For those who ever wondered if putting a Repubican/right-wing extracurricular was a good idea...don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All kids should be aware that being conservative in today's climate will negatively impact them, especially in college. Best to keep your political leanings neutral/private unless left-leaning. Young people should also be more cognizant of their SM use, my kid as posted a total of 6 times in 6 years on Instagram. Nothing will happen to this person, they will be back on the payroll soon if not already.

How about step back and consider whether the views and behavior you are cloaking in conservatism are actually conservatism or is it the morally corrupt, anger and hate driven populism of Trump/Vance masquerading as conservatism. It’s one thing to be conservative on tax policy but chanting to support mass deportations, hating women, LGTBQ, non white races and non Christian religions or happily enabling those who do is an entirely different matter. The GOP is mired in very ugly populism akin to the Nazi movement in 1930s Germany.

NP-Case in point, as OP stated, if you're conservative, keep it to yourself in college.

Or, better yet, examine why you think you’re “conservative”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love that the OPs recommendation is you need to omit your kids Cato credential because an unhinged 23 year old might ding his application because of it.

That's the problem...the unhinged admission's officer is the one who decides if your kid is admitted.

We're big on unconscious racism, implicit bias, etc. There are entire DEI industries set up around those theories.

Now here, it seems plausible, does it not, that the explicit bias of an admssion's officer might negatively impact the application?

That’s not a “problem.” It is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology.

Sincere question - was it also acceptable to reject someone from admission for supporting McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012?

Explain how that is the same thing to me like I am 5.

PP said “it is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology”. I am trying to test the scope of that assertion with historical elections.

DP. What does “right-wing ideology” look like in 2024 vs 2012 vs 2008?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems a couple of posters are really feeling it today. So much "joy."

Why would anyone feel “joyful” about POS Republicans in 2024?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://nypost.com/2024/10/18/media/college-admissions-officer-rails-against-trump-supporters-in-social-media-post-piece-of-s/

College admissions officer accuses Trump supporters of tolerating ‘rape,’ ‘homophobia’ in social post: ‘Piece of s–t’

While not every admission's officer is going to be from a background in the humanities, if you have a child doing a Republican/righ-wing internship, advocacy or leadership position, I would really think twice about putting that down as an EC. Too much to lose and probably very little to gain. Obviously this isn't for every school, but for SLAC's, the Boston schools, Emory, WashU, etc. it does apply.

Interesting. Smart kid we know who started Young Republicans Club at private had a very strange admissions cycle. This might explain it.

Starting a “Young Republicans Club” was cringey even back in the good ‘ole Alex P Keaton days. Now, it’s downright morally offensive.

[Anonymous]

2008: oh so you support incinerating the middle east and Sarah Palin's theocratic agenda?

2012 is a little harder but there's always abortion to fall back on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All kids should be aware that being conservative in today's climate will negatively impact them, especially in college. Best to keep your political leanings neutral/private unless left-leaning. Young people should also be more cognizant of their SM use, my kid as posted a total of 6 times in 6 years on Instagram. Nothing will happen to this person, they will be back on the payroll soon if not already.

How about step back and consider whether the views and behavior you are cloaking in conservatism are actually conservatism or is it the morally corrupt, anger and hate driven populism of Trump/Vance masquerading as conservatism. It’s one thing to be conservative on tax policy but chanting to support mass deportations, hating women, LGTBQ, non white races and non Christian religions or happily enabling those who do is an entirely different matter. The GOP is mired in very ugly populism akin to the Nazi movement in 1930s Germany.

NP-Case in point, as OP stated, if you're conservative, keep it to yourself in college.

Only a part of the paragraph describes conservatives -- the other is not a political position, it is morally bankrupt and anti-American. If you can't see that, then you seriously do not understand what the party of Trump is actually up to, and it is past time for you to wake up. It's not OK.

You've posted enough drivel today to show you are not to be taken seriously. Now go back to your cushy GS-10 job and earn your pay Govie.

Nope. You’ve misidentified another post. Not me. Also, it’s Fed to you. Not GS-10 (is GS-10 even a thing? Not in my angency). And, as mentioned, I have the whole month off to collect a paycheck while surfing DCUM.

Amd speaking of anger issues… maybe you should head back to work. Unless you are a SAHM hit the wine early while your kids are at school. In which case, sober up and control your anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love that the OPs recommendation is you need to omit your kids Cato credential because an unhinged 23 year old might ding his application because of it.

That's the problem...the unhinged admission's officer is the one who decides if your kid is admitted.

We're big on unconscious racism, implicit bias, etc. There are entire DEI industries set up around those theories.

Now here, it seems plausible, does it not, that the explicit bias of an admssion's officer might negatively impact the application?

That’s not a “problem.” It is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology.

Sincere question - was it also acceptable to reject someone from admission for supporting McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012?

Explain how that is the same thing to me like I am 5.

PP said “it is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology”. I am trying to test the scope of that assertion with historical elections.

It isn’t a good faith test. (Acting in bad faith is typical behavior for right wingers so I guess that fits).

