BOE - who are people voting for?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Bwahahahaha right. That’s how it started in Maryland, what started as medical marijuana is now a free for all with pot smoking in common areas and cars. I know exactly what lobbyists do. |
Anonymous
It's Reefer Madness! .jpg)
|
Anonymous
Thank you. Better to hide that Rita Montoya is a medical marijuana user and lobbyist in the Apple Ballot endorsement. No one in Montgomery County wants the Apple Ballot to be honest about candidates. |
Anonymous
She's really great! Sure, she may lobby for medical weed but that's legal so no biggie. Anyway, she got my vote. |
Anonymous
|
Here is thread to 2022 BOE election
dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/75/1068497.page#22986273 |
Anonymous
Then why was it hidden in her profile? |
Anonymous
| It’s hidden because they don’t want parents to know that the teachers union endorsed a cannabis promoter (Montoya). Do your research parents. Google her. |
Anonymous
I'm a parent, I did my research, I voted for her. |
Anonymous
Why was her profession hidden? |
Anonymous
Why are you suddenly asking these "When did you stop kicking your dog" questions? I guess someone is suddenly worried that Rita Montoya might win. |
Anonymous
She will win. Apple Ballot wants her. The question stands, why is her profession being hidden from voters? |
Anonymous
Literally not hidden. She talks about it openly. It's even on her candidate web page: "In my career, I developed: [other items]; and a U.S.-based, international, Black-owned cannabis and hemp company..." You are the only one trying to make it seem like a cover-up. |
Anonymous
It is not on her Apple Ballot flyer. |
Anonymous
Aside from it not being hidden, should we have all the candidates laying out all the medications they take? Healthcare info is protected by law. Should we have full personnel files laid out? Public judgements against candidates for misconduct, sure, but otherwise similarly protected. Even if voluntarily disclosed by Montoya, the tone of the post and associated insinuation is inappropriate. I seriously doubt MCEA ignored occupation or that Montoya did not disclose the nature of her work -- it's pretty public info. MCEA just decided the calculus of her platform, experience and interactive style worked best for them in comparison to that of others running. Whatever negative from one category was more than made up from others for enough of their members. I'm guessing MCEA then wants to highlight whatever is most compatible for them, and, again, with the info being accessible to voters from even a rudimentary search, it isn't like they are hiding it (or even can hide it). Comments about advocacy activity are fair game, but shouldn't be hyperbolized into something they aren't. That goes for the over-the-top posts about Mandel's political views making her subhumanly unsuitable (I still think those come from her own camp as something that draws her base and makes others look unhinged) or any claim that Hidayat's law enforcement background means he's in favor of racial profiling and police brutality. Or that pro-legalization advocacy, with a focus on safety, means wanting drugs in schools... |
Anonymous
You mean this one? https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/montoya.jpg How terrible that they don't put every single thing about this candidate on their limited-space flyers! Certainly, they did for the other candidates they decided to support: https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/zimmerman.png https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/04/stewart.jpg  Seriously, what planet do you live on?
|