President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

#21,526
#21,526
luthervol said:
It says nothing about him directing the NSBA to say anything about domestic terrorism. If he asked them for a letter expressing their views, that is a 100% legitimate request and exactly what he should be doing.
Click to expand...

Okay let's take this apart:

1. His office denies this - why deny a 100% legitimate request that is exactly what he should be doing?
2. His office had talks with this group prior to the letter - if they didn't discuss the domestic terrorism stuff then don't you think he'd be surprised at it's inclusion? Wouldn't they have further discussions if it was a surprise instead of them releasing the letter with that claim in there and trotting out the AG who admitted he relied on this letter to justify his call for agency attention to parents?

wouldn't "exactly what he should be doing" include some discussions to see if NSBA really wants to go down the domestic terrorism route? Given that NSBA later apologized for the letter it seems DoEd dropped the ball if that wasn't part of the earlier discussions.

When the DoEd released this information they were silent that they had 1) been in talks with the NSBA and 2) that they had solicited the letter. If that is "exactly what they should be doing" (soliciting the letter) why not be open that it was the result of prior discussions AND as a specific request?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, hog88, AM64 and 1 other person
#21,527
#21,527
luthervol said:
It in no way says that.
You guys are so gullible.
Click to expand...

In a Oct. 5 email, NSBA Secretary-Treasurer Kristi Swett recounted that NSBA interim CEO Chip Slaven "told the officers he was writing a letter to provide information to the White House, from a request by Secretary Cardona."

Water carrier Luther showing up for duty🤡

61C9424F-08E7-4011-B96B-43D0CD4A4F59.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AirVol, OL SMOKEY and 3 others
#21,528
#21,528
volinbham said:
Okay let's take this apart:

1. His office denies this - why deny a 100% legitimate request that is exactly what he should be doing?
2. His office had talks with this group prior to the letter - if they didn't discuss the domestic terrorism stuff then don't you think he'd be surprised at it's inclusion? Wouldn't they have further discussions if it was a surprise instead of them releasing the letter with that claim in there and trotting out the AG who admitted he relied on this letter to justify his call for agency attention to parents?

wouldn't "exactly what he should be doing" include some discussions to see if NSBA really wants to go down the domestic terrorism route? Given that NSBA later apologized for the letter it seems DoEd dropped the ball if that wasn't part of the earlier discussions.

When the DoEd released this information they were silent that they had 1) been in talks with the NSBA and 2) that they had solicited the letter. If that is "exactly what they should be doing" (soliciting the letter) why not be open that it was the result of prior discussions AND as a specific request?
Click to expand...
Well you didn’t get crickets. You got a majorly disingenuous clueless shill 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, AM64 and dovervolz
#21,530
#21,530
volinbham said:
Okay let's take this apart:

1. His office denies this - why deny a 100% legitimate request that is exactly what he should be doing?
2. His office had talks with this group prior to the letter - if they didn't discuss the domestic terrorism stuff then don't you think he'd be surprised at it's inclusion? Wouldn't they have further discussions if it was a surprise instead of them releasing the letter with that claim in there and trotting out the AG who admitted he relied on this letter to justify his call for agency attention to parents?

wouldn't "exactly what he should be doing" include some discussions to see if NSBA really wants to go down the domestic terrorism route? Given that NSBA later apologized for the letter it seems DoEd dropped the ball if that wasn't part of the earlier discussions.

When the DoEd released this information they were silent that they had 1) been in talks with the NSBA and 2) that they had solicited the letter. If that is "exactly what they should be doing" (soliciting the letter) why not be open that it was the result of prior discussions AND as a specific request?
Click to expand...
1. "While the Secretary did not solicit a letter from NSBA, to understand the views and concerns of stakeholders, the Department routinely engages with students, teachers, parents, district leaders and education associations,"
2. Who is to day that the group didn't say "we think this is a form of domestic terrorism" during the course of the talks?

I would hope and assume that the Dep of Ed is in constant talks with all stake holders in education including the NSBA. The scandal would be if they never talked. They deny they solicited any letter. You guys are struggling with this one.
 
#21,532
#21,532
luthervol said:
1. "While the Secretary did not solicit a letter from NSBA, to understand the views and concerns of stakeholders, the Department routinely engages with students, teachers, parents, district leaders and education associations,"
2. Who is to day that the group didn't say "we think this is a form of domestic terrorism" during the course of the talks?

I would hope and assume that the Dep of Ed is in constant talks with all stake holders in education including the NSBA. The scandal would be if they never talked. They deny they solicited any letter. You guys are struggling with this one.
Click to expand...
Interjecting….
1. He said/she said. You believe words from the sec Ed press release vs email from NSBA officer.
 
#21,533
#21,533
luthervol said:
1. "While the Secretary did not solicit a letter from NSBA, to understand the views and concerns of stakeholders, the Department routinely engages with students, teachers, parents, district leaders and education associations,"
2. Who is to day that the group didn't say "we think this is a form of domestic terrorism" during the course of the talks?

I would hope and assume that the Dep of Ed is in constant talks with all stake holders in education including the NSBA. The scandal would be if they never talked. They deny they solicited any letter. You guys are struggling with this one.
Click to expand...

