Ward 4 Election

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still happy with Janeese and going to vote for her again. I think her positions and actions on crime have been far more insightful than the standard Bowser stooge who's just looking at what polls well. Brandon Todd never did anything meaningful and we don't need a repeat of him.

Serious question: what are you talking about here? I hated Todd, supported and voted Janeese expecting insight and reasonable positions (she's a lawyer, she's clearly intelligent! She grew up in the area, she should have some level of concern for the constituents that goes beyond "what can they do for me?", etc.) but I've found her to be a complete and utter disappointment.

Both George & Todd seem to think photo ops and having someone from their office reply "we'll look into it!" are the hallmarks of good governance. At least Todd would send the leaf sweepers back around if they missed your block.

Have you read anything from her about crime or just skimmed the headlines?

I mean, she does take photos too, but if you're not seeing the depth that she brings then look a little harder. Here's an example:
https://janeeseward4.com/councilmember-lewis-george-holds-ward-4-summer-safety-strategic-meeting/

Here's another: https://janeeseward4.com/statement-on-the-tragic-killing-of-a-student/
"We cannot tolerate any degree of gun violence in our city, especially near our schools. Every agency and every community needs to be mobilized to keep our children safe. First, the individuals responsible for this horrific act need to be brought to justice."

This is someone who is smart on crime. The people pushing the "soft on crime" narrative sound like standard GOP/green team talking points. I don't buy it.

I read everything she sends, and I also watch what she does. Your assumption that anyone who is disappointed with her must be misinformed is pretty strange. She says we need to bring this criminal to justice, but then is the ONLY councilmember to vote against the emergency crime bill. She refuses to entertain the idea of pre-trial detainment for serious crimes, even though we're seeing again and again that the people being arrested for carjackings are already awaiting trial on previous charges. She's not "smart on crime" at all, but maybe she's smart on playing a certain type of voter if that one soundbite, which flies in the face of her actual votes, is all it takes for you to cheerlead her on anonymous message boards.

Pretrial detention can be used as a way to harass people who are not actually the violent criminals. It has a history of messing up innocent people's lives. There are times when it's appropriate but there's a balance there and oversimplifying it doesn't make you credible.

You are the one oversimplifying here. The "times when it is appropriate" are when carjackers have three outstanding charges and get arrested a fourth time, which is exactly the time JLG voted against detention. But I see why you like George if "deflect and think about the criminals and only the criminals" is your response to actual measures intended to reduce crime. What we are doing right now is emphatically not working. There's a middle ground between stop and frisk and "free for all" and when you decide that any attempts to actually curb crime are actually government harassment of innocent individuals, you have end up with what we have now. Kids getting shot, carjackings through the roof, violent crime skyrocketing, property crime not even being tracked. You can keep voting for it. Many of the rest of us in Ward 4 will not (though I imagine JLG will still be reelected, because that's what happens with incumbents).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still happy with Janeese and going to vote for her again. I think her positions and actions on crime have been far more insightful than the standard Bowser stooge who's just looking at what polls well. Brandon Todd never did anything meaningful and we don't need a repeat of him.

Serious question: what are you talking about here? I hated Todd, supported and voted Janeese expecting insight and reasonable positions (she's a lawyer, she's clearly intelligent! She grew up in the area, she should have some level of concern for the constituents that goes beyond "what can they do for me?", etc.) but I've found her to be a complete and utter disappointment.

Both George & Todd seem to think photo ops and having someone from their office reply "we'll look into it!" are the hallmarks of good governance. At least Todd would send the leaf sweepers back around if they missed your block.

Have you read anything from her about crime or just skimmed the headlines?

I mean, she does take photos too, but if you're not seeing the depth that she brings then look a little harder. Here's an example:
https://janeeseward4.com/councilmember-lewis-george-holds-ward-4-summer-safety-strategic-meeting/

Here's another: https://janeeseward4.com/statement-on-the-tragic-killing-of-a-student/
"We cannot tolerate any degree of gun violence in our city, especially near our schools. Every agency and every community needs to be mobilized to keep our children safe. First, the individuals responsible for this horrific act need to be brought to justice."

