Why is Glenn Youngkin lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider Trumpkin less of a liar than McAuliffe.

McAuliffe just posted about his commitment to public education, which he called the "engine" of growth in the state. He didn't bother to mention that he sent his own kids to expensive private schools, except for the kid he sent to NoVa's most economically segregated high school (Langley).

I don't t see this as a problem? Now, sending your kids to private school while choosing not to fund or better public schools would be bad. It's a good thing McAuliffe didn't do that. Wait. Who does that agin? Could it be the school choice party? Hmm//

Its not like Youngkin sent his kids to public school. McLean/DC privates.

Agreed, utter strawman. You can advocate for public schools while sending your kids to private. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying you support public schools while wanting to slash funding for them, then blaming the teachers, is what Republicans do.

[Anonymous]

AARP is not non-partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm having a hard time deciding which asshole I'm going to vote against.

How about the one who doesn’t hate women or support The Big Lie?

Not sure why it’s a tough decision…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should let McCaullife simply answer questions and address voters for that 2 hours.

+1 That’s happened before when Rs chicken out of debates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should let McCaullife simply answer questions and address voters for that 2 hours.

+1 That’s happened before when Rs chicken out of debates.

I thought Youngkin was refusing a debate?

[Anonymous]

I will never vote for a Republican who stands behind the big lie. They want to take down our democracy just because rhey can’t actually win a majority of votes.

https://www.thebulwark.com/glenn-youngkin-keeps-stoking-the-election-conspiracy-fire/?fbclid=IwAR3E-rqYNHtPvFSOuMWsquwmpkQMGtqiTwjDS4iCJ85WaLhy8nSSa7HwOzA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should let McCaullife simply answer questions and address voters for that 2 hours.

+1 That’s happened before when Rs chicken out of debates.

I thought Youngkin was refusing a debate?

He is. Not sure what your question is.

[Anonymous]

Democrat for Youngkin! Teaching these idiots a lesson about closing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider Trumpkin less of a liar than McAuliffe.

McAuliffe just posted about his commitment to public education, which he called the "engine" of growth in the state. He didn't bother to mention that he sent his own kids to expensive private schools, except for the kid he sent to NoVa's most economically segregated high school (Langley).

I don't t see this as a problem? Now, sending your kids to private school while choosing not to fund or better public schools would be bad. It's a good thing McAuliffe didn't do that. Wait. Who does that agin? Could it be the school choice party? Hmm//

Its not like Youngkin sent his kids to public school. McLean/DC privates.

Agreed, utter strawman. You can advocate for public schools while sending your kids to private. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying you support public schools while wanting to slash funding for them, then blaming the teachers, is what Republicans do.

Denying parents stuck with the government option the hope of the choice you yourself have is, in fact, hypocritical.

You only have choice if you can fund a private education above and beyond every other expense.

Terrible schools and terrible teachers that SOME parents are stuck with but we believe in the promise and wonder of public school so much that we tell them to suck it up and deal for their kids' entire childhoods-- we'll fix it (maybe. eventually.) and even if we don't you can't leave. After all, you can't afford better.

This fear that public schools will fall apart if all parents have a choice in schools is very telling. It's so great you have to prevent people from running away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never vote for a Republican who stands behind the big lie. They want to take down our democracy just because rhey can’t actually win a majority of votes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider Trumpkin less of a liar than McAuliffe.

McAuliffe just posted about his commitment to public education, which he called the "engine" of growth in the state. He didn't bother to mention that he sent his own kids to expensive private schools, except for the kid he sent to NoVa's most economically segregated high school (Langley).

I don't t see this as a problem? Now, sending your kids to private school while choosing not to fund or better public schools would be bad. It's a good thing McAuliffe didn't do that. Wait. Who does that agin? Could it be the school choice party? Hmm//

Its not like Youngkin sent his kids to public school. McLean/DC privates.

Agreed, utter strawman. You can advocate for public schools while sending your kids to private. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying you support public schools while wanting to slash funding for them, then blaming the teachers, is what Republicans do.

Denying parents stuck with the government option the hope of the choice you yourself have is, in fact, hypocritical.

You only have choice if you can fund a private education above and beyond every other expense.

Terrible schools and terrible teachers that SOME parents are stuck with but we believe in the promise and wonder of public school so much that we tell them to suck it up and deal for their kids' entire childhoods-- we'll fix it (maybe. eventually.) and even if we don't you can't leave. After all, you can't afford better.

This fear that public schools will fall apart if all parents have a choice in schools is very telling. It's so great you have to prevent people from running away.