On #1 - is NSBA lying or the Sec DoEd office? You claimed it is exactly what he should be doing to solicit a letter.

On #2 - if it came up I would hope Sec DoEd would push back - if he didn't push back and it comes in the letter that was solicited then he is endorsing the charge.

So it appears you believe NSBA is lying about the letter being solicited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#21,534
#21,534
newyorkvol said:
Interjecting….
1. He said/she said. You believe words from the sec Ed press release vs email from NSBA officer.
Click to expand...

yes even though such a solicitation would be 100% legitimate and exactly what the Sec DoEd should do.

I guess Luther believes that the Sec DoEd didn't do exactly what he should have done.
 
#21,535
#21,535
newyorkvol said:
Interjecting….
1. He said/she said. You believe words from the sec Ed press release vs email from NSBA officer.
Click to expand...
newyorkvol said:
Interjecting….
1. He said/she said. You believe words from the sec Ed press release vs email from NSBA officer.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there is even a conflict between the two.
The email says nothing about the solicitation of a letter.
 
#21,536
#21,536
luthervol said:
I'm not sure there is even a conflict between the two.
The email says nothing about the solicitation of a letter.
Click to expand...

In a Oct. 5 email, NSBA Secretary-Treasurer Kristi Swett recounted that NSBA interim CEO Chip Slaven "told the officers he was writing a letter to provide information to the White House, from a request by Secretary Cardona."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#21,537
#21,537
volinbham said:
On #1 - is NSBA lying or the Sec DoEd office? You claimed it is exactly what he should be doing to solicit a letter.

On #2 - if it came up I would hope Sec DoEd would push back - if he didn't push back and it comes in the letter that was solicited then he is endorsing the charge.

So it appears you believe NSBA is lying about the letter being solicited.
Click to expand...
1. I don't know that either is lying. And yes, if he asked for a letter expressing their thoughts, that is exactly what I would hope he is doing.
2. I don't know what point you are making. Why would he push back? He could ask for their opinions without telling them what their opinions should be. I don't see the issue.
 
#21,539
#21,539
luthervol said:
1. I don't know that either is lying. And yes, if he asked for a letter expressing their thoughts, that is exactly what I would hope he is doing.
2. I don't know what point you are making. Why would he push back? He could ask for their opinions without telling them what their opinions should be. I don't see the issue.
Click to expand...

on #2 because when the Admin releases the letter they either agree with it or could say we don't agree with this part. they used that letter to justify DOJ action. It is implicit endorsement of the charge. If it was discussed and the WH/Sec DoEd didn't agree with that charge they had ample opportunity to object. They did not. Worse, AG Garland acknowledged the letter was instrumental in his direction to agents and LEOs.
 
#21,541
#21,541
Well isn't this interesting - makes a little more sense given the latest revelation

Biden admin gives post to National School Boards Association chief who signed 'domestic terrorism' letter

Earlier this month, Viola Garcia was appointed by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which has oversight over the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).


you have to wonder why the DoEd and WH never made the same comments about the domestic terrorism claims

The NSBA on Friday issued an apology for some of the wording in the letter, writing in part: "On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter."

The NSBA went on to note that "there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter."

At least the signatory got a sweet government job out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, NorthDallas40 and Carl Pickens
#21,543
#21,543
Rasputin_Vol said:
Parents at school board meetings will be put on no fly lists...
Click to expand...

It's really a shame and the elections of 2022 can't get here fast enough. We can only hope the Republicans hold people and institutions accountable with this tyrannical style of governing. This is all to get a grip on endless power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DixieVol, Orange_Vol1321, tbwhhs and 1 other person
#21,544
#21,544
NorthDallas40 said:
Being indignant about his total failure is about all he’s got left. And he’s got three years left of being continually indignant. Let’s go Brandon.
Click to expand...

Biden appears to be in an alternate universe from the rest of us. It's like they roll him out of bed and tell him what they want him to know and he goes along with it. He seems totally clueless on the realities around him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123, DixieVol, Carl Pickens and 2 others
#21,547
#21,547
volinbham said:
Well isn't this interesting - makes a little more sense given the latest revelation

Biden admin gives post to National School Boards Association chief who signed 'domestic terrorism' letter

Earlier this month, Viola Garcia was appointed by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which has oversight over the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).


you have to wonder why the DoEd and WH never made the same comments about the domestic terrorism claims

The NSBA on Friday issued an apology for some of the wording in the letter, writing in part: "On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter."

The NSBA went on to note that "there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter."

At least the signatory got a sweet government job out of it.
Click to expand...
No no no @luthervol says they denied it so this means nothing and is pure coincidence 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AirVol, Carl Pickens and 3 others
#21,550
#21,550
volinbham said:
on #2 because when the Admin releases the letter they either agree with it or could say we don't agree with this part. they used that letter to justify DOJ action. It is implicit endorsement of the charge. If it was discussed and the WH/Sec DoEd didn't agree with that charge they had ample opportunity to object. They did not. Worse, AG Garland acknowledged the letter was instrumental in his direction to agents and LEOs.
Click to expand...
So what's the problem if he agrees?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top