AP: Biden will not stop override of DC crime laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really wondered where Bowser would go after this term yet now she has leveled up in the party and gotten national recognition. Even Senators are referring to her by name in statements.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously.

This year she was banned from the floor of the house.

Then she vetoed a bill that was near-unanimously overridden by the Council.

When Congressional Republicans then sought to disapprove the bill she had unsuccessfully sought to veto, she told them not to do it and they did it anyway.

She then lobbied Biden to veto the bill. He ignored her.

And somehow you think she is the winner out of all of this? She just looks terribly confused and ineffectual, friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

Martin is nothing more than Charles Allen's stenographer these days. Go through his coverage of Allen/Nadeau/Janeese and compare it with his coverage of Bowser/Mendo/Pinto/McDuffie. Every statement from the former group is presented as gospel and unchallenged. Every statement from the latter group has 3-4 "expert" voices denouncing it.

A complete joke. He's getting roasted on social media today, and has been for a few months now because of his terrible reporting. Good. Go back to Switzerland and cry.

The xenophobia at the end didn’t come as much of a surprise . . .

I love it when white people take up a posture of victimization. Particularly affluent white males. It makes them look so dumb.

Nothing about victimization. Xenophobia is xenophobia and it sucks not matter who it is directed at. This.shouldn’t.be.that.hard.

You are talking about xenophobia against SWITZERLAND! But no victimization complex here. No sir. You are so deeply unserious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wondered where Bowser would go after this term yet now she has leveled up in the party and gotten national recognition. Even Senators are referring to her by name in statements.

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously.

This year she was banned from the floor of the house.

Then she vetoed a bill that was near-unanimously overridden by the Council.

When Congressional Republicans then sought to disapprove the bill she had unsuccessfully sought to veto, she told them not to do it and they did it anyway.

She then lobbied Biden to veto the bill. He ignored her.

And somehow you think she is the winner out of all of this? She just looks terribly confused and ineffectual, friend.

And yet, despite all of that, she comes off 100% better and more competent than the DC Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

Here’s the deal, if DC were any other city in the US in a state, the laws of DC could be overridden at any time by a state legislator from podunk wherever who also have NO IDEA blah, blah, blah. Welcome to the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

DC isn't a sovereign country. I know that is going to come as a surprise to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

DC isn't a sovereign country. I know that is going to come as a surprise to you.

Exactly. Have these people never heard of preemption? Home rule does not provide carte blanche lawmaking authority to a city anywhere in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

Y
“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

Those were the rules you signed up for. You have plenty of places to go where you can have 100% control if it matters so much. Go move to one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

Martin is nothing more than Charles Allen's stenographer these days. Go through his coverage of Allen/Nadeau/Janeese and compare it with his coverage of Bowser/Mendo/Pinto/McDuffie. Every statement from the former group is presented as gospel and unchallenged. Every statement from the latter group has 3-4 "expert" voices denouncing it.

A complete joke. He's getting roasted on social media today, and has been for a few months now because of his terrible reporting. Good. Go back to Switzerland and cry.

The xenophobia at the end didn’t come as much of a surprise . . .

I love it when white people take up a posture of victimization. Particularly affluent white males. It makes them look so dumb.

Nothing about victimization. Xenophobia is xenophobia and it sucks not matter who it is directed at. This.shouldn’t.be.that.hard.

You are talking about xenophobia against SWITZERLAND! But no victimization complex here. No sir. You are so deeply unserious.

I take it you are OK with gay slurs as long as they are directed at rich white homosexuals, also? Is antisemitism OK in your book when directed at well-off Jews? Try this crap in the real world and I think you’ll find pretty fast that people don’t think it’s half as cool as you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

Martin is nothing more than Charles Allen's stenographer these days. Go through his coverage of Allen/Nadeau/Janeese and compare it with his coverage of Bowser/Mendo/Pinto/McDuffie. Every statement from the former group is presented as gospel and unchallenged. Every statement from the latter group has 3-4 "expert" voices denouncing it.

A complete joke. He's getting roasted on social media today, and has been for a few months now because of his terrible reporting. Good. Go back to Switzerland and cry.

The xenophobia at the end didn’t come as much of a surprise . . .

I love it when white people take up a posture of victimization. Particularly affluent white males. It makes them look so dumb.

Nothing about victimization. Xenophobia is xenophobia and it sucks not matter who it is directed at. This.shouldn’t.be.that.hard.

You are talking about xenophobia against SWITZERLAND! But no victimization complex here. No sir. You are so deeply unserious.

