Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get over “mask policy”. That was 5 years ago and masks were overused

Diaz did not show up for work as a teacher - just did not show up, in order to evade the rules on masks and COVID vaccines. It left administrators scrambling to cover her classes with no notice. But hey, I guess your kid wasn't in her class, so no problem.

Anonymous wrote:Get over “mask policy”. That was 5 years ago and masks were overused

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for her as a protest vote against the current BOE's incompetence and subservience.

Same.

And if she advances to the general election, I will vote for her again for the same reason.

Anonymous wrote:Get over “mask policy”. That was 5 years ago and masks were overused

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders.

There were people in 2016 saying this about Trump. How's that been going?

Was his orangeness running for one spot out of seven where the remaining six held overwhelming majority sway in the other direction? Or was it for a position where one person could run roughshod, especially with sympathetic majorities in any body which held checks over that power?

Why vote for a deranged lunatic as a protest vote?

Vote for yourself as a protest vote, or leave that spot on the ballot blank.

Because the one gets ignored completely and the other has a chance of gaining attention.

It sure will get attention. That attention will be, for the Superintendent, a welcome distraction from all his crazy decisions. Are you concerned about his choice to censor student journalists? Wait look over here there is a crazy rwnj, go protest her!

That's if she'd have a chance of winning an actual seat in the November general election if she beat out Chase for second in the primary. She doesn't -- MoCo is too blue and Lazo is a shoo-in with the Apple Ballot and the rest of the machine behind him.

Unless he can't present anything compelling in addition to some total blunder along the way by either him or MCPS that would make Diaz a remote possibility.

Of course, Chase would be in a similarly unlikely spot if she adanced to the general. She would have more possibility in the blunder scenario than Diaz, but there would be nothing at all from the perspective of debate about change in the lead-up to a Lazo-Chase contest, where there'd be a good amout with a Lazo-Diaz contest. If he bothered to debate, that is, with his position as the presumptive winner.

If you think Lazo is likely to act as a counter to MCPS central positions like the one you use as an example such that Taylor would need to answer with depth instead of distract when one of his leads presents some agenda-driven, poorly considered plan, I think you have another thing coming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders.

There were people in 2016 saying this about Trump. How's that been going?

Was his orangeness running for one spot out of seven where the remaining six held overwhelming majority sway in the other direction? Or was it for a position where one person could run roughshod, especially with sympathetic majorities in any body which held checks over that power?

Why vote for a deranged lunatic as a protest vote?

Vote for yourself as a protest vote, or leave that spot on the ballot blank.

Because the one gets ignored completely and the other has a chance of gaining attention.

It sure will get attention. That attention will be, for the Superintendent, a welcome distraction from all his crazy decisions. Are you concerned about his choice to censor student journalists? Wait look over here there is a crazy rwnj, go protest her!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders.

There were people in 2016 saying this about Trump. How's that been going?

Was his orangeness running for one spot out of seven where the remaining six held overwhelming majority sway in the other direction? Or was it for a position where one person could run roughshod, especially with sympathetic majorities in any body which held checks over that power?

Why vote for a deranged lunatic as a protest vote?

Vote for yourself as a protest vote, or leave that spot on the ballot blank.

Because the one gets ignored completely and the other has a chance of gaining attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders.

There were people in 2016 saying this about Trump. How's that been going?

Was his orangeness running for one spot out of seven where the remaining six held overwhelming majority sway in the other direction? Or was it for a position where one person could run roughshod, especially with sympathetic majorities in any body which held checks over that power?

Why vote for a deranged lunatic as a protest vote?

Vote for yourself as a protest vote, or leave that spot on the ballot blank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders.

There were people in 2016 saying this about Trump. How's that been going?

Was his orangeness running for one spot out of seven where the remaining six held overwhelming majority sway in the other direction? Or was it for a position where one person could run roughshod, especially with sympathetic majorities in any body which held checks over that power?

Anonymous wrote:
Even your post, here, is political-machine-driven -- "it should be noted that the official position of the MCPS Democratic Party opposes her" is dog whistling in what is supposed to be a non-partisan race. For BOE, it's a county primary to winnow the field to two candidates for November, not a Dem primary to pick against a Repub (destined to lose in this deep blue county). Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders.

Anonymous wrote:I voted for her as a protest vote against the current BOE's incompetence and subservience.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like you feel as though you haven't gotten your message out, despite posting the same thing in every topic on BOE candidates for over 2 years, back to when she ran in 2024, so you need to have a headline of your own.

I'm not a Diaz fan, but the other candidates have flaws, as well. Lazo has shown that he is part of the MoCo/MD political machine that locks out meaningful community input. Chase has failed to demonstrate her advocacy is meaningfully multidimensional, likely part of that machine, too. Wicks effectively dropped out.

Even your post, here, is political-machine-driven -- "it should be noted that the official position of the MCPS Democratic Party opposes her" is dog whistling in what is supposed to be a non-partisan race. For BOE, it's a county primary to winnow the field to two candidates for November, not a Dem primary to pick against a Repub (destined to lose in this deep blue county). Between now and then, having someone like Diaz, warts and all, as a counter option to the machine might be more appealing than having a choice between two insiders. With Rivera-Oven (note Marco, with endorsements, on the MoCo party committee ballot) and Diggs (Wolff's hand-picked successor) each running unopposed for those respective seats, we're certain to get no change from them, and Montoya (the only one who rocks the boat, and only when there is a personal interest, it seems), Stewart & Zimmerman not up for re-election until 2028, do we really need this at-large seat occupied by more of the same? Without even putting the Apple-ballot anointee to the test?

We always can make the choice not to have her elected in November. Maybe just having her on the ballot would send a message to MCPS/the current BOE, if not the rest of the party apparatus, that they should start looking for candidates that do a better job of actually representing us.

I can only hope the Democratic party, as a whole, wakes up to that one day, because what we've gotten, for decades, now, is ineffective strategy that somehow keeps the table tilted while, amazingly befuddlingly, from the point of view of their stated aims and the significant majority we'd think should align with those, but also clearly, from electoral results over that time, providing unreasonable space for reactionaries, again and again, to gain ascendancy. SMDH...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for her as a protest vote against the current BOE's incompetence and subservience.

Same.

And if she advances to the general election, I will vote for her again for the same reason.

Anonymous wrote:I voted for her as a protest vote against the current BOE's incompetence and subservience.