Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivcd3u2 wrote

Reply to comment by Mindless-Budget9019 in So who are we voting for that is not going rip us off blind w nonstop tax increases? by Accomplished_Day2991

You literally just ignored it in your response. AGAIN...when she was elected, she was running with Alexander Hamilton on the same slate that Alexander Hamilton is currently on. 🤷

0

keepseeing444 t1_ivd1ud2 wrote

Noemi Velazquez was a teacher in the system so was likely corrupted by her connections and friends. On linkedin she’s “Special Assistant To JC Public Schools”not teaching but likely padding her pension with barely show job. This why I will never vote for anyone who comes from inside that culture. Likelihood to be corrupted is almost guaranteed.

5

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivd2468 wrote

She was also the Aide to the current Governor. As uncomfortable as you are, I'm equally uncomfortable voting for people backed by real estate developers.

−1

keepseeing444 t1_ivd3jdj wrote

You forgot to tell everyone that Murphy fired her for saying things like all evangelical Christians are “Molesters, liars, drunks, racists, heartless, bigots” among other very inappropriate things as a public official. You rather vote for this lady?

1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivdbkyj wrote

I didn't forget, I hadn't heard that before. I also didn't say I was voting for her, although I have yet to rule her out.

0

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivdf1pe wrote

So I just looked it up, and while her response on social media was inappropriate, she didn't exactly say what you said and it seems she was suspended for 10 days. Her comments were about Republican evangelicals who support Trump, and were made in response to comments by far right Republicans who were trashing Murphy and Democrats.

Tens of millions of people voted the most vulgar, inappropriate, unprofessional, charlatan, despicable President ever and put him into the White House several years back. I'm certainly not clutching my pearls from those comments from her in regards to being in the school board.

0

keepseeing444 t1_ivf2bdy wrote

You’re saying I am making this up? https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2018/10/05/murphy-aide-cursed-about-evangelicals-on-facebook-640507?_amp=true

Why are you excusing such vile, divisive, racist vitriol uttered by a public official? You want a person who thinks like this to have power over schools? You’re the problem!

0

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivfovti wrote

Not sure what comment YOU read, but that's certainly not what I said. 🤔

I think I was pretty clear in clarifying what was said, which wasn't exactly how you framed it. I also was clear that I thought it was inappropriate. I have no idea why people read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear. 🤦

You're very dramatic. Are you auditioning for something?

"YOU'RE THE PROBLEM!" 😂😂😂😂😂

1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivcdz5s wrote

No, I did not. When someone shows you who they are believe them. Fact: when given the opportunity, Alexander Hamilton voted against the outrageous tax increase and the other candidate voted for the outrageous tax increase. He showed an interest in fiscal accountability and the other candidate did not. They are no longer on the same slate which implies they have different views. One for fiscal accountability and one for profligate spending. This implies that if he is voted back in, he wouldn’t rubber stamp the tax increase and the other candidate will. No one can predict the future but people’s past actions are a good proxy for their future actions.

−1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivcepw1 wrote

AGAIN, nothing you said is relevant to my point. Not sure why you keep repeating it. It's just dumb to vote exclusively for a slate because you like what 1 person on it did and equally dumb to disregard everyone on another slate because you don't like what 1 of them did, and it's also dumb to say everyone on a slate is guilty by association, when the person you don't like was voted in on the slate that you currently like. By your rationale, you shouldn't like Alexander Hamilton or anyone else on his slate since the one you don't like was on Hamilton's slate too. It's also dumb to ignore that individuals on the slate you hate, are also concerned with reducing the tax burden on residents. Personally, I'm not satisfied with the totality of any slate that's running, and will be choosing individual candidates from the totality.

1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivcfs02 wrote

This isn’t about you. You can make your own decisions. This is about everyone else who reads this. Alexander wouldn’t be able to bring about fiscal accountability if his entire slate is not voted in. His ideas will consistently be voted down. He will be powerless just like he was with the 2022 budget. The choice is simple. If the people believe in fiscal accountability, they will support his entire slate. If not, get ready for 2 more years of profligate spending.

0

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivcgdtx wrote

Really? Wow, I thought it was all about me. Thanks for letting me know! Now, I can stop reading your nonsense. 🌟

Bonus point: it's also not about your taxes. 🤷

1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivde3ct wrote

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. Thankfully, the majority have common sense and will make their voices heard loud and clear in a few days.

−1

DontBeEvil1 t1_ivdfgx7 wrote

I didn't read whatever you wrote... because...well, I previously told you I was happy you let me know I didn't have to. 🤷

0