Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are united over Murphy, but the desire for the next one is going to get dicey if people think it's OK for a characteristic of the next super to be their skin tone.

I'm no Murphy fan, but I'm extra disgusted by the nastiness being shown toward him on that thread. No wonder he sought out another position. People today seem to think their self-anointed quest to right all social wrongs also excuses basic civility and decency. It doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are united over Murphy, but the desire for the next one is going to get dicey if people think it's OK for a characteristic of the next super to be their skin tone.

I'm no Murphy fan, but I'm extra disgusted by the nastiness being shown toward him on that thread. No wonder he sought out another position. People today seem to think their self-anointed quest to right all social wrongs also excuses basic civility and decency. It doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:They are united over Murphy, but the desire for the next one is going to get dicey if people think it's OK for a characteristic of the next super to be their skin tone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we ask the moderator to change the name to Arlington Equity Matters. I all for equity, inclusion and diversity, but the original intent of the forum seems to be astray.

Its primary function is as a platform for a few very vocal and political people.

Anonymous wrote:Should we ask the moderator to change the name to Arlington Equity Matters. I all for equity, inclusion and diversity, but the original intent of the forum seems to be astray.

Anonymous wrote:You know what gets under my skin? Coming to one message board to rail anonymously about another message board where people do use their names. Complaining about a moderator who volunteers her time to create and moderate a forum. For free.

What do you do? Complain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what gets under my skin? Coming to one message board to rail anonymously about another message board where people do use their names. Complaining about a moderator who volunteers her time to create and moderate a forum. For free.

What do you do? Complain.

Well she’s worth every penny she’s getting to moderate!

Anonymous wrote:You know what gets under my skin? Coming to one message board to rail anonymously about another message board where people do use their names. Complaining about a moderator who volunteers her time to create and moderate a forum. For free.

What do you do? Complain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another victory for single-party rule in Arlington. Anyone who thinks this wasn’t about Stamos backing John Vistadt and crossing Terry McC. hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone in AEM posted a Político article yesterday that did a good job identifying what was going on and why. It actually swayed me to go vote. I don’t generally have a gripe with how Stamos has been doing her job, but joining republicans in blocking McC’s efforts to reinstate felon voter rights really got under my skin. I didn’t realize she had taken that position and if she’s going to run as a Democrat I think it’s fair for voters to expect her to not get in the way of the party’s state/national agenda. I assume my reaction matches that of a lot of arlingtonians.

You’re basically half informed. Here’s another article to read. Your reaction is typical of our hyper partisan atmosphere in which party matters more than the person and if that person isn’t 100 percent pure they must be an enemy.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/va-prosecutors-file-brief-opposing-mcauliffe-order-on-felons-rights/article_3dce5bbe-3c02-5ba1-93dd-b4aad07e7bd4.html

I’m not half informed. I read so much back and forth crap about this race over the past several weeks that I had stopped caring. This article made me care enough again to go out and vote.

From the post:

“In an interview, Stamos said her objection was to McAuliffe’s methods, not his intentions.

I “absolutely was in sync and in accord with the outcome; it was just that the rollout did not consider a number of things, including that we had people on probation who had not completed their sentences,” she said, as well as people facing new charges. “It’s important to do the process in an orderly way.”

The “en masse” approach, she said, was dangerous, especially because “voting rights are a precursor to gun rights.” (Felons still need approval from a judge to possess firearms, but reenfranchisement is the first step.)”

Theo’s stance sounds 110% reasonable to me. What’s the issue?

The issue is that PDT and her supporters portrayed Stamos as a vengeful republican and party traitor for objecting to Terry’s poorly written and executed order. And gullible arlingtonians believed them.

I think it’s a mistake to say voters will ill-informed. This strikes me as a simple case of political consequences stemming from a position she took while in office. Maybe it was reasonable for her to go against her own party and join the republican chorus in opposing McC, but it was unpopular and didn’t sit well with many voters. If you’re in an elected position you risk being voted out by going against the party that helped bring you to office. I, like many of my fellow voters, read plenty about her reasons for not supporting McC’s efforts to restore voting rights and I just wasn’t persuaded that it justified her signing on with Republicans like that.

Read your last sentence. As you wrote it, it wasn’t that Stamos had reasonable objections to Terry’s bill that led you to vote against her, because you simply disagreed with her. It was her “signing on with Republicans like that.” That is blind partisanship and exactly what I described as animating this election. Think for yourself.

I’m sorry if it sounds like “blind partisanship.” It’s my well-informed political belief that restoration of voting rights is important and I don’t support a prosecutor who actively frustrates the governor’s efforts to accomplish that goal. I am a democrat and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that I care about the issue enough to vote accordingly. Dismissing it as blind partisanship is nonsense. It’s annoying that the Republicans actively work to prevent the restoration of voting rights, but they’re generally not expecting me to vote for them. If someone actually expects my vote, they shouldn’t be surprised that my political beliefs factor in.

Sad that so many people would rather get the deed done "right NOW" than get the deed done thoughtfully and well. Hmm...I'm wondering why people have so many complaints about APS then.....