VA Governor's Race: The Republican Invented Squirrel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s premature to say that so many Virginians fell for it.

There are certainly a lot of folks running around spotting CRT hiding behind every tree and under every bed,

I guess we’ll see with the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If McAuliffe is defeated (and that remains to be seen), the worst thing the Democrats can do heading into the 2022 mid-terms is take the attitude that Youngkin's victory was some one-off example of "hitting a squirrel." We/they should take a hard look - much harder than an analysis just suggesting the Republicans won because they somehow duped voters with a stream of misinformation - at whether McAuliffe lost because of his own personal lack of charisma or instead because voters simply have grown exceedingly skeptical of Democrats' ability to govern effectively at the state, local, or national level. It's one thing to acknowledge the challenges that exist in Congress when the Democrats face unified opposition from the Republicans; it's another thing to confront head-on some of the governance failures that many have witnessed at the local level when Democrats completely control local government yet fail to deliver services (in particular, public education) effectively.

+1 to every word of this.

Despite surveys/polls that consistently show that people favor policies advanced by Democrats - paid family leave, Affordable Care Act, child tax credit, elimination of pre-existing condition as a bar to health insurance coverage, background checks for guns, etc. the Democrats can't seem to turn that into an effective message to get people to vote for them.

If Youngkin wins, Democrats need to long and hard at why. Frankly, if McAuliffe wins and it's a squeaker, Democrats still need to look long and hard at why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

I'll never understand statements like "We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America." Who hasn't been or isn't acknowledging that discrimination has existed? This is not new. Tremendous progress has been made in the last century plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

I'll never understand statements like "We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America." Who hasn't been or isn't acknowledging that discrimination has existed? This is not new. Tremendous progress has been made in the last century plus.

Unfortunately, that is still not happening in most places. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but for every inch of progress you run into people who make comments such as "I don't see color", "I am color blind", which is turning a blind eye to the real issues that still exist today.
Are you satisfied with the progress that has been made? I'm not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

Who's past are you talking about? I am Asian, I don't want to examine YOUR past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If McAuliffe is defeated (and that remains to be seen), the worst thing the Democrats can do heading into the 2022 mid-terms is take the attitude that Youngkin's victory was some one-off example of "hitting a squirrel." We/they should take a hard look - much harder than an analysis just suggesting the Republicans won because they somehow duped voters with a stream of misinformation - at whether McAuliffe lost because of his own personal lack of charisma or instead because voters simply have grown exceedingly skeptical of Democrats' ability to govern effectively at the state, local, or national level. It's one thing to acknowledge the challenges that exist in Congress when the Democrats face unified opposition from the Republicans; it's another thing to confront head-on some of the governance failures that many have witnessed at the local level when Democrats completely control local government yet fail to deliver services (in particular, public education) effectively.

+1 to every word of this.

Despite surveys/polls that consistently show that people favor policies advanced by Democrats - paid family leave, Affordable Care Act, child tax credit, elimination of pre-existing condition as a bar to health insurance coverage, background checks for guns, etc. the Democrats can't seem to turn that into an effective message to get people to vote for them.

If Youngkin wins, Democrats need to long and hard at why. Frankly, if McAuliffe wins and it's a squeaker, Democrats still need to look long and hard at why.

Soooo mich this. Any Dem who questions the party line is pushed out and people are afraid to express what they are truly feeling/thinking. Consequently the Dems don’t really know or understand their own supporters. This has been going on for many years now, and it is alienating people. Practically speaking there are two major parties, but both are divided between the radicals and moderates/pragmatists (who are a minority). We will all lose in this election no matter which candidate wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

I'll never understand statements like "We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America." Who hasn't been or isn't acknowledging that discrimination has existed? This is not new. Tremendous progress has been made in the last century plus.

Unfortunately, that is still not happening in most places. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but for every inch of progress you run into people who make comments such as "I don't see color", "I am color blind", which is turning a blind eye to the real issues that still exist today.
Are you satisfied with the progress that has been made? I'm not

Raises hand. I don't see color. I acknowledge both past wrongs and the efforts we've made to fix them. I know of some current wrongs, probably am unaware of others, and am also aware that people seem to refuse to admit progress, including people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

I'll never understand statements like "We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America." Who hasn't been or isn't acknowledging that discrimination has existed? This is not new. Tremendous progress has been made in the last century plus.

Unfortunately, that is still not happening in most places. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but for every inch of progress you run into people who make comments such as "I don't see color", "I am color blind", which is turning a blind eye to the real issues that still exist today.
Are you satisfied with the progress that has been made? I'm not

Raises hand. I don't see color. I acknowledge both past wrongs and the efforts we've made to fix them. I know of some current wrongs, probably am unaware of others, and am also aware that people seem to refuse to admit progress, including people like you.

