
You realize Diaz is a woman of color, right? |
p.s. are you OK? |
Facts matter she’s garbage |
As stated many times before, Diaz is a book-banning, anti vaccines for children, right wing, Mom's for Liberty candidate. |
The primary thing I consider when deciding who to vote for is the impact each candidate would have if elected. Diaz is sufficiently fringe that she won't have much of an impact. No other board member or candidate will support the things on her agenda. That obviously isn't good, but Zimmerman is far worse. Some of the things she wants may be able to get through the BoE, particularly if the other MCEA candidates win. I'm not so much voting for Diaz as much as I am voting against Zimmerman and the MCEA. |
And no one would even know who Zimmerman is if MCEA wasn't behind her candidacy. She's entirely beholden to them. That should be terrifying to any parents who have kids in the system. |
I love how you are trying to sound so educated and thoughtful about your voting process but you just come off sounding like a total moron. |
Which Board members or candidates would vote with Diaz on the issues you're worried about? |
DP. Diaz would gum up the works. BOE members, with their paltry stipend requiring them to have alternate means of income/financial support, barely have the time to review what MCPS puts in front of them, much less extend the time of meetings to hold contentious but unproductive discussion. Maybe if we paid them the equivalent of full time-plus professionals with the analytical capability, understanding of policy and experience we'd want representing us, there would be the time to cover such while getting the work done. Diaz's support comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum from that which would support that kind of pay for elected reps. What are the specific issues that Zimmerman promotes about which there would be concern of their passage by the BOE? |
Again, I'd suggest anyone considering to actually watch/listen to the responses, rather than accept the take of a poster, here, who may have a motive simply to mischaracterize the responses of one candidate to promote the other. Even without such a motive, just because that poster has difficulty ingesting someone's verbalization of their extemporaneous thoughts doesn't mean that people, by and large, have difficulty doing so. Watch both Stewart and Evans (and any other pair facing off for a seat about which one might be uncertain). Watch the responses to more than one question. Some here seem to be afraid of voters educating themselves that way. |
This post does not help your point. Try employing plain-English principles. Wordy responses like this - "Even without such a motive, just because that poster has difficulty ingesting someone's verbalization of their extemporaneous thoughts doesn't mean that people, by and large, have difficulty doing so" - suggest that the writer is not confident with their arguments and is simply trying to obfuscate simple concepts. The concept here is Laura Stewart's woeful lack of public speaking skills and the inability to articulate concepts in plain-English to get her message across. This a busy electorate with a generally short attention span. Many may view this race an inconsequential race to their everyday lives. Insulting the electorate by suggesting that they are not sophisticated enough to understand a full-time volunteer's (Laura description of herself) rhetoric when most folks don't have the luxury to be full-time volunteers is a loser of an argument. |
|
This is what you call an Ad Hominem Fallacy |
We heard you the first 30 times. |
Don't know about any of that, but Stewart was on the Apple ballot so I voted for her. |