How are controversial political figures, especially ones with school-age kids, treated in their

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

Try being falsely accused of gang rape in front of the world and see how you would react.

Trying having your career, reputation and integrity destroyed after you try to stand up for yourself to report sexual violence. It is much more common for victims to be blamed and shamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on the age of the child. The younger the child the probability there is less chastising. My child attended a school with children from a highly recognizable person from the past administration. The kids of this person were young, so no issues arose. I bet if the kids were older there would have been all kinds of problems.

I'm particularly wondering about grandchildren/teenage children of a certain past president. The oldest grandchildren are definitely old enough to have current events discussed in school. What is it like for those grandchildren? Are they being kept in a bubble by their parents/parents lying to them about how great their grandparent is and how awful everyone else is? Like, how do you explain an event like January 6 to those grandchildren? How is it discussed in their school?

Trump hasn't been formally implicated so it would be unlikely and inappropriate for a teacher to host a discussion about it. In the DC area in general, partisan issues are kept out of the classroom. Its possible to have a nonpartisan discussion of current events.

Wait, are you saying it would be "inappropriate" to have a discussion in a HS classroom about what happened on 1/6? How about the entirety of the 2000 election cycle and the lawsuits?

It would be inappropriate to say that Trump had a role in the attack. That hasn't yet been officially determined. The event can be discussed in a way that would not be in any way offensive to a Trump kid by discussing the facts and what has been established in court.

We watched him in real time egging them on and loving on the violent rioters … literally told them they were special and he loved them as they violently plundered the Capitol and murdered people. We came very close to his own deputy being bound and possibly Murdered for false claims that he could have changed the outcome of the election by not carrying out his constitutional duty …

And yet, Capitol police officers testified under oath that they opened doors and waved people into the Capitol.

This in no way reduces Trump’s culpability in inciting a violent insurrection - we all saw Trump on that terrible day egging the violent protesters on to fight for their life (from his lofty White House office) and not doing a damn thing to stop the looting and chaos for many hours. Even after his own Ivanka advised he do so.

Considering some people have been rotting in jail without due process when they were physically let in by police officers? When a Capitol police officer lets you into a building, you are no longer trespassing.

[Anonymous]

If you’re minimizing the deranged manipulative lunacy that has been at CPAC, you either haven’t seen it or you relish it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

I’ve heard the opposite. I know some of his neighbors and they say the Catholic community has really coalesced around them to form a sort of protective barrier. It’s to the point where that group is now holding separate parties from the rest of the neighborhood and keeping with their own.

The Catholic community has a lot of practice coalescing to protect their creeps and perverts. Just saying.

As does the Democratic party.

What are your cites here for the Democratic Party? I don't feel compelled to provide any for the creeps and perverts' reference above as there have been books, newspaper exposés, documentaries, feature movies, trial transcripts for over the last twenty years.

Epstein, anyone?

Trump was his best buddy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

He was accused. Not indicted. And the evidence was scant so he was still confirmed.

None of that contradicts the fact that he behaved poorly at the confirmation hearings.

Or that one of the women accusers was a highly credible academic professor. Friends in the area who attended school with him, not to mention Yale peers, corroborated that he behaved very badly when drunk at parties.

The evidence was far from scant but it was dismissed.

Highly credible people don’t claim they built an escape door due to trauma from Kavanaugh’s attack, only to have building permits expose the door was built in the process of creating an apartment to rent to students.

Highly credible woman accusers have their reputations, integrity, career and personal safety attacked whenever they take on powerful men.

History is littered with both their defiance and diminished lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on the age of the child. The younger the child the probability there is less chastising. My child attended a school with children from a highly recognizable person from the past administration. The kids of this person were young, so no issues arose. I bet if the kids were older there would have been all kinds of problems.

I'm particularly wondering about grandchildren/teenage children of a certain past president. The oldest grandchildren are definitely old enough to have current events discussed in school. What is it like for those grandchildren? Are they being kept in a bubble by their parents/parents lying to them about how great their grandparent is and how awful everyone else is? Like, how do you explain an event like January 6 to those grandchildren? How is it discussed in their school?

