Ward 4 Election

[Anonymous]

No, retail theft is not equivalent to murder but it harms businesses and eventually causes stores to leave. What is wrong with good old fashioned community service. Kids in bright yellow vests forced to be out picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, essentially being obligated to do something positive for their own community to atone for the damage thievery does to the social fabric.

[Anonymous]

JLG wants to coddle and wants to punish their victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, retail theft is not equivalent to murder but it harms businesses and eventually causes stores to leave. What is wrong with good old fashioned community service. Kids in bright yellow vests forced to be out picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, essentially being obligated to do something positive for their own community to atone for the damage thievery does to the social fabric.

You're describing slavery, not community service.

This W4 resident supports JLGs amendment, in line with 46 states. It doesn't legalize theft under 1,000, it's just not a felony on the first offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, retail theft is not equivalent to murder but it harms businesses and eventually causes stores to leave. What is wrong with good old fashioned community service. Kids in bright yellow vests forced to be out picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, essentially being obligated to do something positive for their own community to atone for the damage thievery does to the social fabric.

You're describing slavery, not community service.

This W4 resident supports JLGs amendment, in line with 46 states. It doesn't legalize theft under 1,000, it's just not a felony on the first offense.

De jure, no. De facto, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, retail theft is not equivalent to murder but it harms businesses and eventually causes stores to leave. What is wrong with good old fashioned community service. Kids in bright yellow vests forced to be out picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, essentially being obligated to do something positive for their own community to atone for the damage thievery does to the social fabric.

You're describing slavery, not community service.

This W4 resident supports JLGs amendment, in line with 46 states. It doesn't legalize theft under 1,000, it's just not a felony on the first offense.

Once the stores leave we’ll just move on to stealing your packages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, retail theft is not equivalent to murder but it harms businesses and eventually causes stores to leave. What is wrong with good old fashioned community service. Kids in bright yellow vests forced to be out picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, essentially being obligated to do something positive for their own community to atone for the damage thievery does to the social fabric.

You're describing slavery, not community service.

This W4 resident supports JLGs amendment, in line with 46 states. It doesn't legalize theft under 1,000, it's just not a felony on the first offense.

De jure, no. De facto, yes.

De facto has a lot more to do with how the law is implemented. The things you describe such as community service - why aren't those being implemented? Are you suggesting they can't for a misdemeanor? You think you need a felony label to make someone do community service?

I'm looking for practical answers, and all this anti-JLG stuff comes off as petty and political. I'm guessing it comes from the mayor's interests, police union types, and others who aren't being catered to by the usual political sycophants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

The average murder suspect in Washington D.C. has previously been arrested 11 times.

25 years ago, the average murder suspect in Washington D.C. had previously been arrested 5 times.

Please, tell us again how we're putting too many people in jail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She thinks she knows better than her constituents. That's why she ignores them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She thinks she knows better than her constituents. That's why she ignores them.

Counter; you aren't the majority that you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

"Violence interrupters" began in Chicago in the early 1990s. It failed, badly. These aren't new ideas. They're only new to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She thinks she knows better than her constituents. That's why she ignores them.

Counter; you aren't the majority that you think you are.

Everyone knew Brandon Todd was going to lose long before the election.

It wasn't because of Janeese. No one even knew who she was or what she wanted and they didnt care either. Ward 4 just frustrated that Brandon never seemed to do anything. He was a potted plant.

But the antipathy today to Janeese runs far deeper than it ever did with Brandon Todd because her constituents think she is making their lives a lot worse. What's worse, she seems openly contemptuous of her constituents, and now the feelings are mutual.

[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.

Criminals are Janeese’s political base.

Pretty soon they will outnumber regular people in Ward 4 so maybe it's not a bad strategy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

"Violence interrupters" began in Chicago in the early 1990s. It failed, badly. These aren't new ideas. They're only new to you.

How much has been spent on violence interruption in DC over the last 20 years?
How much has been spent on police and jails in DC over the last 20 years?

Now which one is "failing"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She thinks she knows better than her constituents. That's why she ignores them.

Counter; you aren't the majority that you think you are.

Everyone knew Brandon Todd was going to lose long before the election.

It wasn't because of Janeese. No one even knew who she was or what she wanted and they didnt care either. Ward 4 just frustrated that Brandon never seemed to do anything. He was a potted plant.

But the antipathy today to Janeese runs far deeper than it ever did with Brandon Todd because her constituents think she is making their lives a lot worse. What's worse, she seems openly contemptuous of her constituents, and now the feelings are mutual.

I volunteered for Janeese in her first run. There was definitely not an assumption that she'd win over Brandon Todd. As the incumbent with name recognition and the Mayor's backing it was not a done deal. The previous election, Brandon Todd beat challengers even though he was just as useless then.

You are welcome to your own feelings about Janeese. I disagree and still appreciate the perspective she brings. We'll see soon who is the majority.