Kenyan or Janeese?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

Wrong. She's voted against making strangulation a felony, she's voted against allowing landlords to evict adjudicated violent criminals, and her highest-paid campaign staffer is the co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition and a police abolitionist.

Everything that she has done indicates that she will continue to coddle criminals, not punish them.

There you go cherry picking things out of context. You think we're too dumb to see political cheap shots? I stop caring about the rest of what you write. It reflects really poorly on McDuffie.

Why don’t you provide a list of things that she has said and done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

Wrong. She's voted against making strangulation a felony, she's voted against allowing landlords to evict adjudicated violent criminals, and her highest-paid campaign staffer is the co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition and a police abolitionist.

Everything that she has done indicates that she will continue to coddle criminals, not punish them.

There you go cherry picking things out of context. You think we're too dumb to see political cheap shots? I stop caring about the rest of what you write. It reflects really poorly on McDuffie.

What is the proper context of campaigning with and praising an avowed antisemite who accepted bribes? What is the proper context of hiring a police abolitionist to be your highest-paid staffer? What is the proper context of voting against making strangulation a felony?

These are not political cheap shots. They are facts and they reveal a pattern of consistently poor judgement. And these facts portray someone who will coddle criminals, not make our city safer.

Let's start with strangulation as a felony. Was it part of a broader bill? Was it being done in a clear or haphazard manner that would have muddied issues in the courts? Do you have any evidence that Janeese wants to let people off the hook for strangulation?

You're a political hack

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lewis George said using curfews as a tool with young people is “dangerous,” pointing to the presence of federal troops and immigration agents in the city who she said are “not individuals who are trained in de-escalation,” and “are not accountable to to D.C. residents.”

Democrats going to Democrat. It's now "dangerous" to discipline the budding criminal.


https://wtop.com/dc/2026/05/dc-mayoral-candidates-offer-competing-visions-on-teen-curfews-housing-economy/

I was open to Janeese, have many friends who are publicly backing her, but everything she has said and done this week has made me really, really nervous.

She always sees crime from the point of view of the criminals, and never from the perspective of the victims of violent crime, and of law abiding people who want to feel safe. Maybe this is because of her experience as a prosecutor? But it's no good. Pouring money into rec centers and giving criminals jobs is fine. But a mayor needs to be very, very clear that people who commit violent crimes will be punished. I've never heard her talk about punishment.

+1 I don’t see why it has to be either or. Do the crime prevention programs but also punish crimes when they happen.

Wild, that's exactly what Janeese has said and done.

Wrong. She's voted against making strangulation a felony, she's voted against allowing landlords to evict adjudicated violent criminals, and her highest-paid campaign staffer is the co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition and a police abolitionist.

Everything that she has done indicates that she will continue to coddle criminals, not punish them.

There you go cherry picking things out of context. You think we're too dumb to see political cheap shots? I stop caring about the rest of what you write. It reflects really poorly on McDuffie.

What is the proper context of campaigning with and praising an avowed antisemite who accepted bribes? What is the proper context of hiring a police abolitionist to be your highest-paid staffer? What is the proper context of voting against making strangulation a felony?

These are not political cheap shots. They are facts and they reveal a pattern of consistently poor judgement. And these facts portray someone who will coddle criminals, not make our city safer.

Let's start with strangulation as a felony. Was it part of a broader bill? Was it being done in a clear or haphazard manner that would have muddied issues in the courts? Do you have any evidence that Janeese wants to let people off the hook for strangulation?

You're a political hack

We both know you can't defend her actions on the merits, but I wish you'd at least be honest about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!

I don’t agree with you because this is hardly a Trump vs. Clinton or Harris comparison. They are both left of center and Congress plays a big role in what DC can and can’t do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!

I don’t agree with you because this is hardly a Trump vs. Clinton or Harris comparison. They are both left of center and Congress plays a big role in what DC can and can’t do

I'm not saying that McDuffie is Clinton and JLG is Trump, and it's concerning that that was your takeaway.

I'm saying that the thought processes underpinning the decision to turn one's nose up at McDuffie (uninspiring, insipid) in favor of JLG (personality! excitement!) is really similar!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!

