Enjoying DC Council get dragged on the Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, I love all the dimwits who start the sentence with “so you believe [something totally unrelated to anything PP said]” so they can then attack the PP for something absurd, patently untrue and reductionist [being a baby-hater]

Absolutely. Like the dimwits who claim the RCCA represents a wholesale relaxation of criminal penalties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People want to whine about “colonialism” when there is now a direct line of responsibility between the DC government’s soft on crime actions and a Congress member getting assaulted in their home. These folks have proved without a doubt that DC is not deserving of statehood when their actions compromise the safety of Federal officials within their jurisdiction.

You are an absolute clown. Do you have the slightest idea which agency would have been responsible for prosecuting the person in question? Do you have the slightest idea who that agency reports to?

Being a clown would more so taking a joking approach toward crime which is what you seem to want. It’s clear that progressive prosecutors pushing progressive criminal justice policies are taking a more lenient approach. Judges aren’t sentencing as harshly. The youth Rehabiliation act shielding violent criminals up till age 26. The second chance act getting people out earlier. Then you have the progressive city council pushing reductions in punishment for car jackings in the criminal code reform at a time of super high car jacking. The same council appropriates millions of our money for “violence interruptors” rather than actual policing. You know that no study conclusively proves they do anything. Might as well wipe your azz with the waste. But oh cool man…John legend is a big proponent of criminal justice reform so it must be working. I mean CVS’s are closing left and right as people walk in an take things without issue, but I mean, all the yard signs show how much you care. Even if these policies make marginalized communities less safe.

That's a heck of a lot of words to say that you don't understand who prosecutes serious crimes committed by adults in DC and who those people report to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the idiot who thinks he’s under colonial rule. It confuses me because he seems very uncivilized?

Oh wise one, what phrase would you use to describe a system of governance where laws made for a jurisdiction by the elected representatives of the local citizenry can be overturned by another body that includes not a single voting representative elected by the citizenry of that jurisdiction? That would seem to me to fairly closely approximate the arrangements by which laws were made by a fair few colonial regimes, but I guess I believe that just because I am an uncivilized idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, I love all the dimwits who start the sentence with “so you believe [something totally unrelated to anything PP said]” so they can then attack the PP for something absurd, patently untrue and reductionist [being a baby-hater]

Absolutely. Like the dimwits who claim the RCCA represents a wholesale relaxation of criminal penalties.

They took the average sentence administered for may crimes and then set that as the maximum sentence for those crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, I love all the dimwits who start the sentence with “so you believe [something totally unrelated to anything PP said]” so they can then attack the PP for something absurd, patently untrue and reductionist [being a baby-hater]

Absolutely. Like the dimwits who claim the RCCA represents a wholesale relaxation of criminal penalties.

They took the average sentence administered for may crimes and then set that as the maximum sentence for those crimes.

Do you understand what sentence enhancements are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the idiot who thinks he’s under colonial rule. It confuses me because he seems very uncivilized?

Oh wise one, what phrase would you use to describe a system of governance where laws made for a jurisdiction by the elected representatives of the local citizenry can be overturned by another body that includes not a single voting representative elected by the citizenry of that jurisdiction? That would seem to me to fairly closely approximate the arrangements by which laws were made by a fair few colonial regimes, but I guess I believe that just because I am an uncivilized idiot.

Ok, you guys are barely elected. Let’s be fair. And no one asked you to pass two incoherent laws and overturn the mayors veto, making a mockery of DC in the process. We did ask you to fix the chrome, trash, city agencies, access to safe housing, health care, education. Crickets on those

[Anonymous]

These two stupid laws would never pass the all voter ballot in DC.

[Anonymous]

Barely elected = choosing a candidate running unopposed, choosing people that are less corrupt, choosing the first name because we’ve never heard of you etc. You’re in it for the salary because you’re otherwise unemployable. Thank Nixon. He had about the same amount of integrity.

Please someone abolish this incompetent excuse for a government

[Anonymous]

Pinto, care to comment? Or is Chanel an enemy of the Party?

[Anonymous]

Chanel = imperialistic colonizers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the idiot who thinks he’s under colonial rule. It confuses me because he seems very uncivilized?

Oh wise one, what phrase would you use to describe a system of governance where laws made for a jurisdiction by the elected representatives of the local citizenry can be overturned by another body that includes not a single voting representative elected by the citizenry of that jurisdiction? That would seem to me to fairly closely approximate the arrangements by which laws were made by a fair few colonial regimes, but I guess I believe that just because I am an uncivilized idiot.

Ok, you guys are barely elected. Let’s be fair. And no one asked you to pass two incoherent laws and overturn the mayors veto, making a mockery of DC in the process. We did ask you to fix the chrome, trash, city agencies, access to safe housing, health care, education. Crickets on those

Crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These two stupid laws would never pass the all voter ballot in DC.

If it went to the voters, the numbers would probably be totally crazy like 80-20 against for both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People want to whine about “colonialism” when there is now a direct line of responsibility between the DC government’s soft on crime actions and a Congress member getting assaulted in their home. These folks have proved without a doubt that DC is not deserving of statehood when their actions compromise the safety of Federal officials within their jurisdiction.

You are an absolute clown. Do you have the slightest idea which agency would have been responsible for prosecuting the person in question? Do you have the slightest idea who that agency reports to?

Being a clown would more so taking a joking approach toward crime which is what you seem to want. It’s clear that progressive prosecutors pushing progressive criminal justice policies are taking a more lenient approach. Judges aren’t sentencing as harshly. The youth Rehabiliation act shielding violent criminals up till age 26. The second chance act getting people out earlier. Then you have the progressive city council pushing reductions in punishment for car jackings in the criminal code reform at a time of super high car jacking. The same council appropriates millions of our money for “violence interruptors” rather than actual policing. You know that no study conclusively proves they do anything. Might as well wipe your azz with the waste. But oh cool man…John legend is a big proponent of criminal justice reform so it must be working. I mean CVS’s are closing left and right as people walk in an take things without issue, but I mean, all the yard signs show how much you care. Even if these policies make marginalized communities less safe.

That's a heck of a lot of words to say that you don't understand who prosecutes serious crimes committed by adults in DC and who those people report to.

I know all about the way crime is prosecuted here. It’s not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Pinto, care to comment? Or is Chanel an enemy of the Party?

We.really are becoming San Francisco..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

No, Congress gets oversight over DC because the writers of the Constitution didn't envision a city that people would live in, pay taxes in, and expect representation in. I don't blame them for not having a crystal ball. I do blame hypocritical Republican representatives from random states a long way from DC who believe it's somehow appropriate for them to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters of DC, how they do or do not get to spend DC tax money. Indefensible hypocrisy, no matter how much they try to dress it up.

+1 I heard some jacka$$ congressman from Georgia on the radio today say that the streets of DC are so filled with criminals that he is afraid to be on them. I don't think HE has ever been on them in the first place! And I am NOT for the current version to reform the criminal code, but how dare these hayseeds blow into town and decide what we do?

Could we just let the residents of DC not pay federal taxes if we have to put up with this??

How dare one group of hayseeds who blew into town tell another group of hayseeds who blew into town how to run DC? What do you think the council would look like if you had to live here 10 years before voting? Had to be born here?

Should we do that for the whole United States too? OK MAGA