crazy. I’m not sure why it’s all that repressive to say that schools shouldn’t give LGBTQ propaganda to third graders.
By the way, it’s a detail, but I don’t think the Charlotte’s Web story is true. I found a number of claims that parents in Kansas objected to Charlotte’s Web, but I couldn’t find any news reports, or any details of what school district it was. I suspect someone just made it up and others repeated it.
I agree a lot comes from the left, too, and Huckleberry Finn is widely considered to be the best US novel. I live in NYC, and the general attitude is not to ban or remove anything, but there are some on both sides who want to, and space in libraries, including the servers, is limited, and for all the talk, politicians try to defund the NYPL, arguably the best in the world, every year.
I appreciate the civil dialogue, enjoy the holidays.
https://booktrib.com/2024/09/26/9-shocking-books-you-wont-believe-are-banned/#:~:text=Charlotte's%20Web%20by%20E.B.&text=This%20seemingly%20innocent%20children's%20book,would%20be%20on%20the%20list!
Also, I said public libraries in addition to schools. If you have money, you can still access these books, but a lot of people don't.
I understand what you're saying about LGBTQ books, but this has also been applied to sexual education in general.
There's a link within the link I provided that lists and confirms these books were banned, and Charlotte's Web was one of them.
The text of the article lists Charlotte’s Web, but it’s not listed in the attached Google Doc. Look for yourself! It’s not there. I mean, it’s not that important; I do agree that parents object to all sorts of things that you and I would think were silly to object to. I don’t object to Catcher on moral grounds; I just think it’s a bad book.
My point is threefold.
First, the term “ban” is inappropriate. It’s not a ban to not include a book in a school curriculum or library. Now you concede that, but say these books aren’t available for free to people who don’t have money. How many people who are just dying to have their kid read Catcher in the Rye can’t afford nine dollars?
Second, everyone agrees that books in libraries and schools have to be selected. Physical space alone means they can’t have every book. And nearly everyone agrees that kids ought not be given the collected works of the Marquis de Sade. Given that selection will be made, it seems reasonable for parents to have a say. Even if, sometimes, they make stupid choices.
Third, this stuff actually is pretty rare. I mean the Pen list you cited includes a number of books, including books that I would include in a high school curriculum. Such as Brave New World and !984, two books I think every educated adult should read. So they find a few schools that removed these books. But there are thousands of school districts in the US. it’s just that these controversies, when they arise, get a lot of publicity.
Let me add a fourth point, which is something I hadn’t noted before. You act as if censorious impulses come only from the right. But there is plenty of pressure from the left. Consider, for example, objections to To Kill a Mockingbird, perhaps the most anti-racist book ever written, because it has a “white savior” narrative. Or Huck Finn, on similar grounds. Now, most of the people doing the picking of books have a left-leaning sensibility, so there are fewer things for lefties to object to. But I wonder how parents in left-leaning districts would react if Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism and Freedom were added to school reading lists.
One final note: you had a recent essay that some objected to on various grounds. You complained that many of your critics failed to read what you had to say closely and engage with your actual arguments. I agree! You should try to practice the same virtue.
your political logic is teenager level. the problem, the problem the problem is. The problem is you.