Brenda Diaz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted for her. /shrug. I don't agree with what she said about covid, mask mandates, or any of that. But she's the only candidate that I can see talking substantively about academic standards declining. I voted for her, because I wanted to make a statement to the board / political engine -- people do care about this, this 'fringe' candidate just got 30% of the vote, MCPS keeps sleepwalking (or strong-arming) into failed policies and it's getting more than frustrating to watch. I'm hoping that this will make establishment start to notice a rising frustrating among the electorate on this issue. I love public schools, I want to fund them, I want the best for our children, and yet I see MCPS getting more and more money every year, there's less and less attention on where it goes, failed contracts, ignoring parental feedback on policies -- and screaming crying throwing up shaking about ... getting nearly $150m more than you did last year? The fearmongering around the budget was insane this cycle.

I'll vote for her again in November. I don't care for Lazo, he's too buddy-buddy with the existing county/state politics for me to think he'd hold anyone accountable. If she wins, great. She's one voice on a board of how many people? I'm not concerned that she'll somehow roll back vaccine mandates or create mass book burnings. She's one person, and it's good for the BoE to have a different voice, for once.

If it were for a position where she was a president-of-one, I wouldn't have voted for her, because she may be able to enact more of her fringe policies. But as one member of a board? I hope she wins. I want to send a message that parents are getting fed up, and want something different.

I won't argue my point on dcum, this is my personal opinion, and I don't like engaging in online comment wars. But I'll say - it's very easy to dismiss people and claim that everyone who votes for her is insane, wrong, a right-wing nut job, whatever. She got 2nd place in a 4-1 Dem area. This isn't a red county or a purple county, and yet she still got 2nd. Hopefully this helps some people realize that she's actually, somehow, *connecting* with voters on legitimate issues.

Or you can just yell that she's insane and shouldn't be listened to. That's fine. You will still have people who quietly just ... vote for her anyway.

"Teachers" like her are the reason for the decline. She couldn't be bothered being on time for school let alone teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Looks like Brenda will be advancing to the general election. Didn’t see that coming.

She also advanced to the general election two years ago, and then lost to the MCEA-endorsed candidate by 14 points.

Voters are idiots to have voted for this POS

The problem is low voter turnout during the primaries. When only 25% of eligible voters show up, it makes it possible for candidates like Brenda to squeak by.

Voter turnout so far in this MoCo primary appears to have been about nine to one Democrat to Republican. That likely will move right quite a bit in the general. Even if assuming she got 100% of the Republican vote, she almost certainly got more votes from Democrats.

Voter turnout is very low. Yes, there may be more Republicans that vote in the general election, but there will also be a lot more Democrats motivated to vote against MAGA.

Plus word will get out more fully about her MAGA beliefs. Her website is pretty deceptive in that regard. She actively misled voters about her core beliefs. I almost fell for it.

So her website is deceptive but what I read here about her from LWNJs on this site I should take for granted. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why all the arguing? She won’t win, even if we want. MOCO is like 5-1 democrat. The least people can do is tolerate a different viewpoint.

What do you mean by "tolerate"? You mean we can't say we find her offensive? That is not going to happen because she is offensive. Comparing vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is offensive. Suggesting that kids should not be exposed to books that include LGBTQ+ characters is offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Looks like Brenda will be advancing to the general election. Didn’t see that coming.

She also advanced to the general election two years ago, and then lost to the MCEA-endorsed candidate by 14 points.

Voters are idiots to have voted for this POS

The problem is low voter turnout during the primaries. When only 25% of eligible voters show up, it makes it possible for candidates like Brenda to squeak by.

Voter turnout so far in this MoCo primary appears to have been about nine to one Democrat to Republican. That likely will move right quite a bit in the general. Even if assuming she got 100% of the Republican vote, she almost certainly got more votes from Democrats.

Voter turnout is very low. Yes, there may be more Republicans that vote in the general election, but there will also be a lot more Democrats motivated to vote against MAGA.

