If all the schools were doing was talking *about* CRT and teaching it along with other ideologies and philosophies of thought, there would be no problem. I remember us studying the Communist Manifesto in high school history class and that was fine. They weren't attempting to turn us all into little communists for the cause.
The problem with CRT in the schools is that it's being used as a LENS through which EVERY SUBJECT is to be taught through. Even math is considered racist and needs to be taught through the CRT lens with the point being to turn students into activists, not to provide them with an actual education.
So discuss CRT all you want, but don't use it to INDOCTRINATE, which is what the Democratic establishment is pushing in the schools.
I can't agree with this. From what I've seen, as a general rule CRT is not taught in public schools -- at least not until college, or more typically, law school. Instead, portions of CRT -- the ones that deal with racism within the public school system -- is being taught to teachers and administrators to help create a less racist school environment.
As for the rest, CRT is being used as a "boogeyman," much like "socialism" has been used by Republican's for decades. It also begs the question -- in the states where they have passed laws banning CRT, where was it ever taught? And why does it need to be codified into law -- if CRT is as bad as you claim, shouldn't school districts, and state school officials, ensure that CRT is kept out of the school curriculum, without the need for a state law (and hadn't they been doing that already in those states)?
What evidence do you have that what I'm "promoting" is not true? What exactly am I "promoting"? Who are the people "like me" anyway? If you say "far-right, Trump-loving Republican" you would be very wrong. If you say something more like "liberal without a political home" then you would be getting much closer.
My apologies if I was not clear enough -- the "like you" was not meant as you, which is the reason for the quotes. Instead, I was talking about people on social media who promote non-factual ideas and claim their First Amendment rights are being violated -- because the company that owns the social media site will not allow them to post their non-factual information. People "like them."
My point was that you were claiming Democrats were promoting censorship. You were shown it is not Democrats promoting censorship, at least not any type of government censorship, and changed your argument (the goalposts) from censorship to minorities leaving the Democratic Party.
I'm not a Republican. I'm a liberal and considered myself to be left for most of my life. Unfortunately, the left seems to have left me.
Which has no bearing on the discussion; though, from other points you've made, it appears you are perhaps politically "left" but socially "right." As such, while you may support things like a single payer medical solution, you are against gay rights (or at least the "more extreme" portions, such as transsexual rights).
There are vaccine exemptions in many if not most states for school children, for health and religious purposes. The COVID vaccine that has been around for only a year has no such exemptions in most if not all places.
There is an interesting point about the religious exemptions for public school, to use
Texas, for an example, "A child or student who has not received the required immunizations for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs, may be excluded from school in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of the department." From what I've seen, most states have similar language in their religious exemptions.
Rules have not been changed for COVID, rather, since we are in a pandemic (which is worse than an epidemic) the portions of the law that prevent those who use religious exemptions from attending school have been activated. With schools now requiring the COVID vaccination, in addition to other vaccinations, a religious exemption does not allow the student to attend school.
I hope you are right, but I believe that you are wrong. We may not have another 40 years as a constitutional republic at the rate we're going.
And, from where I sit, it is largely the Republican's who will cause this. Don't get me wrong, Democrats have plenty of flaws, as well. Yet there has been a clear Republican goal to find ways to rule, despite only a minority supporting them. Though I believe the laws have failed, so far, they've tried passing laws that would let a Republican state legislature overturn the will of the people, if that will doesn't match what the legislature decides. In another case, I've seen a Republican legislature overturn the clear will of the people -- voting in various restrictions and even ignoring referendums that received a clear majority.
Then there is the entire "stolen election" claims, that continue to be pushed nationally, despite no evidence. We have a party (or at least the last President, who controls the party) tell us that states should be free to submit two sets of Electoral College votes, and that the Vice President should be free to chose the slate of electors -- regardless of the results of the vote in the state. We even have
a majority of Republicans claiming they would support a military coup, since only 27% of Republicans trust elections.
Yes, the country, and upholding the Constitution, is clearly in crisis.
I said these exact same words, probably on this forum, just over a year ago, but I've since found out that it's not what the Democratic establishment, i.e. woke radicals, want. I'm still all for policies such as universal health care and better environmental protections. I am not at all for the utter depravity, socially, culturally, morally, and economically, that is being pushed by the current version of the Democratic party.
Pushed by who -- and what specific policies? There are a variety of voices in the Democratic party right now, it is not controlled by any single faction. Yes, some voices tend to be "louder" but that has always been the case in American politics -- but the loudest are often much different than those that actually wield the power.
