Ward 4 Councilmember race Todd vs. newcomer Janeese Lewis George

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a Dc City Council race. I don’t give a damn what the candidates think about ICE, quite frankly.

I want my trash picked up on time. I want someone who will hold DC Water and the post office accountable for services. I want to know what they plan to do about schools and education. What are the respective positions on a Ward 4 middle school and keeping Shepherd in bounds for Deal/Wilson?

Do you want someone who's going to roll over to the mayor and her contributors on those? Then vote Brandon Todd.

Do you want someone independent who is only beholden to us and willing to do the right thing? Then vote Janeese Lewis George.

The PP asked questions regarding issues, and you respond with platitudes and generalities.

+1

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a Dc City Council race. I don’t give a damn what the candidates think about ICE, quite frankly.

I want my trash picked up on time. I want someone who will hold DC Water and the post office accountable for services. I want to know what they plan to do about schools and education. What are the respective positions on a Ward 4 middle school and keeping Shepherd in bounds for Deal/Wilson?

Ward 4 already has two middle schools. How many do you want?

Excactly. MacFarland and Brookland are still underenrolled. And Ward boundaries are going to change in 2021 with the new census data so don't be so attached about "Ward 4" schools--

[Anonymous]

Janeese is A boiler plate mix of hip urban socialist mixed with That soft focus liberalism that’s actually more conservative than republicanism. She tries to be everything to everyone and ends-up disappearing like a cloud.

Really no reason to vote for her unless of course you want to destroy DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janeese is A boiler plate mix of hip urban socialist mixed with That soft focus liberalism that’s actually more conservative than republicanism. She tries to be everything to everyone and ends-up disappearing like a cloud.

Really no reason to vote for her unless of course you want to destroy DC.

OK Brandon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janeese is A boiler plate mix of hip urban socialist mixed with That soft focus liberalism that’s actually more conservative than republicanism. She tries to be everything to everyone and ends-up disappearing like a cloud.

Really no reason to vote for her unless of course you want to destroy DC.

OK Brandon

I’m not sure what much of the PP’s word salad really means, but I do agree her brand of liberalism would continue the downward trend on crime. “Destroy” DC is an overstatement, but I do think it will have a material negative effect on quality of life, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janeese is A boiler plate mix of hip urban socialist mixed with That soft focus liberalism that’s actually more conservative than republicanism. She tries to be everything to everyone and ends-up disappearing like a cloud.

Really no reason to vote for her unless of course you want to destroy DC.

OK Brandon

I’m not sure what much of the PP’s word salad really means, but I do agree her brand of liberalism would continue the downward trend on crime. “Destroy” DC is an overstatement, but I do think it will have a material negative effect on quality of life, etc.

The whole point of the programs she supports is that they have been demonstrated to reduce crime. Just adding police, like Brandon wants, does not.
L

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janeese is A boiler plate mix of hip urban socialist mixed with That soft focus liberalism that’s actually more conservative than republicanism. She tries to be everything to everyone and ends-up disappearing like a cloud.

Really no reason to vote for her unless of course you want to destroy DC.

OK Brandon

I’m not sure what much of the PP’s word salad really means, but I do agree her brand of liberalism would continue the downward trend on crime. “Destroy” DC is an overstatement, but I do think it will have a material negative effect on quality of life, etc.

The whole point of the programs she supports is that they have been demonstrated to reduce crime. Just adding police, like Brandon wants, does not.
L

They have not been proven to reduce crime. It is even about adding police. The problem is completely neutering the ones we have. Nadeau already preaches that the cops are the problem and, if only we had more violence interrupters, crime would go down. Unfortunately, the opposite has been happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janeese is A boiler plate mix of hip urban socialist mixed with That soft focus liberalism that’s actually more conservative than republicanism. She tries to be everything to everyone and ends-up disappearing like a cloud.

Really no reason to vote for her unless of course you want to destroy DC.

OK Brandon

I’m not sure what much of the PP’s word salad really means, but I do agree her brand of liberalism would continue the downward trend on crime. “Destroy” DC is an overstatement, but I do think it will have a material negative effect on quality of life, etc.

The whole point of the programs she supports is that they have been demonstrated to reduce crime. Just adding police, like Brandon wants, does not.
L

They have not been proven to reduce crime. It is even about adding police. The problem is completely neutering the ones we have. Nadeau already preaches that the cops are the problem and, if only we had more violence interrupters, crime would go down. Unfortunately, the opposite has been happening.

So you have a track record of success with more police correlating with a reduction in crime? Care to share your source?

The violence interrupters have just recently been started in DC and are not fully implemented in Ward 4.

[Anonymous]

Every day I get stuff in the mail from Todd trashing Janeese. Seems like he's desperate. Maybe he could tell us what he's going to do for his constituents, instead of just tearing down someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every day I get stuff in the mail from Todd trashing Janeese. Seems like he's desperate. Maybe he could tell us what he's going to do for his constituents, instead of just tearing down someone else.

Todd has no depth. He can't come close to competing on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

Right. Same here. Who are these people that get good constituent services? Whenever it's mattered team Todd has fallen through for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

I guess I look at it on a macro, rather than micro, level. Maybe Todd hasn’t been great on the micro, constituent service issues. But I trust him much more on the macro issues and broader policy. To me, that is more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

+1

Todd is literally the worst representative I've ever had at any level of government. Seriously, it cannot possibly get any worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

+1

Todd is literally the worst representative I've ever had at any level of government. Seriously, it cannot possibly get any worse.

If he loses, it will get worse.

Trust me, as someone who has lived in Nadeau's ward for the entirety of her tenure: it can get worse.