Trump hasn't been formally implicated so it would be unlikely and inappropriate for a teacher to host a discussion about it. In the DC area in general, partisan issues are kept out of the classroom. Its possible to have a nonpartisan discussion of current events.

Wait, are you saying it would be "inappropriate" to have a discussion in a HS classroom about what happened on 1/6? How about the entirety of the 2000 election cycle and the lawsuits?

It would be inappropriate to say that Trump had a role in the attack. That hasn't yet been officially determined. The event can be discussed in a way that would not be in any way offensive to a Trump kid by discussing the facts and what has been established in court.

We watched him in real time egging them on and loving on the violent rioters … literally told them they were special and he loved them as they violently plundered the Capitol and murdered people. We came very close to his own deputy being bound and possibly Murdered for false claims that he could have changed the outcome of the election by not carrying out his constitutional duty …

And yet, Capitol police officers testified under oath that they opened doors and waved people into the Capitol.

This in no way reduces Trump’s culpability in inciting a violent insurrection - we all saw Trump on that terrible day egging the violent protesters on to fight for their life (from his lofty White House office) and not doing a damn thing to stop the looting and chaos for many hours. Even after his own Ivanka advised he do so.

Considering some people have been rotting in jail without due process when they were physically let in by police officers? When a Capitol police officer lets you into a building, you are no longer trespassing.

They were boasting on social media about taking down the government on their social media pages, which is how most of them were identified. Their later deleted social media boasted about being ready to take part in the fight of their lives.

Not innocent and premeditated assault on democracy based on Trump’s ongoing lies that he won the election.

His people continue to try and overturn a legal election based on his lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on the age of the child. The younger the child the probability there is less chastising. My child attended a school with children from a highly recognizable person from the past administration. The kids of this person were young, so no issues arose. I bet if the kids were older there would have been all kinds of problems.

I'm particularly wondering about grandchildren/teenage children of a certain past president. The oldest grandchildren are definitely old enough to have current events discussed in school. What is it like for those grandchildren? Are they being kept in a bubble by their parents/parents lying to them about how great their grandparent is and how awful everyone else is? Like, how do you explain an event like January 6 to those grandchildren? How is it discussed in their school?

Trump hasn't been formally implicated so it would be unlikely and inappropriate for a teacher to host a discussion about it. In the DC area in general, partisan issues are kept out of the classroom. Its possible to have a nonpartisan discussion of current events.

Wait, are you saying it would be "inappropriate" to have a discussion in a HS classroom about what happened on 1/6? How about the entirety of the 2000 election cycle and the lawsuits?

It would be inappropriate to say that Trump had a role in the attack. That hasn't yet been officially determined. The event can be discussed in a way that would not be in any way offensive to a Trump kid by discussing the facts and what has been established in court.

We watched him in real time egging them on and loving on the violent rioters … literally told them they were special and he loved them as they violently plundered the Capitol and murdered people. We came very close to his own deputy being bound and possibly Murdered for false claims that he could have changed the outcome of the election by not carrying out his constitutional duty …

And yet, Capitol police officers testified under oath that they opened doors and waved people into the Capitol.

This in no way reduces Trump’s culpability in inciting a violent insurrection - we all saw Trump on that terrible day egging the violent protesters on to fight for their life (from his lofty White House office) and not doing a damn thing to stop the looting and chaos for many hours. Even after his own Ivanka advised he do so.

Considering some people have been rotting in jail without due process when they were physically let in by police officers? When a Capitol police officer lets you into a building, you are no longer trespassing.

So if I am allowed into the lobby of a hotel, I am not trespassing if I go into individual rooms that are not mine?
If I am allowed into a museum, I can go behind closed doors and touch items that are not display?
Can I take or destroy items that are contained in that building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

He was accused. Not indicted. And the evidence was scant so he was still confirmed.

None of that contradicts the fact that he behaved poorly at the confirmation hearings.

