Let’s talk election results. I guess we’re even MORE progressive now in the face of rising crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Wait what?

Spiva was endorsed by the progressives, Schwalb was endorsed by the Washington Post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Schwalb was endorsed by and is in the mold of Racine, who was reluctant to prosecute criminals. Get with the times.

I really don’t think people understand how limited the scope of the DC AG’s office is. If you’re sick of adults being given light sentences for violent crimes or not being prosecuted at all, Statehood is what you want to be fighting for.

+1
And it's also narrow to think that people all voted based on the candidate's positions on crime and law enforcement (which they mostly have VERY limited authority to change) rather than one of the other important issues. Everyone wants to make elections a referendum on their pet issue, but politics are complicated, and a mixed slate like what we ended up with doesn't really tell you much about what voters are thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

Ward 1 is not only rich white people (nor is Ward 6). And policing and crime didn't seem like a major focus of the Ward 3 race for any of the candidates. (If anything, people in Ward 3 lately seem shocked — SHOCKED! — to find that crime sometimes happens here, too, and so you'd think someone could have run hard at that and done well with it, but apparently not.) Also, the D.C. attorney general isn't the chief prosecutor of crimes in the city, anyway, so crime is only tangentially related to that election.

Rich white people in Ward 1 voted Salah, not Nadeau.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

Explain Ward 5, a majority Black ward that elected a progressive, rejecting the Bowser and Washington Post-endorsed candidate?

The easy explanation is that Racine is the local political kingmaker and Bowser has no coattails.

I kinda wish Racine had run for mayor just to see how he would have fared against Bowser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

This completely. At least these ward 3 residents can remain in good standing on the Georgetown cocktail party circuit

Yeah, because we all know people at Georgetown cocktail parties are big fans of higher city taxes, lighter sentences for criminals, and making it harder to drive around D.C.

Point
Your Head

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frumin publicly said that he supports more funding for MPD in the Washington Post. I'm not sure why people think he will be more progressive than Cheh.

Frumin is more wonk than woke. But he can also be a weathervane, depending on his audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

This completely. At least these ward 3 residents can remain in good standing on the Georgetown cocktail party circuit

Yeah, because we all know people at Georgetown cocktail parties are big fans of higher city taxes, lighter sentences for criminals, and making it harder to drive around D.C.

Point
Your Head

If you think the Georgetown cocktail party set is progressive on local government issues, regardless of their views on national politics, you probably haven’t been hanging out in Georgetown much, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

This rice white person in Ward 6 would have loved to vote for someone other than Allen. He ran unopposed. (I wrote someone in).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe people are watching the news and see what criminals the GOP are. Hard to run as being tough in crime when your party is the party of gun lovers and insurrectionists.

Are you thinking of when the Hanafi Muslims took over the District Building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Wait what?

Spiva was endorsed by the progressives, Schwalb was endorsed by the Washington Post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Schwalb was endorsed by and is in the mold of Racine, who was reluctant to prosecute criminals. Get with the times.

I really don’t think people understand how limited the scope of the DC AG’s office is. If you’re sick of adults being given light sentences for violent crimes or not being prosecuted at all, Statehood is what you want to be fighting for.

Now do juveniles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a split. Mayor, AG, at-large and Chair that just won are all moderates. The new Ward councilmembrs are more progressive.

Basically, rich white people in Wards 1 and 3 (Nadeu andn Frumin) and 6 (Allen unopposed) don't really understand that crime is bad for black people primarily and instead get feel-good votes that they imagine make them Good White People.

Ward 1 is not only rich white people (nor is Ward 6). And policing and crime didn't seem like a major focus of the Ward 3 race for any of the candidates. (If anything, people in Ward 3 lately seem shocked — SHOCKED! — to find that crime sometimes happens here, too, and so you'd think someone could have run hard at that and done well with it, but apparently not.) Also, the D.C. attorney general isn't the chief prosecutor of crimes in the city, anyway, so crime is only tangentially related to that election.

Rich white people in Ward 1 voted Salah, not Nadeau.

Rich white person in Ward 1 here. I voted for Nadeau. I don't like her and mostly voted for other people who are less lefty, but I wasn't about to vote for a Republican plant, either. I would have voted for someone else if there was a decent candidate in the race.

[Anonymous]

The people most concerned about crime moved in the past two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

oh come on, "se dc" if it's a part of capitol hill doesn't count

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Wait what?

Spiva was endorsed by the progressives, Schwalb was endorsed by the Washington Post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Schwalb was endorsed by and is in the mold of Racine, who was reluctant to prosecute criminals. Get with the times.

This is the kind of crap im talking about: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-attorney-general-wants-restorative-justice-for-all-juvenile-cases-even-murder

This city will just rot if we let violent crime get a pass. Other states have recalled their progressive on crime da’s (Chesa) and have tempered their outlook on restorative justice, violence interruptors and other routes that lead to incarceration. We have only doubled down as evidenced by this election. It’s just that we have a critical mass of progressive voters. Even with rising crime, they just simply double down on soft on crime folks. Obviously, crime will keep going up and city life will suffer, but hey people have to learn the hard way.

Racine's office isn't responsible for "prosecuting criminals." The federal DA is. Your basic lack of knowledge is embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we’re taking the “addressing the root cause of crime” approach I see with an election of Brian Schwab and an even more left wing, progressive set of council members. At least Bowser won, but still I’m sure it’ll be easier for them to override a veto in order to not keep citizens safe when they pass more soft on crime legislation. What’s next? Taking up the age limit for the youth Rehabiliation act to 31? Less police? Sounds great.

Ugh I wish residents here would pull their heads out of their azzes. Look up once in a while. Maybe a more moderate city council would actually help bring crime down by electing folks who understand that arresting violent criminals is okay, too.

I bet we see other stupid policies like taxes unfriendly on businesses and pushing super low AMI% subsidized housing, so we can be sure to grow more crime organically in areas those pop up.

Are councilmembers supposed to arrest criminals, now?

Plenty of criminals are being arrested. Councilmembers are not the reason so many cases end up being nolle'd. Your ire rests with the USAO.

Op, here. I guess I have to qualify my bonafides to even be worthy in the eyes of this thread to talk, lol, but I am a lifelong resident of SE dc. I have literally see and done more “dc sht” than any of you. Whether it’s seeing crime first hand and be appalled, watching Kim’s karate commercials, soccer on the hill, whatever the fk it takes for you to think I’m “down”.

Anyway, no. The council members have a huge impact on crime. So does the da.

The new da looks to continue the same misguided progressive approach to restorative justice type of criminal justice and Charles Allen types, very soft off crime, are now more represented at the council. It’s just annoying. I know this city well. I know the sorts of folks on the hill, who are well intentioned liberals, but who’s hearts bleed for the criminals. You can see all the yard signs and bumper stickers that indicate the altruism or at least the performative veneer of altruism necessary to convey they are in tune with social causes and blah blah. I love my neighbors. I mean that. I just hate that they seem to self flagellate when it comes to tackling crime. Anyway have a Good one, thank.

If you knew this city as well as you claim to, you’d know that “the new DA” doesn’t prosecute crime in DC. The federal district attorney’s office does that.

DP. FWIW, it’s actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who reports to the US Attorney General and not the “district attorney”. And, they only prosecute adult crime. Juvenile crimes are prosecuted by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia who is elected by voters.