This is someone who is smart on crime. The people pushing the "soft on crime" narrative sound like standard GOP/green team talking points. I don't buy it.

I read everything she sends, and I also watch what she does. Your assumption that anyone who is disappointed with her must be misinformed is pretty strange. She says we need to bring this criminal to justice, but then is the ONLY councilmember to vote against the emergency crime bill. She refuses to entertain the idea of pre-trial detainment for serious crimes, even though we're seeing again and again that the people being arrested for carjackings are already awaiting trial on previous charges. She's not "smart on crime" at all, but maybe she's smart on playing a certain type of voter if that one soundbite, which flies in the face of her actual votes, is all it takes for you to cheerlead her on anonymous message boards.

Pretrial detention can be used as a way to harass people who are not actually the violent criminals. It has a history of messing up innocent people's lives. There are times when it's appropriate but there's a balance there and oversimplifying it doesn't make you credible.

You are the one oversimplifying here. The "times when it is appropriate" are when carjackers have three outstanding charges and get arrested a fourth time, which is exactly the time JLG voted against detention. But I see why you like George if "deflect and think about the criminals and only the criminals" is your response to actual measures intended to reduce crime. What we are doing right now is emphatically not working. There's a middle ground between stop and frisk and "free for all" and when you decide that any attempts to actually curb crime are actually government harassment of innocent individuals, you have end up with what we have now. Kids getting shot, carjackings through the roof, violent crime skyrocketing, property crime not even being tracked. You can keep voting for it. Many of the rest of us in Ward 4 will not (though I imagine JLG will still be reelected, because that's what happens with incumbents).

You're welcome to misquote and make assumptions about me, but that's on you, and isn't a conversation in good faith.

If you actually want to listen, we're not that far apart in what we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still happy with Janeese and going to vote for her again. I think her positions and actions on crime have been far more insightful than the standard Bowser stooge who's just looking at what polls well. Brandon Todd never did anything meaningful and we don't need a repeat of him.

Serious question: what are you talking about here? I hated Todd, supported and voted Janeese expecting insight and reasonable positions (she's a lawyer, she's clearly intelligent! She grew up in the area, she should have some level of concern for the constituents that goes beyond "what can they do for me?", etc.) but I've found her to be a complete and utter disappointment.

Both George & Todd seem to think photo ops and having someone from their office reply "we'll look into it!" are the hallmarks of good governance. At least Todd would send the leaf sweepers back around if they missed your block.

Have you read anything from her about crime or just skimmed the headlines?

I mean, she does take photos too, but if you're not seeing the depth that she brings then look a little harder. Here's an example:
https://janeeseward4.com/councilmember-lewis-george-holds-ward-4-summer-safety-strategic-meeting/

Here's another: https://janeeseward4.com/statement-on-the-tragic-killing-of-a-student/
"We cannot tolerate any degree of gun violence in our city, especially near our schools. Every agency and every community needs to be mobilized to keep our children safe. First, the individuals responsible for this horrific act need to be brought to justice."

This is someone who is smart on crime. The people pushing the "soft on crime" narrative sound like standard GOP/green team talking points. I don't buy it.

I read everything she sends, and I also watch what she does. Your assumption that anyone who is disappointed with her must be misinformed is pretty strange. She says we need to bring this criminal to justice, but then is the ONLY councilmember to vote against the emergency crime bill. She refuses to entertain the idea of pre-trial detainment for serious crimes, even though we're seeing again and again that the people being arrested for carjackings are already awaiting trial on previous charges. She's not "smart on crime" at all, but maybe she's smart on playing a certain type of voter if that one soundbite, which flies in the face of her actual votes, is all it takes for you to cheerlead her on anonymous message boards.

Pretrial detention can be used as a way to harass people who are not actually the violent criminals. It has a history of messing up innocent people's lives. There are times when it's appropriate but there's a balance there and oversimplifying it doesn't make you credible.

