Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, now that Pekarsky is running for Senate --I have a question.

She claims to be an immigrant in one place, a first generation immigrant in another, and a first generation American in a third.

Is she a "transimmigrant?"

She’s lame. Did nothing for overcrowded Chantilly. Why does she think she’s better than Barker?

There was an article about how NoVA is losing so many experienced legislators and top committee assignments in the General Assembly and Barker is one of the few left. I hope he wins the primary because Pekarsky does not know enough to help keep NoVA’s interests protected in the GA.

FCPS needs SB members that understand a $3 BILLION budget and possess common sense, at a minimum. Instead, they hired someone who makes Brabrand look good.

Anonymous wrote:Well, now that Pekarsky is running for Senate --I have a question.

She claims to be an immigrant in one place, a first generation immigrant in another, and a first generation American in a third.

Is she a "transimmigrant?"

She’s lame. Did nothing for overcrowded Chantilly. Why does she think she’s better than Barker?

Well, now that Pekarsky is running for Senate --I have a question.

She claims to be an immigrant in one place, a first generation immigrant in another, and a first generation American in a third.

Is she a "transimmigrant?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

Yes, I'm sure Reagan and Nixon would have loved joint gender sex education, and biological boys in girls' sports. Also, watering down merit requirements for entrance into schools like TJ.

So here is what I am saying - the democrats have changed - not me. When I became democrat in 1999 (age 18) - I am pretty sure I also then didn’t think biological males should compete female sports and that wasn’t out of line with the party line.

I say you do you - in terms of how you want to live your life. I’ll call you what you want to be called. But I still believe in biological sex as a thing and no one can convince me otherwise. If you’re born a man, you can’t give birth. It just is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

Yes, I'm sure Reagan and Nixon would have loved joint gender sex education, and biological boys in girls' sports. Also, watering down merit requirements for entrance into schools like TJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

The GOP has also gone completely off the deep end in recent years. If people elect those nuts, they get what they deserve.

Calling them nuts is the only, but false, argument left by Democrat-endorsed candidates. Our far-left school board members hide teacher sexual misconduct, waste taxpayer dollars, school closures and schedule disruptions, plummeting scores, and massive increases in school violence, anti-Semiticism, and human trafficking, and they would argue that a Republican-endorsed candidate, with an actual professional background, would do worse.

There’s no question that the LWNJs used Covid and the suspension of in-person meetings as their opportunity to push through their personal pet projects. I hope they are held accountable both in the courts and at the ballot box.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

The GOP has also gone completely off the deep end in recent years. If people elect those nuts, they get what they deserve.

Calling them nuts is the only, but false, argument left by Democrat-endorsed candidates. Our far-left school board members hide teacher sexual misconduct, waste taxpayer dollars, school closures and schedule disruptions, plummeting scores, and massive increases in school violence, anti-Semiticism, and human trafficking, and they would argue that a Republican-endorsed candidate, with an actual professional background, would do worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

LOL! NO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself straight. I’m married to a man. But I kissed a few girls for fun in college. Should I run and make that my FCPS school board platform?

So you seriously equal someone being bisexual to your experience as a self-professed straight person kissing a few girls in college for fun?

I’m not even sure someone who married their high school boyfriend has even done more to claim it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

The GOP has also gone completely off the deep end in recent years. If people elect those nuts, they get what they deserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a mess.

The School Board is supposed to be "non-partisan" but the parties endorse the most partisan people running. Whoever gets the Dem nomination usually wins.

PP here. That should read "endorsement" not nomination. The committee decides who gets the endorsement. It is not a primary.

But do Democrats realize this time around they might lose if they endorse the far left candidates? They have to realize that many people are unhappy with the status quo.

So you think they should endorse crazy RWNJs posing as democrats to appease the right? Dems today are similar to the Republicans from 30-40 years ago maybe even more conservative than the likes of Nixon or Reagan.

Anonymous wrote:You forgot Keys Gamarra - one of the absolute worst members - who is also running for higher office.

Yes. She has accomplished nothing and is even more forgettable.

Frisch lost his primary so now he's running for SB again. Cohen and Pekarsky continue to seek seats in the state House of Delegates and Senate. None of them should ever be elected to any public office again.

Agree. In any case, they were all way too political for School Board.

You forgot Keys Gamarra - one of the absolute worst members - who is also running for higher office.