Or that one of the women accusers was a highly credible academic professor. Friends in the area who attended school with him, not to mention Yale peers, corroborated that he behaved very badly when drunk at parties.

The evidence was far from scant but it was dismissed.

Highly credible people don’t claim they built an escape door due to trauma from Kavanaugh’s attack, only to have building permits expose the door was built in the process of creating an apartment to rent to students.

Apart from the fact she was highly credible in many ways and her allegations were not properly investigated by authorities. I know people who attended parties with K in high school and corroborate his sexist boorish aggressive behavior when drunk. A bunch of people who attended Yale with him wrote a petition saying he was not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. It was not a matter of youthful indiscretions but often consuming too much alcohol at Parties and becoming verbally abusive and aggressive . He was also not qualified according to many legal experts.

It is terrifying for many women that our reproductive rights are being decided by people who do not respect women or their agency to make responsible Decisions. We should have listened to Anita Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

He was accused. Not indicted. And the evidence was scant so he was still confirmed.

None of that contradicts the fact that he behaved poorly at the confirmation hearings.

Or that one of the women accusers was a highly credible academic professor. Friends in the area who attended school with him, not to mention Yale peers, corroborated that he behaved very badly when drunk at parties.

The evidence was far from scant but it was dismissed.

Highly credible people don’t claim they built an escape door due to trauma from Kavanaugh’s attack, only to have building permits expose the door was built in the process of creating an apartment to rent to students.

Highly credible woman accusers have their reputations, integrity, career and personal safety attacked whenever they take on powerful men.

History is littered with both their defiance and diminished lives.

Her highly credible testimony was taken down by her own friends, family, and legal documents. She was no longer highly credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

I’ve heard the opposite. I know some of his neighbors and they say the Catholic community has really coalesced around them to form a sort of protective barrier. It’s to the point where that group is now holding separate parties from the rest of the neighborhood and keeping with their own.

The Catholic community has a lot of practice coalescing to protect their creeps and perverts. Just saying.

As does the Democratic party.

What are your cites here for the Democratic Party? I don't feel compelled to provide any for the creeps and perverts' reference above as there have been books, newspaper exposés, documentaries, feature movies, trial transcripts for over the last twenty years.

Epstein, anyone?

Trump was his best buddy

LOL. No. Clintons. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

He was accused. Not indicted. And the evidence was scant so he was still confirmed.

None of that contradicts the fact that he behaved poorly at the confirmation hearings.

Or that one of the women accusers was a highly credible academic professor. Friends in the area who attended school with him, not to mention Yale peers, corroborated that he behaved very badly when drunk at parties.

The evidence was far from scant but it was dismissed.

Highly credible people don’t claim they built an escape door due to trauma from Kavanaugh’s attack, only to have building permits expose the door was built in the process of creating an apartment to rent to students.

Highly credible woman accusers have their reputations, integrity, career and personal safety attacked whenever they take on powerful men.

History is littered with both their defiance and diminished lives.

I give fact, you give theory. Again, building permits were pulled an examined. The door she claimed was her escape route was put in to allow separate access to an apartment she rented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on the age of the child. The younger the child the probability there is less chastising. My child attended a school with children from a highly recognizable person from the past administration. The kids of this person were young, so no issues arose. I bet if the kids were older there would have been all kinds of problems.

I'm particularly wondering about grandchildren/teenage children of a certain past president. The oldest grandchildren are definitely old enough to have current events discussed in school. What is it like for those grandchildren? Are they being kept in a bubble by their parents/parents lying to them about how great their grandparent is and how awful everyone else is? Like, how do you explain an event like January 6 to those grandchildren? How is it discussed in their school?

Trump hasn't been formally implicated so it would be unlikely and inappropriate for a teacher to host a discussion about it. In the DC area in general, partisan issues are kept out of the classroom. Its possible to have a nonpartisan discussion of current events.

Wait, are you saying it would be "inappropriate" to have a discussion in a HS classroom about what happened on 1/6? How about the entirety of the 2000 election cycle and the lawsuits?

