Ward 4 Election

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good thing for her rando internet trolls like you all don't vote

Random internet troll here who cannot wait to vote for Lisa Gore (a name I just learned last week who is the NOT JLG candidate).

Ditto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good thing for her rando internet trolls like you all don't vote

Random internet troll here who cannot wait to vote for Lisa Gore (a name I just learned last week who is the NOT JLG candidate).

Ditto.

Based on what we just learned from the VA elections, I'm not really believing any sample from DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good thing for her rando internet trolls like you all don't vote

Random internet troll here who cannot wait to vote for Lisa Gore (a name I just learned last week who is the NOT JLG candidate).

Ditto.

Based on what we just learned from the VA elections, I'm not really believing any sample from DCUM

What we learned from VA elections is that there is not a red wave lurking in the wings to take out Dems in general elections. Someone voting for Lisa Gore (a democrat) instead of Janeese Lewis George (a different democrat) in the Democratic primary is not relevant to that lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good thing for her rando internet trolls like you all don't vote

Random internet troll here who cannot wait to vote for Lisa Gore (a name I just learned last week who is the NOT JLG candidate).

Ditto.

Based on what we just learned from the VA elections, I'm not really believing any sample from DCUM

What we learned from VA elections is that there is not a red wave lurking in the wings to take out Dems in general elections. Someone voting for Lisa Gore (a democrat) instead of Janeese Lewis George (a different democrat) in the Democratic primary is not relevant to that lesson.

Correct. Gores may end up being a terrible candidate. Or a decent candidate who can’t beat the power of incumbency. But she has my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Violence interrupter programs have been around for 30+ years. The idea that you just heard about it so therefore it's a fresh idea is pretty illuminating to the kinds of people that are committed to defending this nonsense.

So cool, at what levels has DC been funding it over the last 30 years?

Do YOU know the answer to this? If you’re the same poster, you seem to be attacking JLG/violence interruptors detractors by asking about data, but you’re providing none yourself.

As PPs have said, violence interrupters have been around for a long time. Every time a shooting has occurred on Kennedy St. in the last 10 years, the council member’s office response is, we need to ramp up violence interrupters. This was the response when a shooting occurred at 3 p.m. on a weekday on Kennedy, right outside the daycare where my kids were that very day (and where the teachers took the kids out for walks). Touting violence interrupters as an accomplishment is not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those people claiming violence interrupters are a failure, please look up their combined budget (hint: tiny) and the MPD budget (hint: huge with tons of overtime) and tell me how you logically conclude that.

For those who think they're a success, point to one metric that proves that. Just one. And if you're going to point to a reduction in crime in the small areas they serve, please include the areas that directly surround it. Because the crime just moves to where the violence interruptors aren't (if it moves at all, which it mostly doesn't).

How about we fund it seriously for more than a year or two to find out. Police have had how long now? And they still haven't figured it out?

You all started condemning it before it even started, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Violence interrupter programs have been around for 30+ years. The idea that you just heard about it so therefore it's a fresh idea is pretty illuminating to the kinds of people that are committed to defending this nonsense.

So cool, at what levels has DC been funding it over the last 30 years?

Do YOU know the answer to this? If you’re the same poster, you seem to be attacking JLG/violence interruptors detractors by asking about data, but you’re providing none yourself.

As PPs have said, violence interrupters have been around for a long time. Every time a shooting has occurred on Kennedy St. in the last 10 years, the council member’s office response is, we need to ramp up violence interrupters. This was the response when a shooting occurred at 3 p.m. on a weekday on Kennedy, right outside the daycare where my kids were that very day (and where the teachers took the kids out for walks). Touting violence interrupters as an accomplishment is not enough.

1. You (or one of your crime crime crime buddies) pointed to the guardian angels, who are volunteers. The recent round of funding for violence interrupters is about a few years old. I remember the roll out. And they are still at minimal levels unlike MPD.

2. JLG hasn't been in office for 10 years. Are you taking about Brandon Todd also? It's hard to have a serious argument with you when you're so off base.

3. If you actually listen to JLG, read anything she puts out, go to any event on public safety, she has violence interrupters as one component of a bigger system that includes (gasp!) MPD, OAG, USAO, etc.

So you're just not worth having a serious discussion with.

[Anonymous]

Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

I suppose you don't *need* them but why is it bad to have people who know the people and the scene working on diverting before a crime happens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

I suppose you don't *need* them but why is it bad to have people who know the people and the scene working on diverting before a crime happens?

Because that never actually happens? Because it’s a giant waste of money? Because we already have a police force that would love it if Green Party nutjobs like JLG would just let them do their jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

I suppose you don't *need* them but why is it bad to have people who know the people and the scene working on diverting before a crime happens?

NP but when the violence interruptor who is supposed to be supporting student safety is shot and killed outside a school I think we can question the need and why it might be bad. And this was in Ward 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

I suppose you don't *need* them but why is it bad to have people who know the people and the scene working on diverting before a crime happens?

Because they are a way for politicians to pretend like they are doing something while they go out of their way to enable crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

I suppose you don't *need* them but why is it bad to have people who know the people and the scene working on diverting before a crime happens?

NP but when the violence interruptor who is supposed to be supporting student safety is shot and killed outside a school I think we can question the need and why it might be bad. And this was in Ward 4.

I don't follow the logic. Does that mean we should question the need for police and why they might be bad when they get shot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citing the need for violence interruptors is a dog whistle for coddling criminals.

I suppose you don't *need* them but why is it bad to have people who know the people and the scene working on diverting before a crime happens?

Because they are a way for politicians to pretend like they are doing something while they go out of their way to enable crime.

So are the safety walks with MPD. What is it that politicians do that isn't just theater?

[Anonymous]

Add Janeese's plan to make Grant Circle undrivable to the list of reasons to throw her out, on top of her whole pro-criminal thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Add Janeese's plan to make Grant Circle undrivable to the list of reasons to throw her out, on top of her whole pro-criminal thing.

I know. Heaven forbid Ward 4 not cater to suburban drivers and ahole DC drivers who insist on treating Grant Circle like a speedway. Your hate for improved road infrastructure for vulnerable road users in Ward 4 just inspires me to work harder to get JLG re-elected.