Terry McAuliffe claims to support public schools, but he sent his kids to privates and one uber-segregated public high school (Langley) so I take no comfort from the fact that he’s shown he’s perfectly comfortable relegating other families to sub-par publics that he’d never let his own privileged kids attend. He’s a d-bag and a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrat for Youngkin! Teaching these idiots a lesson about closing schools.

Voting out of spite instead of what would be the most beneficial to students. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider Trumpkin less of a liar than McAuliffe.

McAuliffe just posted about his commitment to public education, which he called the "engine" of growth in the state. He didn't bother to mention that he sent his own kids to expensive private schools, except for the kid he sent to NoVa's most economically segregated high school (Langley).

I don't t see this as a problem? Now, sending your kids to private school while choosing not to fund or better public schools would be bad. It's a good thing McAuliffe didn't do that. Wait. Who does that agin? Could it be the school choice party? Hmm//

Its not like Youngkin sent his kids to public school. McLean/DC privates.

Agreed, utter strawman. You can advocate for public schools while sending your kids to private. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying you support public schools while wanting to slash funding for them, then blaming the teachers, is what Republicans do.

Denying parents stuck with the government option the hope of the choice you yourself have is, in fact, hypocritical.

You only have choice if you can fund a private education above and beyond every other expense.

Terrible schools and terrible teachers that SOME parents are stuck with but we believe in the promise and wonder of public school so much that we tell them to suck it up and deal for their kids' entire childhoods-- we'll fix it (maybe. eventually.) and even if we don't you can't leave. After all, you can't afford better.

This fear that public schools will fall apart if all parents have a choice in schools is very telling. It's so great you have to prevent people from running away.

Does youngkin support vouchers sufficient to allow children to attend privates, if so where is the money coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider Trumpkin less of a liar than McAuliffe.

McAuliffe just posted about his commitment to public education, which he called the "engine" of growth in the state. He didn't bother to mention that he sent his own kids to expensive private schools, except for the kid he sent to NoVa's most economically segregated high school (Langley).

I don't t see this as a problem? Now, sending your kids to private school while choosing not to fund or better public schools would be bad. It's a good thing McAuliffe didn't do that. Wait. Who does that agin? Could it be the school choice party? Hmm//

Its not like Youngkin sent his kids to public school. McLean/DC privates.

Agreed, utter strawman. You can advocate for public schools while sending your kids to private. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying you support public schools while wanting to slash funding for them, then blaming the teachers, is what Republicans do.

Denying parents stuck with the government option the hope of the choice you yourself have is, in fact, hypocritical.

You only have choice if you can fund a private education above and beyond every other expense.

Terrible schools and terrible teachers that SOME parents are stuck with but we believe in the promise and wonder of public school so much that we tell them to suck it up and deal for their kids' entire childhoods-- we'll fix it (maybe. eventually.) and even if we don't you can't leave. After all, you can't afford better.

This fear that public schools will fall apart if all parents have a choice in schools is very telling. It's so great you have to prevent people from running away.

Well said. Loyalty to the educational bureaucracy in return for endorsements and votes is what matters to the likes of Terry McAuliffe; a good education for kids stuck in under-performing, ignored public schools is not their priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider Trumpkin less of a liar than McAuliffe.

McAuliffe just posted about his commitment to public education, which he called the "engine" of growth in the state. He didn't bother to mention that he sent his own kids to expensive private schools, except for the kid he sent to NoVa's most economically segregated high school (Langley).

I don't t see this as a problem? Now, sending your kids to private school while choosing not to fund or better public schools would be bad. It's a good thing McAuliffe didn't do that. Wait. Who does that agin? Could it be the school choice party? Hmm//

Its not like Youngkin sent his kids to public school. McLean/DC privates.

Agreed, utter strawman. You can advocate for public schools while sending your kids to private. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Saying you support public schools while wanting to slash funding for them, then blaming the teachers, is what Republicans do.

Denying parents stuck with the government option the hope of the choice you yourself have is, in fact, hypocritical.

You only have choice if you can fund a private education above and beyond every other expense.

Terrible schools and terrible teachers that SOME parents are stuck with but we believe in the promise and wonder of public school so much that we tell them to suck it up and deal for their kids' entire childhoods-- we'll fix it (maybe. eventually.) and even if we don't you can't leave. After all, you can't afford better.

This fear that public schools will fall apart if all parents have a choice in schools is very telling. It's so great you have to prevent people from running away.

Well said. Loyalty to the educational bureaucracy in return for endorsements and votes is what matters to the likes of Terry McAuliffe; a good education for kids stuck in under-performing, ignored public schools is not their priority.

This is naive. The vouchers can usually only pay for subpar privates. Just because a kid is in private, does not guarantee they are getting a better education. Just like charters. They have not proven to be better academically. I know it's a good talking point, but the data does not support your argument.