It would be inappropriate to say that Trump had a role in the attack. That hasn't yet been officially determined. The event can be discussed in a way that would not be in any way offensive to a Trump kid by discussing the facts and what has been established in court.

We watched him in real time egging them on and loving on the violent rioters … literally told them they were special and he loved them as they violently plundered the Capitol and murdered people. We came very close to his own deputy being bound and possibly Murdered for false claims that he could have changed the outcome of the election by not carrying out his constitutional duty …

And yet, Capitol police officers testified under oath that they opened doors and waved people into the Capitol.

This in no way reduces Trump’s culpability in inciting a violent insurrection - we all saw Trump on that terrible day egging the violent protesters on to fight for their life (from his lofty White House office) and not doing a damn thing to stop the looting and chaos for many hours. Even after his own Ivanka advised he do so.

Considering some people have been rotting in jail without due process when they were physically let in by police officers? When a Capitol police officer lets you into a building, you are no longer trespassing.

They were boasting on social media about taking down the government on their social media pages, which is how most of them were identified. Their later deleted social media boasted about being ready to take part in the fight of their lives.

Not innocent and premeditated assault on democracy based on Trump’s ongoing lies that he won the election.

His people continue to try and overturn a legal election based on his lies.

Again, when you are outside a building behind ropes the police have set up, not breaching those ropes, and the police officers unhook those ropes and wave you into the Capitol, it’s very reasonable to assume you are being let in. Once you are inside, so long as you are not physically damaging the building, there is no reason for arrest. That’s why so many are being held on misdemeanors. Consider also that a mall shooter is now out on bail, while people have been held for a year for being waved into the Capitol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

He was accused. Not indicted. And the evidence was scant so he was still confirmed.

None of that contradicts the fact that he behaved poorly at the confirmation hearings.

He should have known the lies and attacks would start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive heard Justice Kavanaugh has been treated poorly after the hearings. Even at church.

He behaved poorly.

He was accused. Not indicted. And the evidence was scant so he was still confirmed.

None of that contradicts the fact that he behaved poorly at the confirmation hearings.

Or that one of the women accusers was a highly credible academic professor. Friends in the area who attended school with him, not to mention Yale peers, corroborated that he behaved very badly when drunk at parties.

The evidence was far from scant but it was dismissed.

Highly credible people don’t claim they built an escape door due to trauma from Kavanaugh’s attack, only to have building permits expose the door was built in the process of creating an apartment to rent to students.

Apart from the fact she was highly credible in many ways and her allegations were not properly investigated by authorities. I know people who attended parties with K in high school and corroborate his sexist boorish aggressive behavior when drunk. A bunch of people who attended Yale with him wrote a petition saying he was not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. It was not a matter of youthful indiscretions but often consuming too much alcohol at Parties and becoming verbally abusive and aggressive . He was also not qualified according to many legal experts.

It is terrifying for many women that our reproductive rights are being decided by people who do not respect women or their agency to make responsible Decisions. We should have listened to Anita Hill.

How could we not have found better to sit on our highest court. His decisions are tainted but that is not enough. We should have done much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is very good friends with the child of a prominent GOP person (CPAC speaker). We are very liberal. I have zero issues with them even though I really disagree with their politics. They’re nice and funny but totally wrong wrt politics. They have mentioned some minor issues with neighbors being rude. I feel like in DC it is very common to have friends with different political views because for many it’s just a job.

Have you actually watched what goes on at CPAC? It's not just some generic conservative convention of people who disagree with the tax structure.

Yes but they’re allowed to be wrong. Again, I full reject the GOP’s “platform” that currently is about hate and low taxes for the wealthy. But I also understand that not everyone holds my values. We have discussed with our child (MS aged now) what things we find objectionable. The GOP is very vocal about their anti-immigration stance, my spouse in an immigrant.

There are so many other gossipy things I could share about this family that would blow your minds but I won’t out of respect to them. But let’s just say that often times kids become a 180 of their parents’ beliefs. I wish I could write/produce a tv show about my kids’ and my journey through DC schools with prominent families. It would be hilarious!