Let me rephrase: How are McCain and/or Romney like Trump/MAGA? For one thing, Romney is on record many times in opposition to Trump on both style and substance.

So, again, make this analogy make sense. Because I dispute the premise of the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2008: oh so you support incinerating the middle east and Sarah Palin's theocratic agenda?

2012 is a little harder but there's always abortion to fall back on.

They managed to paint Mittens as a demon too. PP knows it doesn't matter who is in there for the R's they will be treated the same. Look no further than RFK Jr. I mean the irony that they are trotting Liz Cheney out there like they didn't call her dad Hitler too. It's remarkable.

[Anonymous]

I know plenty of kids from super conservative families from Montgomery County with kids at Gettysburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love that the OPs recommendation is you need to omit your kids Cato credential because an unhinged 23 year old might ding his application because of it.

That's the problem...the unhinged admission's officer is the one who decides if your kid is admitted.

We're big on unconscious racism, implicit bias, etc. There are entire DEI industries set up around those theories.

Now here, it seems plausible, does it not, that the explicit bias of an admssion's officer might negatively impact the application?

That’s not a “problem.” It is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology.

Sincere question - was it also acceptable to reject someone from admission for supporting McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012?

Explain how that is the same thing to me like I am 5.

PP said “it is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology”. I am trying to test the scope of that assertion with historical elections.

It isn’t a good faith test. (Acting in bad faith is typical behavior for right wingers so I guess that fits).

Let me rephrase: How are McCain and/or Romney like Trump/MAGA? For one thing, Romney is on record many times in opposition to Trump on both style and substance.

So, again, make this analogy make sense. Because I dispute the premise of the question.

McCain supported all the wars Bush supported and then added even more. He selected a Bircher/religious right nutjob as his running mate. It was absolutely not socially acceptable to support McCain in 2008. You are huffing fumes or very young if you think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, uh, what are the right-wing youth leadership advocacy ECs that a good college should appreciate?

Federalist society leadership.
Running for office as a republican.
Meaningful position in an election campaign.
Pacific legal foundation (or any of the organizations fighting racial discrimination).
Something to do with religion
There's lots of stuff that isn't left wing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being a maga is different than being a conservative so I would say if kid is clearly an orange man's supporter then that should be a clear marker for a lack of critical thinking ability. Same for extreme left wing morons.

Extreme left wing morons are called passionate.
Extreme right wing morons are called evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love that the OPs recommendation is you need to omit your kids Cato credential because an unhinged 23 year old might ding his application because of it.

That's the problem...the unhinged admission's officer is the one who decides if your kid is admitted.

We're big on unconscious racism, implicit bias, etc. There are entire DEI industries set up around those theories.

Now here, it seems plausible, does it not, that the explicit bias of an admssion's officer might negatively impact the application?

That’s not a “problem.” It is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology.

Sincere question - was it also acceptable to reject someone from admission for supporting McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012?

Explain how that is the same thing to me like I am 5.

PP said “it is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology”. I am trying to test the scope of that assertion with historical elections.

It isn’t a good faith test. (Acting in bad faith is typical behavior for right wingers so I guess that fits).

Let me rephrase: How are McCain and/or Romney like Trump/MAGA? For one thing, Romney is on record many times in opposition to Trump on both style and substance.

So, again, make this analogy make sense. Because I dispute the premise of the question.

McCain supported all the wars Bush supported and then added even more. He selected a Bircher/religious right nutjob as his running mate. It was absolutely not socially acceptable to support McCain in 2008. You are huffing fumes or very young if you think so.

This is what I thought. Appreciate the confirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love that the OPs recommendation is you need to omit your kids Cato credential because an unhinged 23 year old might ding his application because of it.

That's the problem...the unhinged admission's officer is the one who decides if your kid is admitted.

We're big on unconscious racism, implicit bias, etc. There are entire DEI industries set up around those theories.

Now here, it seems plausible, does it not, that the explicit bias of an admssion's officer might negatively impact the application?

That’s not a “problem.” It is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology.

Sincere question - was it also acceptable to reject someone from admission for supporting McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012?

Explain how that is the same thing to me like I am 5.

PP said “it is perfectly acceptable to reject someone for associating with right-wing ideology”. I am trying to test the scope of that assertion with historical elections.

It isn’t a good faith test. (Acting in bad faith is typical behavior for right wingers so I guess that fits).

Let me rephrase: How are McCain and/or Romney like Trump/MAGA? For one thing, Romney is on record many times in opposition to Trump on both style and substance.

So, again, make this analogy make sense. Because I dispute the premise of the question.

McCain supported all the wars Bush supported and then added even more. He selected a Bircher/religious right nutjob as his running mate. It was absolutely not socially acceptable to support McCain in 2008. You are huffing fumes or very young if you think so.

But he wasn't a lying convicted felon, rapist cult leader who attacked the peaceful transfer of power, a basic tenet of our democracy, by inciting an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

MAGA affiliation closes doors for the professional world, too. I don’t consider Liberty U grads or anyone who works for the worst of MAGA on the Hill. I toss those resumes immediately