WaPo editorial calls out “machinations… of the council’s far left wing” in trying to stop Goulet

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

are black voucher recipients a source of crime? sounds like an empirical question to me.

If that is all that it is, why are Goulet and the Chamber hiding it? Obviously, if you respond to a question about racial and economic diversity by saying that black voucher recipients are a source of crime, it's a bit more than an empirical question.

your fixation on “release the video” is just as specious as “but her emails!”

goulet pretty clearly went on the record saying he has concerns about crime in the voucher buildings. that’s a concern voiced by a lot of other sources. there’s nothing at all hidden about his view on crime and the voucher buildings. he says it outright here: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/

moreover, the implication here is that nobody is allowed to talk about crime and vouchers in Ward 3 - progressives forbid it! Pure cancellation material. I hope voters see right through it.

Okay, great! It now appears that you and I can both agree that Goulet responded to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher-holders being a source of crime. Obviously we don't agree about the implications of that, but at least we can agree that is what happened, right?

No, that’s a caricature of what he said. You can post the entire transcript of the first part, then append his concerns (broadly shared) about crimes in the voucher building.

Enough with false accusations of racism. Too toxic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

Cover up, right. Do you think the CIA might be involved?

This video is the exact opposite of racist. He actually sounds quite sensitive and clearly knows the issue.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

Cover up, right. Do you think the CIA might be involved?

This video is the exact opposite of racist. He actually sounds quite sensitive and clearly knows the issue.

Well, of course, as the Goulet supporter above points out, the video only includes the first part of his answer. The Chamber of Commerce refuses to release the video and Goulet only released an edited clip that makes him look look sensitive. It doesn't take the CIA to do that. Even an amateur was able to convince you.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

There's a logical leap that the lack of support for voucher recipients results in increased crime. Please explain the causation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A few thousand Democratic activists shouldn’t get to dictate how this city is run.

Well if Goulet is elected we can have a handful of billionaires dictate how this city is run. Is that more to your liking?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

He was asked specifically about low-income african american residents and he responded by critiquing the program designed to bring low income residents to W3. So now you think he should have been talking about the black UMC? well you would not like that answer either, because it’s about schools and the lack of academic rigor and lack of discipline at Deal and JH.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

This makes zero sense.

It's amazing how much mileage people accusing Goulet of being racist have gotten despite everything they're saying having no basis whatsoever in fact. This is nothing more than a campaign dirty trick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

There's a logical leap that the lack of support for voucher recipients results in increased crime. Please explain the causation.

The recipients are clustered in buildings without support- lots of complaints about crime in those buildings. https://thedcline.org/2019/05/31/a-connecticut-avenue-apartment-complex-shows-effects-of-a-legal-loophole-and-cracks-in-city-housing-subsidy-programs/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

This makes zero sense.

It's amazing how much mileage people accusing Goulet of being racist have gotten despite everything they're saying having no basis whatsoever in fact. This is nothing more than a campaign dirty trick.

anyone who *actually cares* about racism should be disgusted by false accusations of racism being used as a dirty trick.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

This makes zero sense.

It's amazing how much mileage people accusing Goulet of being racist have gotten despite everything they're saying having no basis whatsoever in fact. This is nothing more than a campaign dirty trick.

I guess if you also think "diversity" means poor black people who cause crime, it makes zero sense to you. But, other candidates were able to address the question is ways that demonstrated a more realistic vision of diversity.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the question:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1527304661597683716

This was the answer:
https://twitter.com/ejgoulet/status/1526981806859223040

Maybe someone can be so kind as to transcrube it all so that we can collectively dissect it.

I don't think it was a good answer to the question but YMMV.

omg. THAT is what they are trying to smear him with? He gave a really good, non-racist answer. Seriously wtf.

If this is the answer everyone is complaining about, DCUM's own Jeff Steele and a lot of other people owe Goulet an apology.

That is not his full answer. It is cut off at the end and doesn't include his allegation that black voucher recipients are a source of crime. That's why we deserve that the Chamber of Commerce release the entire video.

Seems really shitty of you, Jeff. Goulet is presenting a pretty sensitive description of the issue. For you to accuse him of later veering into some awful racist thing when you can't even tell us what he said is just gross. You're just lying and slinging mud here, Jeff. Is that the purpose of DCUM? To lie about candidates you don't like?

I would love to be able to provide an exact quote, but due to the cover-up being staged by Goulet and the Chamber of Commerce, I can't. It is pretty shocking that you are such a staunch supporter of suppressing the facts. You and I both know that I am not lying. Is it your position that Goulet didn't mention crime in his answer?

lol Jeff. there is no cover up Goulet posted a clip of the first part of his answer, and is on the record elsewhere with the second supposedly offensive part of his answer.

Fine, as I said above, we can both agree that Goulet replied to a question about racial and economic diversity by discussing black voucher recipients being a source of crime. This is what I've been saying all along and getting called a liar for my efforts. But, now it turns out that you agree this is what happened. Now you are also agreeing that the video that some posters are claiming exonerates him doesn't include crucial parts of his answer.

Yes, you are still dissembling.

He responded to a long, multi-part question about what he would do to increase racial and economic diversity in Ward 3 by addressing the fact that the primary government program to create that diversity, vouchers, is failing to provide proper supports to recipients, resulting in their inability to access jobs and mental health care, and resulting in increased crime in the buildings. The most you can criticize him for is that his answer is a criticism instead of an affirmative policy proposal.

That's what I've been saying. His reaction to increasing diversity was to focus entirely on black voucher recipients who he thinks cause crime. Why didn't he mention middle class, upper middle class, or wealthy black residents and what could be done to attract them to Ward 3? Does diversity only mean poor and black to him?

This makes zero sense.

It's amazing how much mileage people accusing Goulet of being racist have gotten despite everything they're saying having no basis whatsoever in fact. This is nothing more than a campaign dirty trick.

anyone who *actually cares* about racism should be disgusted by false accusations of racism being used as a dirty trick.

Anyone who actually cares about racism should be disgusted by a candidates who reacts to a question about diversity by saying black voucher recipients are a source of crime.