Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Oh my, this is hilarious. Do you really think a critical mass of Dems will vote for an anti-vax, Trump-supporting, anti-abortion Republican out of spite, even though public schools are open full time statewide because our current Democratic governor made it so?
I’m going to Not out of spite but bc of a lack of trust and concern or what could happen in the future
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Oh my, this is hilarious. Do you really think a critical mass of Dems will vote for an anti-vax, Trump-supporting, anti-abortion Republican out of spite, even though public schools are open full time statewide because our current Democratic governor made it so?
I’m going to Not out of spite but bc of a lack of trust and concern or what could happen in the future
Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Oh my, this is hilarious. Do you really think a critical mass of Dems will vote for an anti-vax, Trump-supporting, anti-abortion Republican out of spite, even though public schools are open full time statewide because our current Democratic governor made it so?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Lol, stop acting like you know anything. You don’t.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Oh my, this is hilarious. Do you really think a critical mass of Dems will vote for an anti-vax, Trump-supporting, anti-abortion Republican out of spite, even though public schools are open full time statewide because our current Democratic governor made it so?
Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Anonymous wrote:APE is almost certainly going to endorse Youngkin because of the school closure angle. But that doesn't mean it is R leaning. This is just an odd year. APE is solidly Dem in most respects that matter and don't peddle GOP talking points at all. Name a single one. They're not talking election integrity, cRT or any of that nonsense. Youngkin is likely to win because he doesn't need nova, he just needs to peel off enough Dems b/c school closures. Just because APE aligns with that doesn't mean they are GOP, they're just anti-closure, which is a solidly bi-partisan or non-partisan issue. AGain, it's just an unusual year.
Anonymous wrote:APE was a big tent last year by necessity because they faced such long odds on reopening the closed schools. Can't fault them for that. APE tolerated some of the RW crazies (lawsuit guy) and one person floated a balloon about recall (like other similar nova groups). They probably would have given lawsuit guy the boot earlier if they could do it all over again, and the group never seriously considered an effort to recall Dems. Why would they? Their leader is a longstanding Dem, and most of the members are Dems. There's no there there on the whole R angle for APE. No more big tent that accommodates crazies. They're solidly Dem/leaning bipartisan now coming up with independent ideas very much in the Vihstadt mold. APE is focused mostly on issues that most parents care about it. They're very engaged, and appropriately so.
Everyone should move on. APE did. They're looking to the future.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me the relationship between APE and the lawsuit that was filed a bit ago trying to compel APS to hold in person instruction? A lot of my opinion about APE and its right-wing roots stems from what I saw on the Twitter feed (relating to January 6) of one of the men pursuing that lawsuit. If he and his efforts are not part of APE, I would be interested in knowing that.
This was covered extensively at the time. The man who filed the lawsuit is/was a member of APE, but APE specifically declined to participate in or support the lawsuit, in part because much of APE’s leadership specifically disagreed with his lawsuit.
On his Twitter feed, he talked about “giving quarter” to what turned out to be insurrectionists. Kind of dark stuff in retrospect. Even if APE didn’t support the lawsuit, the guy left a very lasting impression that spills over to APE.
Only because of people like you who promote a false narrative to smear people who have different opinion from you.
My opinion was formed based upon his public Twitter account and his vocal support of APE. My opinion is definitely different than those seeking to “give quarter” to those responsible for the events of Jan. 6. Sometimes the loudest member of a group can impact public perception of that group.
It’s unfortunate you lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between an organization and the separate activities of a single non-leadership member. There’s no point is discussing the merits with you because you will simply make stuff up and parrot off-topic hyper partisan talking points.
DP. What did the PP say that was “made up”?
The made up part was attributing to APE activities that not only did not come from APE but which APE specifically disavowed. Apparently they know they can’t win the argument on the merits so they need to mislead and deflect. Smart Restart is nothing more than a handful of crazies with too much time on their hands. Perhaps they all need to get real jobs.
Where exactly did PP attribute activities to APE? I don’t see that above.
So you admit that APE had nothing to do with the lawsuit or this one guy’s Twitter comments? You agree that APE should not be held accountable for his personal conduct?
Good, then we are in agreement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t the lawsuit guy the person who did all of the signs?
Do you have a basis for saying that or is it rank speculation? I’m not in APE so I don’t know the answer, so I would like to know the source for your claim.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me the relationship between APE and the lawsuit that was filed a bit ago trying to compel APS to hold in person instruction? A lot of my opinion about APE and its right-wing roots stems from what I saw on the Twitter feed (relating to January 6) of one of the men pursuing that lawsuit. If he and his efforts are not part of APE, I would be interested in knowing that.
This was covered extensively at the time. The man who filed the lawsuit is/was a member of APE, but APE specifically declined to participate in or support the lawsuit, in part because much of APE’s leadership specifically disagreed with his lawsuit.
On his Twitter feed, he talked about “giving quarter” to what turned out to be insurrectionists. Kind of dark stuff in retrospect. Even if APE didn’t support the lawsuit, the guy left a very lasting impression that spills over to APE.
Only because of people like you who promote a false narrative to smear people who have different opinion from you.
My opinion was formed based upon his public Twitter account and his vocal support of APE. My opinion is definitely different than those seeking to “give quarter” to those responsible for the events of Jan. 6. Sometimes the loudest member of a group can impact public perception of that group.
It’s unfortunate you lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between an organization and the separate activities of a single non-leadership member. There’s no point is discussing the merits with you because you will simply make stuff up and parrot off-topic hyper partisan talking points.
DP. What did the PP say that was “made up”?
The made up part was attributing to APE activities that not only did not come from APE but which APE specifically disavowed. Apparently they know they can’t win the argument on the merits so they need to mislead and deflect. Smart Restart is nothing more than a handful of crazies with too much time on their hands. Perhaps they all need to get real jobs.
Where exactly did PP attribute activities to APE? I don’t see that above.