Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DirectorBeneficial48 t1_ivd4k1b wrote

fuck em and this stupid astroturfing campaign that's been on here nonstop. can't wait for this election to be done with.

−5

Jahooodie t1_ivdf8bf wrote

They do seem partnered with the developers (who want taxes low), but do also seem to have expertise and bona fides to be legit outside of that. With the very recent tax increase and last few years of ‘not so good’ budgets, it does seem logical for there to be a ‘throw the bums out’ push for change.

What makes it seem like Astro turfing to you? Doesn’t seem like it to me, there seem to be legit concerns about the incumbents & the rival party seems to have legit popularity because of it.

7

needimmortality t1_ivdmkb3 wrote

This guy seems like a bitter troll. Don’t bother writing and engaging with sensible replies @jahoodie . Change for children sounds like a pragmatic vote here.

3

DontBeEvil1 t1_ive1rn3 wrote

>What makes it seem like Astro turfing to you?

Telling people who to vote for. Constant talk about tax reduction, no talk about children, and little talk about actual plans to fix things, while acting as if the other side isn't saying the exact same thing about wanting to make better use of the budget, allocate funds to where they are truly needed, and lessen the tax burden. I've spent the past couple of days reading up on all the candidates, and the other side, as well as the independents are saying the same thing!

3

Jahooodie t1_ivegtbi wrote

Yes the sides are saying similar things, but one is in bed with the Union and status quo more heavily than the other.

Also it’s not astroturfing to make a case for a candidate. And both sides have vague plans (in my opinion). I’m just seeing normal political speech going on, not a concentrated artificial effort to influence (but it is the internet, anyone could be a troll or a dog for all I know). You yourself set up a case against the OP and basically weave a argument to vote anyone but CFC, which is also fine speech by me

1

mikevago t1_ivg45nt wrote

> one is in bed with the Union and status quo

Translation, one side is "in bed with" teachers and have long been involved with JC public schools. I guess those things are bad somehow, so we should put a developer's lackeys in charge?

1

Jahooodie t1_ivgu6gx wrote

They have an invested interest to keep the status quo of the Union & Board. You realize only one of their slate up to vote is a current educator? The others according to their material a doctoral candidate & Democratic Committee member. They are putting forth arguments for the most part that they are also for change, and it's up to the voter to decide.

I fundamentally don't believe that the only folks who can have expertise in BOE control are necessarily teachers or teacher's union folks. Their voice carries weight of first hand experience, but so do those who've graduated from JC public schools & their parents. Or people who've studied sound budget administration at the scale of the school system here... their budget is more than some municipalities altogether.

I am concerned that CFC has strong ties to developers, but then again anyone involved with the Democratic party trying to get stuff done in town sorta is (ala Fullop). I'm not fully convinced on their ideas for change, but I think perhaps at least they would be a conflicting voice at the table to push reform. I think the main thing I've been concerned with our BOE for years has been the status quo has to change & modernize to the sunlight.

For the record I'm not voting a straight slate I don't think, but I've not read a compelling to me argument that CFC is the devil & Education Matters are saints

1

mikevago t1_ivg3ywe wrote

And God forbid you acknolwedge that /r/jerseycity has turned into /r/changefordeveloperscampaignhq or you get downvoted into oblivion.

1