I don’t agree with you because this is hardly a Trump vs. Clinton or Harris comparison. They are both left of center and Congress plays a big role in what DC can and can’t do

It's very much a Trump v Harris situation.

Am idiotic firebrand that has bad ideas, wants to punish their perceived enemies and believes in unlimited spending versus a milquetoast politician with no ideas.

[Anonymous]

If Janeese gets elected you can kiss home rule goodbye.

[Anonymous]

https://dc.citycast.fm/dc-politics/dc-election-mayor-poll-2026

City Cast put out some fascinating data that is exactly what I was expecting. JLG voters are typically young, White, wealthy transplants and McDuffie has the edge on Black voters and the elderly, and lower income voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie has done nothing for all his time on the council. He is a do nothing guy. I’m voting for Janeese.

He does feel like that same Bowser brand. Say the right things then half ass implementation.

He is copying a lot of Janeese talking points which must be weird for his supporters here.

He is not copying her points. Name three times he did that.

Oh I remember one. He broke out "budget is a moral document", which is something I heard from Janeese pretty consistently beforehand. It's historically been a progressive line, not a moderate one.

Firing the chancellor is another. He does not give AF about DCPS, until he realized that was a popular point.

You are absolutely correct! His kids attend GDS and he sits on their board! I can’t support that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie has done nothing for all his time on the council. He is a do nothing guy. I’m voting for Janeese.

He does feel like that same Bowser brand. Say the right things then half ass implementation.

He is copying a lot of Janeese talking points which must be weird for his supporters here.

He is not copying her points. Name three times he did that.

Oh I remember one. He broke out "budget is a moral document", which is something I heard from Janeese pretty consistently beforehand. It's historically been a progressive line, not a moderate one.

Firing the chancellor is another. He does not give AF about DCPS, until he realized that was a popular point.

You are absolutely correct! His kids attend GDS and he sits on their board! I can’t support that.

I don't care. He won't make anything worse. JLG will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!

+1000

Yep. Marion Barry had some personality. How did that work out for the city?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://dc.citycast.fm/dc-politics/dc-election-mayor-poll-2026

City Cast put out some fascinating data that is exactly what I was expecting. JLG voters are typically young, White, wealthy transplants and McDuffie has the edge on Black voters and the elderly, and lower income voters.

That should surprise no one. FWIW, both candidates suck, but McDuffie sucks less and will reluctantly get my vote. Anything to keep JLG out of office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McDuffie seems like the more sensible choice.

I disagree. He is insipid and lackluster. What platform is he even running on? Anti-Janeese platform? He seems to be all about pick me, I’m Bowser 2.0.
Janeese at least has some personality. I’m hopeful that if she wins, Mamdani, Bernie and AOC will help guide her until she finds her footing.

I dunno man, this is exactly the lazy thinking that independents had about Clinton being an uninspired continuation of the Obama administration and hey, at least Trump had some personality, what's the worst that could happen?

As it turns out, electing people with dumb ideas and no desire for good governance is bad!

+1000

Yep. Marion Barry had some personality. How did that work out for the city?

Pretty will until the crack epidemic and Bush recession decimated DC finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that JLG just says stuff (albeit more persuasively than McDuffie) but there's no substance behind it. She seriously thinks that she is going to say FU to Trump and then, when DC gets whacked for it-- somehow the courts or a Republican-controlled Congress are going to save her? How incredibly shortsighted. Even DSA Mamdani figured out pretty quickly that flattering and placating the Narcissist-in-Chief was the way to keep him from interfering in NYC. Same with the "I will use the DC pension fund" to invest in housing. What does that even mean? If private equity (including many pension funds) is refusing to invest in DC because equity believes that the absurdly one-sided pro-tenant laws and new rent control initiatives will not provide sufficient investment returns, then is she prepared to blow the DC government employees' pensions on substandard investments. And if she does and the fund suffers losses, will she then be crying to the DC taxpayer to bail her out of a mess she shouldn't have gotten the pension fund into? I'm not wild about McDuffie, but I do at least feel like he might have some interest in rational economic policy.

Yes, this could be a major problem. I'm not a huge Bowser fan, but I think she's handled Trump well by not inflaming him. I know that pissed some Dems off, but I'd rather they be pissed off than him wrt the city.