You are the one oversimplifying here. The "times when it is appropriate" are when carjackers have three outstanding charges and get arrested a fourth time, which is exactly the time JLG voted against detention. But I see why you like George if "deflect and think about the criminals and only the criminals" is your response to actual measures intended to reduce crime. What we are doing right now is emphatically not working. There's a middle ground between stop and frisk and "free for all" and when you decide that any attempts to actually curb crime are actually government harassment of innocent individuals, you have end up with what we have now. Kids getting shot, carjackings through the roof, violent crime skyrocketing, property crime not even being tracked. You can keep voting for it. Many of the rest of us in Ward 4 will not (though I imagine JLG will still be reelected, because that's what happens with incumbents).

You're welcome to misquote and make assumptions about me, but that's on you, and isn't a conversation in good faith.

If you actually want to listen, we're not that far apart in what we want.

Nice try. You accused me of only "skimming headlines" and of pushing GOP talking points, said I was oversimplifying because you didn't expect me to have a response and didn't want to engage in good faith, and now you're a victim of the conversation who actually cares about crime? Nah. You are not a credible interlocutor.

Vote for more of the same if that's what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still happy with Janeese and going to vote for her again. I think her positions and actions on crime have been far more insightful than the standard Bowser stooge who's just looking at what polls well. Brandon Todd never did anything meaningful and we don't need a repeat of him.

Serious question: what are you talking about here? I hated Todd, supported and voted Janeese expecting insight and reasonable positions (she's a lawyer, she's clearly intelligent! She grew up in the area, she should have some level of concern for the constituents that goes beyond "what can they do for me?", etc.) but I've found her to be a complete and utter disappointment.

Both George & Todd seem to think photo ops and having someone from their office reply "we'll look into it!" are the hallmarks of good governance. At least Todd would send the leaf sweepers back around if they missed your block.

Have you read anything from her about crime or just skimmed the headlines?

I mean, she does take photos too, but if you're not seeing the depth that she brings then look a little harder. Here's an example:
https://janeeseward4.com/councilmember-lewis-george-holds-ward-4-summer-safety-strategic-meeting/

Here's another: https://janeeseward4.com/statement-on-the-tragic-killing-of-a-student/
"We cannot tolerate any degree of gun violence in our city, especially near our schools. Every agency and every community needs to be mobilized to keep our children safe. First, the individuals responsible for this horrific act need to be brought to justice."

This is someone who is smart on crime. The people pushing the "soft on crime" narrative sound like standard GOP/green team talking points. I don't buy it.

I read everything she sends, and I also watch what she does. Your assumption that anyone who is disappointed with her must be misinformed is pretty strange. She says we need to bring this criminal to justice, but then is the ONLY councilmember to vote against the emergency crime bill. She refuses to entertain the idea of pre-trial detainment for serious crimes, even though we're seeing again and again that the people being arrested for carjackings are already awaiting trial on previous charges. She's not "smart on crime" at all, but maybe she's smart on playing a certain type of voter if that one soundbite, which flies in the face of her actual votes, is all it takes for you to cheerlead her on anonymous message boards.

Pretrial detention can be used as a way to harass people who are not actually the violent criminals. It has a history of messing up innocent people's lives. There are times when it's appropriate but there's a balance there and oversimplifying it doesn't make you credible.

You picked that part and ignored that she voted against the emergency bill. It was obvious from Day 1 that she would be Charles Allen not on steroids but on whatever drug would make one weaker and softer on crime.

[Anonymous]

Comparing Janeese to Brandon Todd is a pretty low bar. It’s been pretty surprising to me to see Janeese basically move in lock step with Nadeau.

Janeese and Nadeau may be politically the same, but Janeese is a thousand times more effective. I used to live in Ward 1 and Nadeau did nothing other than support her pet projects and advance her personal beliefs. At least Janeese makes sure that neighbors get services and has a plan to improve the neighborhood. I will consider voting for Lisa because I disagree with a lot of Janeese's policies but I think she is effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I knew Janeese would be an abject failure but even on my most pessimistic day I couldn't have predicted how bad things would become. We're on the precipice of a generational shift in the quality of life in DC. If we're turning back the clock to 1990, Janeese is the one with her hand on the dial.

With Robert White.