Plus word will get out more fully about her MAGA beliefs. Her website is pretty deceptive in that regard. She actively misled voters about her core beliefs. I almost fell for it.

So her website is deceptive but what I read here about her from LWNJs on this site I should take for granted. Got it.

You should read her blog

You probably agree with her but you'll also recognize most MoCo voters will find her appalling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the arguing? She won’t win, even if we want. MOCO is like 5-1 democrat. The least people can do is tolerate a different viewpoint.

What do you mean by "tolerate"? You mean we can't say we find her offensive? That is not going to happen because she is offensive. Comparing vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is offensive. Suggesting that kids should not be exposed to books that include LGBTQ+ characters is offensive.

If the BOE had listened to her perspective, it would have saved them at millions in legal fees. We could have spent that money on education.

[Anonymous]

I voted for Lazo, reading her response about textbooks, reducing tech, etc. I might vote for Diaz in November. As someone said upthread, "education matters more than how someone feels about pride flags."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the arguing? She won’t win, even if we want. MOCO is like 5-1 democrat. The least people can do is tolerate a different viewpoint.

What do you mean by "tolerate"? You mean we can't say we find her offensive? That is not going to happen because she is offensive. Comparing vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is offensive. Suggesting that kids should not be exposed to books that include LGBTQ+ characters is offensive.

Curious about anti-vaccine label.

Did she argue:

A. Against well-established CDC mandated vaccines for school-age children

B. Against vaccinating elementary and middle school children for COVID

A is indeed problematic as those vaccines have been well tested and are known to save children lives.

If B, she should be applauded for having a courage to say no to COVID vaccine zealots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the arguing? She won’t win, even if we want. MOCO is like 5-1 democrat. The least people can do is tolerate a different viewpoint.

What do you mean by "tolerate"? You mean we can't say we find her offensive? That is not going to happen because she is offensive. Comparing vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is offensive. Suggesting that kids should not be exposed to books that include LGBTQ+ characters is offensive.

Curious about anti-vaccine label.

Did she argue:

A. Against well-established CDC mandated vaccines for school-age children

B. Against vaccinating elementary and middle school children for COVID

A is indeed problematic as those vaccines have been well tested and are known to save children lives.

If B, she should be applauded for having a courage to say no to COVID vaccine zealots.

Look it up, I don't work for you and if you can't see how coming vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is disqualifying, then I know I can't help uou

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the arguing? She won’t win, even if we want. MOCO is like 5-1 democrat. The least people can do is tolerate a different viewpoint.

What do you mean by "tolerate"? You mean we can't say we find her offensive? That is not going to happen because she is offensive. Comparing vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is offensive. Suggesting that kids should not be exposed to books that include LGBTQ+ characters is offensive.

Curious about anti-vaccine label.

Did she argue:

A. Against well-established CDC mandated vaccines for school-age children

B. Against vaccinating elementary and middle school children for COVID

A is indeed problematic as those vaccines have been well tested and are known to save children lives.

If B, she should be applauded for having a courage to say no to COVID vaccine zealots.

Look it up, I don't work for you and if you can't see how coming vaccine mandates to Jim Crow is disqualifying, then I know I can't help uou

If you can't focus on fundamentals, such as academics, and instead are fixating on some unfortunate hyperbole, you are not a mature voter you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Looks like Brenda will be advancing to the general election. Didn’t see that coming.

She also advanced to the general election two years ago, and then lost to the MCEA-endorsed candidate by 14 points.

Voters are idiots to have voted for this POS

The problem is low voter turnout during the primaries. When only 25% of eligible voters show up, it makes it possible for candidates like Brenda to squeak by.

Voter turnout so far in this MoCo primary appears to have been about nine to one Democrat to Republican. That likely will move right quite a bit in the general. Even if assuming she got 100% of the Republican vote, she almost certainly got more votes from Democrats.

Voter turnout is very low. Yes, there may be more Republicans that vote in the general election, but there will also be a lot more Democrats motivated to vote against MAGA.

