Republicans are revving up for a D.C. smackdown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

[Anonymous]

The work is a stacked crony election. Do direct voting and you’ll lose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So you disagree with the majority of voters, but instead of you leaving town (or, again, just beating them in an election), your solution is to overturn their votes. Got it.

[Anonymous]

They’re not a majority though right. I also want term limits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re not a majority though right. I also want term limits

They got the most votes.

If you want direct voting, and/or if you want term limits, and you're not anti-democracy? Go out and do the work.

If you want Congress to take over because you don't want to do the work? You're anti-democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

The democratic idea for addressing that problem: work to increase voter turnout.
The hate-democracy idea for addressing that problem: random Congress members elected by voters elsewhere should make decisions for DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve.

No honey. Anyone who has seen the chuckleheads in Congress hold a hearing knows that they are totally unfit to run anything much less a municipality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve.

No honey. Anyone who has seen the chuckleheads in Congress hold a hearing knows that they are totally unfit to run anything much less a municipality.

Mayors have historically been appointed by the President. You're thinking of the Control Board, which while better than the current situation, would not be as good as an appointed Mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve.

DC doesn't even rank in the top 25 transient cities. I know if you work for the government, or only navigate certain bubbles, you think everyone is a government worker here, but there are plenty of nontransient folks who have lived here their whole lives. But you don't care about their votes/opinions, as long as you can dominate others with your personal opinion of how they should be governed. Basically, you are angry at democracy because you disagree with the majority in the place in which you live.

If you don't like how DC rules itself, you are welcome to move, just like residents of any other place who don't like how it's governed.

I, for instance, will never live in Florida because I hate how it's governed. Hm, maybe the Federal government can depose DeSantis? According to how you think, we should? Heck, maybe we could also override the leaders in TX as they can't seem to get their powergrid sorted out at the expense of their poor citizens?

https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/article/is-dc-still-as-transient-as-everyone-says-it-is-/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve.

I'm a third-generation middle-class college-educated professional D.C. native here (with a degree from a fancy college) with kids who are more than halfway through their DCPS careers, so apparently I don't fit in your categorization scheme, but your whole argument boils down to "I don't like the public policy in the city I live in so I want a deus ex machina to magically change it for me." The irony of suggesting this is the best possible solution in the capital of a country that proclaims itself to be the world's greatest democracy seems to be going right past you, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the Mendo-Allen North Korea job for life corrupt for me but not for thee brand of “democracy”

You want Mendo and Allen out? Find better candidates to run against them and work hard so those candidates win. Just deciding you don't like the incumbents and can't be bothered to try to defeat them, then asking for Congress to step in and wipe out everyone else's vote, makes you not only antidemocratic but also lazy.

DP. I would prefer to get rid of the people who keep voting for the Mendo and Allens of the world, but getting a Federal takeover is probably easier.

So the majority of the voters, you want to get rid of them because you don't like how the majority votes? I mean I already thought you sounded like you had dictator like tendencies, but whoa.

Keep in mind that the people that voted for Mendo in the last election represent about 22% of the city. Allen much less. The rest of the city, its workers and visitors get held hostage by these people.

A nation's capital should be representative of more than the just the lunatic fringe of residents. The city refuses to admit it has problems, and the activists here are offended anyone would dare try to solve problems. This is why a Federal intervention is inevitable. DC is not capable of restraining its worst impulses.

I didn't vote for Mendo, either, and I've never lived in Allen's ward, so I've never voted for or against him. I'm not an activist, I just believe in democracy.

You're still reaching for the most extreme possible solution rather than working to address your complaints by, say, persuading some of the remaining 78 percent of residents to vote. Wouldn't it be better to elect people who are representative of MORE of the city, rather than having people be appointed who represent 0 percent of its residents?

There's nothing extreme in returning to a tried and true solution, one that is historically and Constitutionally appropriate.

What is extreme is insisting on Home Rule when its obviously not working. You can churn candidates all you like, but DC is structurally incapable of producing quality leaders. We can go into why in more detail, but in short DC is small city in the heart of a larger metro, its a one-party town, and its population is either highly transient or mired in multi-generational poverty. This makes DC the perfect place for someone to blow into town with a receipt from a fancy college, demand changes and promptly move away as soon as they have to experience the consequences of their demands.

I would be a much bigger supporter of Home Rule if you had to live here another 20 years and keep your kids in the public school system for the duration of that time as a condition to vote. If people had skin in the game, they might actually be forced to make good decisions.

But an appointed Mayor would be easier to achieve.

Show us how Home Rule is "obviously not working," with specific examples. "I don't like that the crime rate is going up" is not a reason to throw out principles of local control, nor is "I think I'm smarter than the people who win elections here" or variations on that theme. What would you expect an appointed mayor and Council to do differently on day 1?

And Home Rule is more than 50 years old, and the Control Board more than 20 years defunct, so the fact that D.C. spent most of the 19th and 20th centuries being run without local input doesn't really seem like a great support for your claim that the natural state of affairs here is for the citizens of the city to just shut up and take whatever we get.