[Anonymous]

I'm glad to see Lisa Gore take crime seriously. When she ran last year, she was hanging out with some of the crazy progressives who do not take crime seriously, like Sauleh Siddiqui. Glad she figured out that crime is important for most voters.

[Anonymous]

Gore is not messing around. She knows voters regard JLG as an utter disaster where crime is concerned and clearly is going to hammer her over it.

https://twitter.com/GoreforDC/status/1717589420876960082?t=162Vk7pD8Ea4jgwnc0nDJQ&s=19

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gore is not messing around. She knows voters regard JLG as an utter disaster where crime is concerned and clearly is going to hammer her over it.

https://twitter.com/GoreforDC/status/1717589420876960082?t=162Vk7pD8Ea4jgwnc0nDJQ&s=19

JLG is toast. It's almost hard to imagine a council member fighting crime instead of enabling and encouraging it like JLG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to like Janeese because she seems to really care and show up for the community, but I'm not seeing the accomplishments on public safety that her supporters are claiming exist. She seems really into the whole "reduce crime by investing in the community" schtick (her conflict resolution legislation, investing more in youth services). Those aren't bad goals, it's not addressing the elephant in the room that is criminals throughout DC are acting without fear of consequences, because nobody seems to have the appetite to put them in place. 15-year-olds aren't carjacking because they never learned conflict resolution. I just don't think she's taking the issue seriously at all and she seems hostile to any sort of public safety legislation that's intended to address this. I just can't get on board with that approach. I appreciate Gore's insistence that this is priority number 1 for DC residents right now and I'm eager to hear more from her.

+1

As a ward 4 resident whose child went on lockdown again for gun shots near the school, I am looking for actual action. Or something different. Janeese is just not being effective at addressing crime and it is getting worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to see Lisa Gore take crime seriously. When she ran last year, she was hanging out with some of the crazy progressives who do not take crime seriously, like Sauleh Siddiqui. Glad she figured out that crime is important for most voters.

is he super progressive AND GGWish? Or am I thinking of the wrong guy? ^ That combo has caused a lot of ills for DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to see Lisa Gore take crime seriously. When she ran last year, she was hanging out with some of the crazy progressives who do not take crime seriously, like Sauleh Siddiqui. Glad she figured out that crime is important for most voters.

Ever consider that maybe she’s just telling you whatever she thinks will win her your vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another: https://janeeseward4.com/statement-on-the-tragic-killing-of-a-student/
"We cannot tolerate any degree of gun violence in our city, especially near our schools. Every agency and every community needs to be mobilized to keep our children safe. First, the individuals responsible for this horrific act need to be brought to justice."

This is someone who is smart on crime. The people pushing the "soft on crime" narrative sound like standard GOP/green team talking points. I don't buy it.

You’re example of her being hard on crime is that she agrees that someone who went to a DC school in the middle of the school day and murdered a DC student there should be imprisoned? Have you heard of the phrase “damning with faint praise”?

“Here’s my tough on crime record. I supported the arrest of the DC snipers. I called for people to convict Ted Bundy. I fully supported the governments efforts to prosecute Timothy McVeigh.”

A lot of the other Councilmembers do this too. Frumin in his e-mail always says “I voted to fully fund the DC police force!” You want us to be impressed that you aren’t actively defunding the police?

Really, acting like “We should arrest people who murder DCPS students in cold blood” is some sort of noteworthy stance just shows the degree to which this city has completely fallen apart.

[Anonymous]

I am glad to see Gore take this approach. Last year, she really embraced some of the misguided progressives who won't even talk about crime. I'll be happy to see her take them on this time. If she does, she'll have my vote.

[Anonymous]

The people on here rushing to embrace Gore being she strung a couple of sentences together to harmonize with the tune of the day are the reason we have such cruddy elected officials. Of all the council members and the mayor, I’d have a hard time telling you what any of them stand for besides getting elected. How about you take a look at what Gore was saying in mid-late 2020 before doubling down on the view that she’s the savior the city needs? And how about making it a point to stop being hoodwinked by professional politicians and cast a vote in favor of candidates with substance?