Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Omfg. You can be precise and keep saying it's not CRT, but what many parents are reacting against is every single thing being focused on racism. Of course that's going to become more of a TP than what might be good ideas (data science, stats as options, etc)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

I disagree that it’s a “realistic risk” after being so clearly defined now. But I guess some people are distrustful.

Just because some people are distrustful doesn’t mean that Ds were “gaslighting”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrats lost my vote in the past couple of years. I voted democrat on EVERY single ticket since Bush v. Gore, but I have not voted since painfully casting a vote for Hilary nor do I intend to ever again. I can't in good conscience vote for a party who comes to conclusions like, "Advanced programs racist because too many asians, so eliminate them" (I am white). Sorry, you lost me and I hope you lose others with your race baiting

And yet you’re perfectly fine with Donald’s position on race? OK cool. We know now not to give a flying F**k what you think.

Did I say I was okay with his position on race? lol. I never voted for him or any republican so they didn't lose my vote, genius

If you’re voting for Republicans - the party that made its platform “Donald Trump” (literally) - you’re ok w/ their position on race, moron

Do you also say that to the blacks, latinos, and asians who voted Youngkin?

Yes, I do. And if you think it’s impossible for a black person to vote for a candidate who will not act in the best interests of black people generally…you’re not quite understanding reality.

Wait, what positions on race are we talking about here? What are the Republican positions on Asians exactly?

Honest answer: republicans see Asians as a useful tool to dismantle affirmative action.

That’s pretty much it.

No truer words have ever been written on DCUM.
The sad part is they go along with it and think that Republicans actually care about them.

Actually, Asians see Republicans as the party that will protect them from the discrimination served up by the Dems these past few years.

I don't know. I think Asians are all over the map politically. Asians are hardly a monolith and their experiences immigrating to this country are very different. Also, they are also all over the map in terms of religion and how religious they are.

So are all POC. None of them are the monolithic groups that Democrats love to paint them as.

The only monolith, really, are the non-college educated, suburban white females. Dolts, the lot of them.

But hate has no home here, amirite?

I was the person who started this post thread and I just want to reiterate, at no point in my life have I ever voted for a Republican. It's just that from now on I also will never vote for a Democrat. Which, in America, means that I will not be voting for the remainder of my life. And that's fine with me. Whoever originally kept replying to me and accusing me of being a racist trump supporter has a low IQ.

Welcome to the club, OP. Keep voting though. The waves we’ve see for several cycles now aren’t colored blue or red. They are purple. I have been thinking of a new thread for quite some time. Maybe I’ll start it this evening.

I'm another poster in this club. But I continue to vote, just not a straight D ticket anymore. This last one I voted a mix of both sides.

I don't 100% agree with either side, but I much prefer there being a balance of voices and do not want our democracy to be a one party rule. Right now both sides are too far at either of their ends, it's better to have an equal distribution of crazy so neither can have too much power.

After Trump and his crazy hate I said I would never vote Republican. (I hadn't previously). After Biden and his crazy inflation I am now not leaning toward Democrats.

My solution: Democrat President (because I know they won't tolerate hate towards any sector of society) and Republican Legislature (because they'll keep the borders closed and fiscal policy sane).

Two sides of the coin, one balancing the other.

You do know that the Democrat President would have to agree to sign legislation that would keep the border closed and fiscal policy sane, right? The last few examples don't really inspire confidence.

I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

It’s gaslighting.

So what are the issues? What types of diversity / inclusion / equity programs are acceptable? Any?

How can schools talk about racism?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

It’s gaslighting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrats lost my vote in the past couple of years. I voted democrat on EVERY single ticket since Bush v. Gore, but I have not voted since painfully casting a vote for Hilary nor do I intend to ever again. I can't in good conscience vote for a party who comes to conclusions like, "Advanced programs racist because too many asians, so eliminate them" (I am white). Sorry, you lost me and I hope you lose others with your race baiting

And yet you’re perfectly fine with Donald’s position on race? OK cool. We know now not to give a flying F**k what you think.

Did I say I was okay with his position on race? lol. I never voted for him or any republican so they didn't lose my vote, genius

If you’re voting for Republicans - the party that made its platform “Donald Trump” (literally) - you’re ok w/ their position on race, moron

Do you also say that to the blacks, latinos, and asians who voted Youngkin?

Yes, I do. And if you think it’s impossible for a black person to vote for a candidate who will not act in the best interests of black people generally…you’re not quite understanding reality.

Wait, what positions on race are we talking about here? What are the Republican positions on Asians exactly?

Honest answer: republicans see Asians as a useful tool to dismantle affirmative action.

That’s pretty much it.

No truer words have ever been written on DCUM.
The sad part is they go along with it and think that Republicans actually care about them.

Actually, Asians see Republicans as the party that will protect them from the discrimination served up by the Dems these past few years.

I don't know. I think Asians are all over the map politically. Asians are hardly a monolith and their experiences immigrating to this country are very different. Also, they are also all over the map in terms of religion and how religious they are.

