Ward 4 Election

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's over - Lisa getting absolutely smoked in the $$

https://x.com/alisonhorndc/status/1758200212802187766?s=46&t=EwM4bfthPj_yHwyhXgwkdw

She has like another $60k in public funding coming soon (and she would already have it if she didn't screw up her initial campaign filing)

She also has screwed up in a giant ANC email thread - claiming she was hacked when she replied all instead of forwarding an email as attended. Gore is really off to the races to show she is not competent enough to be on Council, which says a lot.

Are you actually familiar with the Council? "No crime crisis!" Phil? "J$ws control the weather!" Trayon?

Reply all to an email is hardly disqualifying. Crime is a very serious issue, one you clearly dismiss in bringing up such an utterly trifling point to try to deflect. Wow.

A very serious issue that benefits from a deep understanding of the issues. That's what I've seen from Janeese Lewis George. I appreciate that she doesn't just blow with the winds of what's popular. We had Brandon Todd before and he'd do exactly that. It's useless, and I don't want to go back to that. I'd rather be able to have a meaningful discussion with Janeese even if we're not eye to eye on every issue.

I'm sure the mayor would love to go back to having another lackey on the council.

DP but let's assume for the sake of discussion that JLG does have a deep understanding of the issues. What "benefits" on crime have you seen from that understanding? How exactly is crime getting better? Where are the benefits? Be specific, and don't just use platitudes from a website. What has she done to improve anything w/r/t crime? Because all I see from her is blowing with the winds of what's popular - blew in on an AOC current and now, just in the last two months, finally starting to smell that the wind is coming from a different direction and tries to pay lip service to the idea that her consituents don't actually want to dodge bullets daily. She's not good at paying lip service which is probably to her credit - she believes the stuff she said the first time and it hurts her spirit to pretend to get along with cops or want criminals arrested - but she's trying to say what people want to hear anyway.

As a councilmember, her job is policy and budget. The mayor and MPD are responsible for executing. So your question can't actually be answered unless she put on a cape and started Bat-manning criminals at night.

Your last paragraph is just demonstrably false - she's always worked with MPD.

Who are you and why are you bantering around talking points? As a ward 4 resident I find that extremely off-putting and only more of a reason to support Janeese.

Who am I? A Ward 4 resident asking you to back up your talking points. You are on here caping for her as the best option who has a deep understanding of the issues and then . . . cannot back it up with even one word. You also don't appear to know what a paragraph is, which is not a testament to whatever elementary school you attended. Support who you want but people can see lack of substance and hopping on here every month to crow about campaign contributions is not changing hearts and minds like you think.

I don't think you're worth a detailed explanation. So sorry about mixing up paragraph vs. part of your post. I can see that's extremely upsetting to you. Have a great day.

DP, but, that's the best you've got?

Yikes.

These people all have records, why can no one seem to make a positive case based on those specifics? Not for JLG, Nadeau or Allen? Try harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

[Anonymous]

I really do not understand this. Janeese is not awful, but Lisa can't find a position to stand upon and can't stand upon a position she's found. Based on Gore's floundering over the past three weeks, she seems like she'd be either Mendo's puppet or Trayon's accidental foot-in-mouth savior. She simply is not fit for Council, unless you want Council to be more of a national laughingstock.

[Anonymous]

oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

Her amendment to defang the retail theft section passed. Retail deserts can join the food deserts in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

Eventually gets out? With no freaking crime lab, the prosecutor office doesn't even bother trying to put them in jail. Bowser really screwed the pooch on the crime lab, and the council should have been raising hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

Criminals are Janeese’s political base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

“Violence prevention programs” have been tried for forty years. They don’t work. You what works? Putting people in jail for a really long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

Her amendment to defang the retail theft section passed. Retail deserts can join the food deserts in DC.

At least she’s consistent. Janeese can always be counted on to give her constituents the middle finger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

Her amendment to defang the retail theft section passed. Retail deserts can join the food deserts in DC.

At what point are there enough fangs for you? When retail theft is equivalent to murder? Shoot them on the spot? No thanks.