"Not Betsy Devos" is such a low fucking bar. I don't think we should let the existence of the Trump administration and its unique combination of incompetence and malice lead to a corruption of standards whereby we fool ourselves into thinking that the hypothetical Secretary of Education you have conjured up, who sounds horrible, is somehow "good" because they're not literally Betsy Devos.
"Not Betsy Devos" is such a low fucking bar. I don't think we should let the existence of the Trump administration and its unique combination of incompetence and malice lead to a corruption of standards whereby we fool ourselves into thinking that the hypothetical Secretary of Education you have conjured up, who sounds horrible, is somehow "good" because they're not literally Betsy Devos.
Nowhere did you say what? In any event, it's pretty difficult to read any of your comments here and not come to the conclusion that you are saying "Well, at least the SoE won't be as bad as Devos."
Nowhere did I say that a hypothetical Biden appointee would be "good." I said they'd be better than Betsy DeVos and far more beholden to labor and education-best-practices advocacy efforts than anyone in the Bush II or Trump administrations have ever been. That's a net positive. You appear to be part of a hive of commenters on here who believe that all political stripes not specifically tied to your Twitter timeline are inherently the same evil and exist beyond nuance or a world in which advocacy, lawmaking and organizational politics apply pressure to an administration and make progress depending on the even *slight* bent of an appointed secretary. It's keyboard warrior bullshit.
Wow, for someone who wants to object to the somewhat semantic distinction between whether you said not-Betsy Devos would be "good" or just "better," you sure are imputing a lot of beliefs to me that I have said nothing about!
"Not Betsy Devos" is such a low fucking bar. I don't think we should let the existence of the Trump administration and its unique combination of incompetence and malice lead to a corruption of standards whereby we fool ourselves into thinking that the hypothetical Secretary of Education you have conjured up, who sounds horrible, is somehow "good" because they're not literally Betsy Devos.
Nowhere did I say that
Nowhere did you say what? In any event, it's pretty difficult to read any of your comments here and not come to the conclusion that you are saying "Well, at least the SoE won't be as bad as Devos."
Nowhere did I say that a hypothetical Biden appointee would be "good." I said they'd be better than Betsy DeVos and far more beholden to labor and education-best-practices advocacy efforts than anyone in the Bush II or Trump administrations have ever been. That's a net positive. You appear to be part of a hive of commenters on here who believe that all political stripes not specifically tied to your Twitter timeline are inherently the same evil and exist beyond nuance or a world in which advocacy, lawmaking and organizational politics apply pressure to an administration and make progress depending on the even *slight* bent of an appointed secretary. It's keyboard warrior bullshit.
Wow, for someone who wants to object to the somewhat semantic distinction between whether you said not-Betsy Devos would be "good" or just "better," you sure are imputing a lot of beliefs to me that I have said nothing about!