S/O - What’s up with AEM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this just shows how Dems are bound to lose in 2020. Ad hominem attacks for voting for the moderate Dem, foaming at the mouth posts about social justice. Holy moly. Get over yourselves. You know what I care about? Safety for my family and kids where I can go about my life without fear. A good public education where the school isn't ruled by underage criminals. Commonsense gun rules (no, not a ban). Clean water to drink, and action to address environmental issues that will haunt the next generation. Dems are just alienating moderate voters with their my way or the highway attitude.

Agree completely. Which school is ruled by underage criminals? WMS?

None of them, yet- did you miss the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this just shows how Dems are bound to lose in 2020. Ad hominem attacks for voting for the moderate Dem, foaming at the mouth posts about social justice. Holy moly. Get over yourselves. You know what I care about? Safety for my family and kids where I can go about my life without fear. A good public education where the school isn't ruled by underage criminals. Commonsense gun rules (no, not a ban). Clean water to drink, and action to address environmental issues that will haunt the next generation. Dems are just alienating moderate voters with their my way or the highway attitude.

Agree completely. Which school is ruled by underage criminals? WMS?

The real takeaway from that post is that over the past ten years, “social justice”, race and immigration has totally sidelined issues of global importance, such as climate change. It’s why trump will win re-election. Democrats are going to hold “purity contests” like this CA race to their own detriment.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Tafti will win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Tafti will win.

Yup. Super glad too. Me and my two buddies just got arrested for beating the crap out some poor sap who was trying to buy weed from us. Glad to know that’s not a chargeable offense anymore. See ya round

[Anonymous]

Arlington, sold to Soros.

[Anonymous]

Yuck. I see the main bully herself is crowing in ArlNow. I didn’t particularly care about this race but found it so obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

The supposed "bipartisan group" was 19 Republicans, 19 Independents (in Virginia, that's often code for Republicans), and five Democrats (who in Virginia often aren't all that liberal):

"The group consists of 19 Republicans, 19 independents and five Democrats.

The Democratic prosecutors include Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh, Prince William Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert and Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theophani K. Stamos."

Morrogh got the boot, too.

You can be unhappy about Theo's loss for any number of reasons, but Republicans have surrendered the right to complain about partisan politics when they refused to call out birther nonsense. Or when they refused to vote on Merrick Garland. Or . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not the person you quoted, but I agreed with that poster’s thinking, and reading the article you posted does not change my opinion. Not because I have some kind of “purity test” in fact I share the concerns of many about hyper progressive voices pushing out more centrist voices. However, the restoration of voting rights is an important issue. It’s an embarrassment that Virginia was one of the few states that didn’t do it. The argument of that attorneys that filed the brief was basically that it would be a new batch of work for their offices.

“The prosecutors said they have an interest in the case because of their roles in selecting juries and responding to felons’ civil petitions to regain their gun rights, which can occur only after a restoration of political rights. They also said their offices could become involved in litigation if questions arise about the validity of a felon’s voting status.”

Um, I’m sorry you have to do your job? The same job that apparently other attorneys in states that have been restoring voting rights.

Also, while I don’t require a “purity test” for someone to get my vote, there are some expectations. To be one of only 5 Democrat attorneys to sign on to this brief, which again, is arguing that Virginia should continue to deny voting rights? Yeah, that’s just the wrong side of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this just shows how Dems are bound to lose in 2020. Ad hominem attacks for voting for the moderate Dem, foaming at the mouth posts about social justice. Holy moly. Get over yourselves. You know what I care about? Safety for my family and kids where I can go about my life without fear. A good public education where the school isn't ruled by underage criminals. Commonsense gun rules (no, not a ban). Clean water to drink, and action to address environmental issues that will haunt the next generation. Dems are just alienating moderate voters with their my way or the highway attitude.

Agree completely. Which school is ruled by underage criminals? WMS?

None of them, yet- did you miss the point?

I think YOU missed the point. We DON'T have commonsense gun rules. We DON'T have action to address environmental issues that will haunt the next generation. We DON'T have a good public education where the school isn't ruled by underage criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

So you support the blanket restoration of rights, including gun rights, to both violent and nonviolent felons. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”