Well ignorance is bliss and being talked to on an anonymous forum isn't going to change your mindset so I'll just leave it at I hope you will eventually see what you are missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

I'll never understand statements like "We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America." Who hasn't been or isn't acknowledging that discrimination has existed? This is not new. Tremendous progress has been made in the last century plus.

Unfortunately, that is still not happening in most places. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but for every inch of progress you run into people who make comments such as "I don't see color", "I am color blind", which is turning a blind eye to the real issues that still exist today.
Are you satisfied with the progress that has been made? I'm not

Where are these most places where people do not acknowledge discrimination has existed?

I'm sorry but this isn't the country we live in. If you think life for African Americans isn't better than it was 50 or 100 years ago you are completely blind. America is a country where close to 90% of immigrants are not European white. What kind of systemically racist country would accept that? Unwillingness to acknowledge reality is a serious problem if you want to make additional progress.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you also don't really believe that the girl was assaulted, and it was very disappointing to read your perspective on that. Calling rape a "he said she said." I know you would not feel that way if it was your daughter. You left the whole part about the boy being charged for a second assault. Was that 'he said she said" as well?

Please don't put words in my mouth. The police found enough evidence of an assault to win a conviction so I believe there was an assault. Factually, both parties had their own version of what happened. There was no third-party witness. This is the very definition of "he-said, she-said". I did not leave out the second assault. That is mentioned in my original post. At this time, the second assault has not been adjudicated and, as such, the suspect is presumed innocent.

You do know that doctors can determine if the ‘he said she said’ sex was violent, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you also don't really believe that the girl was assaulted, and it was very disappointing to read your perspective on that. Calling rape a "he said she said." I know you would not feel that way if it was your daughter. You left the whole part about the boy being charged for a second assault. Was that 'he said she said" as well?

Please don't put words in my mouth. The police found enough evidence of an assault to win a conviction so I believe there was an assault. Factually, both parties had their own version of what happened. There was no third-party witness. This is the very definition of "he-said, she-said". I did not leave out the second assault. That is mentioned in my original post. At this time, the second assault has not been adjudicated and, as such, the suspect is presumed innocent.

You do know that doctors can determine if the ‘he said she said’ sex was violent, right?

Yes and I imagine that was part of the investigation. The investigation took two months and was described by the police as "complicated". They obviously had to sift through differing versions of the encounter among other things. I am not sure why you think there is something wrong with acknowledging that both the boy and girl had their own versions of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McAuliffe has Fairfax County, Alexandria, the People's Republic of Arlington, Richmond City, Norfolk and Petersburg. That's it. Youngkin has everything else in the state. The Youngkin signs flood Loudoun while there's nothing for McAuliffe.

McAuliffe's done. You have to run a campaign on themes besides "I'm not the former POTUS". Uh, it's temporarily exiled POTUS not former POTUS, and you're not running against him. You're running against a real person. Youngkin +6.

You have to win Loudoun. Whoever wins there wins.

Until the mail ins are counted. Then Dems always win. Then we find out that the people don’t live at the addresses given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no Republican squirrel.

This conflict is entirely a product of the left wing movement to change the way history is taught and to push doctrine - like through so-called anti-racist instruction - into public school curriculums. Of course this will rightfully generate pushback. Right or wrong, this is entirely driven by force on the left.

If this was just about teaching slavery, Jim Crow, and the effects of slavery and discrimination on communities to this day, we'd not be in this situation.

Exactly. It's the next part that's so disgusting. "Now that you agree that you're an oppressor because you're white, what are you willing to give up as retribution?"

Nobody is coming for your material things, ma’am/sir. I think most people just want to begin examining our past more critically so we can push our way out of a systemically racist system

Can you define "push our way out of a systemically racist system?"

As soon as you can clarify the retribution you fear

Laws and policies that discriminate against people because of the color of their skin. OK, now it's your turn.

When you use the term "discriminate", I don't think you are using it correctly. A lot of the anti - CRT crowd tries to hide behind "color - blindness" and MLK's words (even though his family has made it very clear that many white folks are taking it out of context).
We SHOULD be acknowledging that POC have been discriminated against for hundreds of years in America. This might mean that certain opportunities will skew more towards POC, because they have had to start from so much further back. This means that instead of judging our students by standardized tests that are written to connect to the white experiences and history, we should be using more inquiry based and exploratory education that allows students to read works from multiple perspectives and judge it based us on its accuracy.
It might even mean that white people will have to acknowledge their own biases and racist tendencies. As someone who's done this, I can assure you its far less traumatic than what POC in America have gone through. You can do it too!

Horrible. And the thought that a rich white dude like Terry McAuliffe is somehow going to lead the charge towards embracing CRT, "restorative justice," and reparations ought to embarrass you.

You want to discriminate against white and Asian children and in favor of Black children based on events for which they bear no responsibility. Perhaps it makes you feel better about being white, but don't expect other people to subsidize your self-loathing.