Plus word will get out more fully about her MAGA beliefs. Her website is pretty deceptive in that regard. She actively misled voters about her core beliefs. I almost fell for it.

So her website is deceptive but what I read here about her from LWNJs on this site I should take for granted. Got it.

You should read her blog

You probably agree with her but you'll also recognize most MoCo voters will find her appalling

You're right that people should read her blog. Maybe start here: https://brilliantresilience.substack.com/p/the-true-school-to-prison-pipeline where she provides probably the sanest positions on school safety and instructional choices you'll read from any candidate in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given so many people voted to reelect Laurie-Anne Sayles who is the absolute worst councilmember in since I've been following the Council over the last decade, I would not read to much into 30% of primary voters picking Diaz. Most voters really don't know much at all about the people they vote for.

I totally get that Diaz seems reasonable in her answers to the Banner just like Sayles seems competent. But Diaz is not any more reasonable than Sayles is competent. Anybody can get a consultant to write answers to these questions. Diaz has shown us who she is and all that will be made painfully apparent in the general election.

What is wrong with Sayles? (Didn’t vote for her but don’t know much about her so am genuinely asking.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given so many people voted to reelect Laurie-Anne Sayles who is the absolute worst councilmember in since I've been following the Council over the last decade, I would not read to much into 30% of primary voters picking Diaz. Most voters really don't know much at all about the people they vote for.

I totally get that Diaz seems reasonable in her answers to the Banner just like Sayles seems competent. But Diaz is not any more reasonable than Sayles is competent. Anybody can get a consultant to write answers to these questions. Diaz has shown us who she is and all that will be made painfully apparent in the general election.

What is wrong with Sayles? (Didn’t vote for her but don’t know much about her so am genuinely asking.)

She is an idiot. Consider watching some council sessions to learn more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Looks like Brenda will be advancing to the general election. Didn’t see that coming.

She also advanced to the general election two years ago, and then lost to the MCEA-endorsed candidate by 14 points.

Voters are idiots to have voted for this POS

The problem is low voter turnout during the primaries. When only 25% of eligible voters show up, it makes it possible for candidates like Brenda to squeak by.

Voter turnout so far in this MoCo primary appears to have been about nine to one Democrat to Republican. That likely will move right quite a bit in the general. Even if assuming she got 100% of the Republican vote, she almost certainly got more votes from Democrats.

Voter turnout is very low. Yes, there may be more Republicans that vote in the general election, but there will also be a lot more Democrats motivated to vote against MAGA.

Plus word will get out more fully about her MAGA beliefs. Her website is pretty deceptive in that regard. She actively misled voters about her core beliefs. I almost fell for it.

So her website is deceptive but what I read here about her from LWNJs on this site I should take for granted. Got it.

You should read her blog

You probably agree with her but you'll also recognize most MoCo voters will find her appalling

You're right that people should read her blog. Maybe start here: https://brilliantresilience.substack.com/p/the-true-school-to-prison-pipeline where she provides probably the sanest positions on school safety and instructional choices you'll read from any candidate in Montgomery County.

Thanks for sharing this link. I encourage folks who are considering voting for her to read all her posts. If she makes some points that sound reasonable, you can check them against AI to get a fuller picture of the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Lazo, reading her response about textbooks, reducing tech, etc. I might vote for Diaz in November. As someone said upthread, "education matters more than how someone feels about pride flags."

Flags are symbolic for real issues. Suicide among non-straight youth is high, because we live in an intolerant world, as evidenced by Diaz and her beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Lazo, reading her response about textbooks, reducing tech, etc. I might vote for Diaz in November. As someone said upthread, "education matters more than how someone feels about pride flags."

Flags are symbolic for real issues. Suicide among non-straight youth is high, because we live in an intolerant world, as evidenced by Diaz and her beliefs.

I'm not worried that one school board member is going to turn 2026 Montgomery County MD into 1990's Kentucky on LGBTQ issues. I worry more about safety, discipline, and academic standards in this particular time and place.