So are all POC. None of them are the monolithic groups that Democrats love to paint them as.

The only monolith, really, are the non-college educated, suburban white females. Dolts, the lot of them.

But hate has no home here, amirite?

I was the person who started this post thread and I just want to reiterate, at no point in my life have I ever voted for a Republican. It's just that from now on I also will never vote for a Democrat. Which, in America, means that I will not be voting for the remainder of my life. And that's fine with me. Whoever originally kept replying to me and accusing me of being a racist trump supporter has a low IQ.

Welcome to the club, OP. Keep voting though. The waves we’ve see for several cycles now aren’t colored blue or red. They are purple. I have been thinking of a new thread for quite some time. Maybe I’ll start it this evening.

I'm another poster in this club. But I continue to vote, just not a straight D ticket anymore. This last one I voted a mix of both sides.

I don't 100% agree with either side, but I much prefer there being a balance of voices and do not want our democracy to be a one party rule. Right now both sides are too far at either of their ends, it's better to have an equal distribution of crazy so neither can have too much power.

I’m the same way. -original “club” member of the Purple Party

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrats lost my vote in the past couple of years. I voted democrat on EVERY single ticket since Bush v. Gore, but I have not voted since painfully casting a vote for Hilary nor do I intend to ever again. I can't in good conscience vote for a party who comes to conclusions like, "Advanced programs racist because too many asians, so eliminate them" (I am white). Sorry, you lost me and I hope you lose others with your race baiting

And yet you’re perfectly fine with Donald’s position on race? OK cool. We know now not to give a flying F**k what you think.

Did I say I was okay with his position on race? lol. I never voted for him or any republican so they didn't lose my vote, genius

If you’re voting for Republicans - the party that made its platform “Donald Trump” (literally) - you’re ok w/ their position on race, moron

Do you also say that to the blacks, latinos, and asians who voted Youngkin?

Yes, I do. And if you think it’s impossible for a black person to vote for a candidate who will not act in the best interests of black people generally…you’re not quite understanding reality.

Wait, what positions on race are we talking about here? What are the Republican positions on Asians exactly?

Honest answer: republicans see Asians as a useful tool to dismantle affirmative action.

That’s pretty much it.

No truer words have ever been written on DCUM.
The sad part is they go along with it and think that Republicans actually care about them.

Actually, Asians see Republicans as the party that will protect them from the discrimination served up by the Dems these past few years.

I don't know. I think Asians are all over the map politically. Asians are hardly a monolith and their experiences immigrating to this country are very different. Also, they are also all over the map in terms of religion and how religious they are.

So are all POC. None of them are the monolithic groups that Democrats love to paint them as.

The only monolith, really, are the non-college educated, suburban white females. Dolts, the lot of them.

But hate has no home here, amirite?

I was the person who started this post thread and I just want to reiterate, at no point in my life have I ever voted for a Republican. It's just that from now on I also will never vote for a Democrat. Which, in America, means that I will not be voting for the remainder of my life. And that's fine with me. Whoever originally kept replying to me and accusing me of being a racist trump supporter has a low IQ.

Welcome to the club, OP. Keep voting though. The waves we’ve see for several cycles now aren’t colored blue or red. They are purple. I have been thinking of a new thread for quite some time. Maybe I’ll start it this evening.

I'm another poster in this club. But I continue to vote, just not a straight D ticket anymore. This last one I voted a mix of both sides.

I don't 100% agree with either side, but I much prefer there being a balance of voices and do not want our democracy to be a one party rule. Right now both sides are too far at either of their ends, it's better to have an equal distribution of crazy so neither can have too much power.

After Trump and his crazy hate I said I would never vote Republican. (I hadn't previously). After Biden and his crazy inflation I am now not leaning toward Democrats.

My solution: Democrat President (because I know they won't tolerate hate towards any sector of society) and Republican Legislature (because they'll keep the borders closed and fiscal policy sane).

Two sides of the coin, one balancing the other.

We need adults who do their jobs.

We finally have an adult in the White House. Progress.

But the Rs in Congress still just obstruct obstruct obstruct. They have to go.

I’m fine with moderates from either party as long as they actually do their job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

Way to miss the point. I'm not pushing for a label since clearly that has caused confusion. Just trying to understand specifically what you want VA schools to stop doing. Not sure why this is a difficult question.

Another PP mentioned that they don't want to see anything related to diversity or equity. Is that what you want to see changed? Something different?

Don't blame Dems for not understanding what you mean when you can't articulate it.

"Defund the Police" says hold my beer.

Yes, also poorly worded/communicated. But if you asked someone pushing for that they could explain it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a liberal Dem who hates Trump, knows that CRT is being taught in our schools and, can't wait to see how Youkin deals with it.

If you know CRT is being taught, it would be interesting if you could point to, you know, evidence that CRT is being taught.