I take it you are OK with gay slurs as long as they are directed at rich white homosexuals, also? Is antisemitism OK in your book when directed at well-off Jews? Try this crap in the real world and I think you’ll find pretty fast that people don’t think it’s half as cool as you do.

What are you talking about? This is about you claiming that people are engaging in xenophobia against SWITZERLAND and that somehow this is not emblematic of overwrought white victimhood. The fact that you are reaching for all of these other issues shows that you know how dumb your position is that it cannot be defended on its own merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

Y
“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

Those were the rules you signed up for. You have plenty of places to go where you can have 100% control if it matters so much. Go move to one.

You don’t have to take this line of argument too much further to conclude that human rights abuses are OK as long as the victims can seek asylum abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was this something that he was going to do, that someone thought he was going to do?

The Biden administration originally said they would veto the congressional override so this is an about face. A good one IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

“That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress”

This is correct. The Council makes stupid decisions all the time, but I elected them. It infuriates me that I have to defer to the opinions of the elected representative of east nowhere Indiana on my local laws. I truly, deeply do not care what the people of Indiana, Alabama, Massachusetts or wherever think about my local laws. They have NO IDEA what the problems of DC actually are. SO INFURIATING

I think Angie Craig got a pretty decent idea about the problems of DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how this guy is considered a “reporter” instead of an editorialist.
https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1631400757068017665

It is definitely hypocritical of Biden to say he supports Home Rule but also sign a federal law that overturns a local one, regardless of what you think of the substance of the crime bill. Don't think it's editorializing to point that out.

Like the council overturning the referendum on the minimum wage?

Yes, that was also hypocritical.

Oh no, you see. That was representative democracy which we are being denied by Biden and Congress because something, something, look over there, and what about this.

The sarcasm aside, this actually was one of the major critiques people made of that Council vote — that it was hypocritical, as well as bad messaging, for elected officials in a city that constantly tries to make arguments about democracy and respecting local decisions to overturn the results of a ballot measure that passed by a huge margin. People also criticized it on the substance, but even if you disagreed with the minimum wage vote, it seemed foolish for the Council to just undo it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some will complain about DC Home Rule issues, but I do think the US Congress has a responsibility to protect citizens visiting from outside of DC to see the sights or to do a Capitol Hill visit. A safe environment is more important than woke progressive politics in Capitol city.

+1 Exactly--thank you!!

Explain the correlation between an updated criminal code that goes into place in three years and tourist safety. I'm very curious

Does there need to be a correlation? The fact that the revisions would not take effect for several years does not make it any less stupid. If the DC Council wants to be treated like a serious institution, then they should act like one. Carjackings, street robberies, etc. are out of control around here.

Please explain how these changes would lead to more car jackings, street robberies, etc. And please read through this before you give the tired excuses about "lowering sentences"

https://wamu.org/story/23/01/27/dc-criminal-code-overhaul-details/

The point of lowering the maximum sentence is to decrease leverage, which decreases the likelihood of punishment, which increases the rates. And I'm sorry, 4 years for carjacking is just too little. It's a serious, dangerous, invasive crime. Nobody "accidentally" or innocently carjacks such that they deserve a break. There is no nicer form of carjacking.

Also I'm not really an "optics" person, but the optics of focusing on decreasing carjacking sentences (even if you just believe it is on paper) when we are in the middle of a carjacking epidemic just looks clueless.

The current maximums are almost never actually what anyone is sentenced to, though. The point of lowering the maximum sentence was to make it so the law reflected what judges are actually sentencing defendants to. And anyway, most of the bill was doing things like defining the elements of crimes (which is helpful for prosecuting them!) and adding various degrees of crimes so the worst offenders could be treated more harshly.

No question that the supporters of the law blew the "optics" of it all, though.

The council could have passed all the stuff like defining the elements of a crime and getting rid of outdated laws and whatnot -- i.e., 90 percent of the bill -- without the other stuff that drew all the attention, however. Congress wouldn't have noticed it, and it would have become law. But instead, it did what it did and now they all look like tin-earned political clowns who also most likely doomed their chances of ever advancing any higher in Democratic circles (I know Charles Allen has some really big delusions of grandeur about his political career, because he's not shy about talking about them; those dreams are now 100 percent dead, because he's a pariah now).

No one in D.C. politics could possibly hope to advance any higher in Democratic circles before or after this vote — the top elected office in the city is mayor, you can't become a governor, we don't have senators, and we only have one non-voting House seat (which Charles Allen is not about to defeat Eleanor Holmes Norton for).