Chamber of Commerce suppressing Ghoulet's racist comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC council then why is it problematic to be racist or classist?

It is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC Council. Next question?

It absolutely is acceptable both to voters and to Trayon's fellow council members, who did nothing to sanction him.

What practical repercussion is there on a sanction?

Pressure to resign, removal from committee assignments, and ultimately being voted out

[Anonymous]

If he does harbor these views, someone creative enough can find a way to extract a similar statement and ensure that it is recorded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC council then why is it problematic to be racist or classist?

It is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC Council. Next question?

And yet, Trayvon White, who said Jews control the weather (among other heinously anti-Semitic statements) is on the DC Council. Nice attempt to deflect though.

Cool. Well, fortunately for the voters in Ward 3, Trayon White's constituents have no say in the matter. And, unfortunate as it may be for you and Trump voters alike, we cannot undo the results of a free and fair election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC council then why is it problematic to be racist or classist?

It is not acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the DC Council. Next question?

It absolutely is acceptable both to voters and to Trayon's fellow council members, who did nothing to sanction him.

What practical repercussion is there on a sanction?

As a hypothetical exercise, let's say it was Charles Allen who said Jews control the weather instead of Trayon. He would have been kicked off the Council, and you know it. Instead, we basically got "well, Trayon doesn't know any better so it's okay for him to say such things."

In most liberal places, saying something as hateful and anti-Semitic as what Trayon said would be grounds for immediate dismissal. If I said that at my job, I would be fired, deservedly so.

[Anonymous]

Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.

Based on statements from Trayon and Goulet I think DC politicians spent so much time around the MAGA politicals that they now openly spout anti-Semitic and racist remarks publicly. This is a council fit for rural Alabama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.

And? Is your understanding of racism really that basic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Goulet's wife is non-white (Asian) and they have mixed-race children.

Based on statements from Trayon and Goulet I think DC politicians spent so much time around the MAGA politicals that they now openly spout anti-Semitic and racist remarks publicly. This is a council fit for rural Alabama.

Goulet hasn't been elected to the Council. Yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Chamber of Commerce hosted a Ward 3 Council candidate forum two weeks ago. The debate was recorded.

During the debate, candidate Eric Ghoulet equated non-white residents of Ward 3 with voucher recipients, indicating that he viewed them as one-and-the-same. Other candidates immediately called him out on it.

Several people including fellow candidates asked the Chamber for the video. They said they would share it.

The Chamber of Commerce now says they won't release the video of the event.

''

Goulet, not Ghoulet.

I’m pretty sure the misspelling is intentional.

[Anonymous]

The Chamber is definitely protecting Goulet. This stinks to high heaven.

[Anonymous]

Assuming that he said something that offended most of the other candidates and assuming that the Chamber is not going to release the video, those candidates could put out a sworn statement describing his comments.

I do wonder, though, whether this coming out (by video or a sworn statement) would benefit any of the progressive candidates. Any publicity is good publicity and there are enough reactionary elements in the ward that the controversy could win Goulet votes. And if his supporters did desert him, they are going to another moderate (Frumin?) and thereby will consolidate the moderate vote, which is the last thing the progressive candidates need given that they will split that vote four ways or whatever.

The Chamber may be unintentionally doing the progressive candidates a favor by keeping the video under wraps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that he said something that offended most of the other candidates and assuming that the Chamber is not going to release the video, those candidates could put out a sworn statement describing his comments.

I do wonder, though, whether this coming out (by video or a sworn statement) would benefit any of the progressive candidates. Any publicity is good publicity and there are enough reactionary elements in the ward that the controversy could win Goulet votes. And if his supporters did desert him, they are going to another moderate (Frumin?) and thereby will consolidate the moderate vote, which is the last thing the progressive candidates need given that they will split that vote four ways or whatever.

The Chamber may be unintentionally doing the progressive candidates a favor by keeping the video under wraps.

It was discussed on twitter at the time and after, you can do a search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that he said something that offended most of the other candidates and assuming that the Chamber is not going to release the video, those candidates could put out a sworn statement describing his comments.

I do wonder, though, whether this coming out (by video or a sworn statement) would benefit any of the progressive candidates. Any publicity is good publicity and there are enough reactionary elements in the ward that the controversy could win Goulet votes. And if his supporters did desert him, they are going to another moderate (Frumin?) and thereby will consolidate the moderate vote, which is the last thing the progressive candidates need given that they will split that vote four ways or whatever.

The Chamber may be unintentionally doing the progressive candidates a favor by keeping the video under wraps.

It was discussed on twitter at the time and after, you can do a search.

I spent a good ten minutes trying to find it via Twitter and Google and couldn’t come up with any other than Goulet’s own tweets.
Spare a DCUMer a link, would ya?

[Anonymous]

The question was about economic disparity between races in the ward.

Goulet went first and immediately equated persona of color in Ward 3 with voucher recipients. The racial disparity in the ward is because voucher recipients don’t have enough support services from the city.

The other candidates immediately castigated him for assuming all persons of color in the ward are voucher recipients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question was about economic disparity between races in the ward.

Goulet went first and immediately equated persona of color in Ward 3 with voucher recipients. The racial disparity in the ward is because voucher recipients don’t have enough support services from the city.

The other candidates immediately castigated him for assuming all persons of color in the ward are voucher recipients.

I’m sure, disproportionately, they are. People of color, particularly African Americans, are at the bottom of every demographic comparison across every and all systems we measure. Health, education, housing, income, wealth, employment, and crime. That’s what systemic racism is. So was he saying he’s trying to improve access for people of color? Or was it actually nefarious?