HERE YOU GO:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/virginia-democrats-republicans.html

Nope. This op-ed is crap.

It’s not the Ds fault that Rs are pushing lies about what is being taught in school.

That my 10 year old son who was taken out of a trash can in a Russian village and nearly died from malnutrition and still has health and emotional issues was tokd to stand up in class and labeled as a privileged white make whose ancestors were responsible for enslaving people. Thing is, his ancestors were actually slaves in Russia.
This attitude is why you can’t see the truth about what happened.

Forget about labels. Please articulate what specifically was being taught in classrooms that you think should stop.

WTF? You need to take a seat already. Doubtful that CRT (the theory) is taught to school children. Whether CRT is used as the framework for constructing curricular activities, making choices about what materials are available to students, or selecting guests to speak to students or teachers though is moot as far as this thread goes. TMac lost.

FWIW i recall being taught about gender stereotyping without anyone ever using that term or anything like it in the 70s/80s via filmstrips, books and records. The most popular one that I recall was Free to Be You and Me. I think Marlo Thomas was heavily involved in the project. I loved everything in the book and on the record which taught things like that it was OK for a boy to have doll or that women (or anyone) didnt necessarily like housecleaning despite all the happy looking women doing so on TV commercials (and it was always women seen cleaning on those commercials!).

Right - so you can't even articulate what it is that you want to stop.

Don't get mad for Ds because you don't like a phantom.

I am the most recent poster you are responding too, and I never said who I voted for (Blanding). Keep up your schtick though if you want to see another R win. Your association with the Ds has more to do with people walking away from TMac this election than “CRT”. Or maybe you’re a Trump operative trying to incentivize the R base?

NP. From The Atlantic article; this says it all (ignore it at your own political peril):

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

Way to miss the point. I'm not pushing for a label since clearly that has caused confusion. Just trying to understand specifically what you want VA schools to stop doing. Not sure why this is a difficult question.

Another PP mentioned that they don't want to see anything related to diversity or equity. Is that what you want to see changed? Something different?

Don't blame Dems for not understanding what you mean when you can't articulate it.

"Defund the Police" says hold my beer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrats lost my vote in the past couple of years. I voted democrat on EVERY single ticket since Bush v. Gore, but I have not voted since painfully casting a vote for Hilary nor do I intend to ever again. I can't in good conscience vote for a party who comes to conclusions like, "Advanced programs racist because too many asians, so eliminate them" (I am white). Sorry, you lost me and I hope you lose others with your race baiting

And yet you’re perfectly fine with Donald’s position on race? OK cool. We know now not to give a flying F**k what you think.

Did I say I was okay with his position on race? lol. I never voted for him or any republican so they didn't lose my vote, genius

If you’re voting for Republicans - the party that made its platform “Donald Trump” (literally) - you’re ok w/ their position on race, moron

Do you also say that to the blacks, latinos, and asians who voted Youngkin?

Yes, I do. And if you think it’s impossible for a black person to vote for a candidate who will not act in the best interests of black people generally…you’re not quite understanding reality.

Wait, what positions on race are we talking about here? What are the Republican positions on Asians exactly?

Honest answer: republicans see Asians as a useful tool to dismantle affirmative action.

That’s pretty much it.

No truer words have ever been written on DCUM.
The sad part is they go along with it and think that Republicans actually care about them.

Actually, Asians see Republicans as the party that will protect them from the discrimination served up by the Dems these past few years.

I don't know. I think Asians are all over the map politically. Asians are hardly a monolith and their experiences immigrating to this country are very different. Also, they are also all over the map in terms of religion and how religious they are.

So are all POC. None of them are the monolithic groups that Democrats love to paint them as.

The only monolith, really, are the non-college educated, suburban white females. Dolts, the lot of them.

But hate has no home here, amirite?

I was the person who started this post thread and I just want to reiterate, at no point in my life have I ever voted for a Republican. It's just that from now on I also will never vote for a Democrat. Which, in America, means that I will not be voting for the remainder of my life. And that's fine with me. Whoever originally kept replying to me and accusing me of being a racist trump supporter has a low IQ.

Welcome to the club, OP. Keep voting though. The waves we’ve see for several cycles now aren’t colored blue or red. They are purple. I have been thinking of a new thread for quite some time. Maybe I’ll start it this evening.

I'm another poster in this club. But I continue to vote, just not a straight D ticket anymore. This last one I voted a mix of both sides.

I don't 100% agree with either side, but I much prefer there being a balance of voices and do not want our democracy to be a one party rule. Right now both sides are too far at either of their ends, it's better to have an equal distribution of crazy so neither can have too much power.

After Trump and his crazy hate I said I would never vote Republican. (I hadn't previously). After Biden and his crazy inflation I am now not leaning toward Democrats.

My solution: Democrat President (because I know they won't tolerate hate towards any sector of society) and Republican Legislature (because they'll keep the borders closed and fiscal policy sane).

Two sides of the coin, one balancing the other.