Brenda Diaz
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You want to opt out of books that say slavery is wrong because you think slavery was okay? Fantastic. Hope my kids aren’t friends with your kids because I don’t want them having to call you master or fear you’re going to make them work your fields. |
Anonymous
Pretty sure PP was being sarcastic to make a point . . . |
Anonymous
BS Diaz has said plenty worse. 1. Her social media says otherwise. She thinks LGBTQ people should be in institutions. Yep, her X account. So much propaganda on that account it is horribly disturbing. 2. Her social media banning books was her thing way before OPT OUT> It's BS to think that was her only book banning agenda. And she got paid by America Legal First for her position in the OPT OUT. Yep she got paid by a RW group! 3. Diaz didn't show up for work before her time at Gaithesburg, HS parents petitioned to have her removed from the classroom. 4. She's 100% anti vax not just covid her support of the idiot RFK JR proves that. Who voted for that shit? I have an idea how she got the votes she got because MAGA changed affiliation for the primaries. She will lose in the general. |
Anonymous
+1 This pretty much mirrors my thinking. Unfortunately, I think that general election voters are less inclined to do candidate research. I think that most voters idea of researching BOE candidates is to vote the Apple Ballot, assuming that those candidates are the ones that teachers think are best for education, which is a flawed conclusion. What voters don’t understand is that the Apple Ballot actually identifies the candidates that the union thinks will be best for the union, largely regardless of impact (or lack thereof) on education. |
Anonymous
|
+2
Though I see Chase voters go to Lazo. Wicks voters up for grabs. |
Anonymous
Please learn to recognize sarcasm. |
Anonymous
Exactly - an army of teachers manned all the polling places, and gave Omar the win. And if people depend less on the Apple Ballot than they used to in general, they still look to it for BOE elections - although a few people have won without it. |
Anonymous
Interesting thought. At the last MoCo non-presidential primary (2022), there were something close to 140k dem ballots cast and 23k rep ballots cast. So far counted, this primary appears to have close to 90k dem and 9k rep, with a bunch of mail-in yet to be counted. Of course, not everyone marked a BOE candidate on their ballot and there are some independent voters who only could vote for BOE. If, when all is said and done, there are a lot fewer than 23k rep ballots and more dem ballots than expected, it's possible that there was some strategic subterfuge from that side, but with MoCo being so blue, generally, and the general election implications, then, I don't know if the juice would have been worth the squeeze. But it really wouldn't make an impact for the BOE race, since it is non-partisan. They could have/would have voted for Diaz and been counted regardless of which party ballot they chose. Everyone gets to vote for any of the primary candidates, and only the top two vote-getters advance to November's ballot. Not the top from each party, like with all the other primary races. Of course, I suppose a conspiracy, if one could call it that, might involve simply getting more Rs to go to the primary polls in the first place, whichever ballot they choose. If some group had been able to do that for large numbers, they could bottle it and sell it for a lot -- getting heavy participation in a general election in the US has been ridiculously hard, not to speak of a primary. It would allow overweighting of a candidate's primary performance, though, versus general election expectation. Again, we might see something in the totals, once final/official. But I kind of doubt it. More likely in my mind is the reasoning offered by others, here, that there were enough across the entire voting population who were fed up with the same type of BOE members we've had that they were willing to hold their nose on some of the less desirable characteristics of the candidate or presume that insinuations of that undesirability were being overplayed. |