Janeese Lewis George is keeping our kids safe from TURF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JLG suddenly talking about crime, after almost four years of silence, is a good reminder that politicians will say *anything* to keep their jobs.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JLG's signature issue is defunding the police. It's what she ran on. It would be amazing if someone like that could get reelected, after the all the complaints we've had about out of control crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/...-democratic-primary/

She said the number one issue facing the city is crime, and followed it up with this:

"I supported the (Secure DC) bill and helped strengthen it. It updates our criminal code to make it easier to prosecute serious offenses like carjackings and other gun crimes. Consistently prosecuting these cases is key to making D.C. safer. We also need effective violence prevention programs, better agency coordination, a well-functioning crime lab and 911 call center, support for victims, and policies that address hunger, housing insecurity, addiction, and mental health."

She also never defunded the police, so maybe you can stop lying now? People's opinions change as more information is available to them...I know Lisa's did bc up until she decided to run she never had an issue with JLG.

JLG's primary issue is defunding the police. We're supposed to give her credit now because she failed to do the main thing she said she was going to do?

Please share where she says this is her primary issue or I'll happily report your continued misinformation

OMG.

[Anonymous]

We have had at least 3 shootings in WARD 4 this week but she only sent notification about
One and never followed up as she said in the email.

I wonder if J still has the crime Excel sheet or now is too much to track.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

Because then we would know the name of the idiot who thinks I’m breaking the law. Why haven’t you filed your complaint? The election is almost over. You better get cracking.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

Because then we would know the name of the idiot who thinks I’m breaking the law. Why haven’t you filed your complaint? The election is almost over. You better get cracking.

Someone should file a complaint because this is a pretty blatant violation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

Because then we would know the name of the idiot who thinks I’m breaking the law. Why haven’t you filed your complaint? The election is almost over. You better get cracking.

Someone should file a complaint because this is a pretty blatant violation.

Get busy. Don't expect others to do everything for you. There is a crime occurring right before your eyes. Remember, if you see something, say something. You need to be like McGruff the Crime Dog.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

Because then we would know the name of the idiot who thinks I’m breaking the law. Why haven’t you filed your complaint? The election is almost over. You better get cracking.

Someone should file a complaint because this is a pretty blatant violation.

Get busy. Don't expect others to do everything for you. There is a crime occurring right before your eyes. Remember, if you see something, say something. You need to be like McGruff the Crime Dog.

Always great to see the people complaining the most about crime seize up whenever they find something they consider criminal (which this of course isn't)

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

Because then we would know the name of the idiot who thinks I’m breaking the law. Why haven’t you filed your complaint? The election is almost over. You better get cracking.

Is that a threat? Because it sure sounds like a threat to me. As though you’re trying to intimidate me. Implying that “we” would “know my name”? Yeah, that sounds totally innocuous and nonthreatening …

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how Jeff Steele, the proprietor of this Web site, keeps deleting comments critical of JLG. If he's going to censor this thread according to his political opinions, he should have the decency to do it transparently. He lives in Ward 4 so he has a dog in this fight.

It’s like an in-kind political contribution, isn’t it?

Be a real shame if someone made the FEC aware that the proprietor of a popular website was making such undeclared in-kind contributions to certain candidates.

That sorta thing might result in a substantial fine. Maybe jail time.

Yeah, you run with that genius. I'd love to see how far that would get you. The first big problem you would face is that unlike on DCUM, you would have to reveal your identity to the FEC.

Why would I object to revealing my identity to the FEC if I lodged a complaint? I’m not the one violating federal election laws. I don’t have anything to worry about.

Because then we would know the name of the idiot who thinks I’m breaking the law. Why haven’t you filed your complaint? The election is almost over. You better get cracking.

Is that a threat? Because it sure sounds like a threat to me. As though you’re trying to intimidate me. Implying that “we” would “know my name”? Yeah, that sounds totally innocuous and nonthreatening …

Given that you see crimes where they don't exist, I am not surprised that you also see threats where they don't exist. The only threat made in this thread was made by you against me. You had better get cracking on that FEC complaint. It is getting warm outside and snowflakes like you are liable to melt (not a threat, that's physics).

[Anonymous]

Putting aside the allegations of illegal conduct, I have not seen if the central complaint was address.

Is it true that this site is curating content for the purpose of favoring Janeese Lewis George? I’d be curious to know what posts that have been removed actually said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the allegations of illegal conduct, I have not seen if the central complaint was address.

Is it true that this site is curating content for the purpose of favoring Janeese Lewis George? I’d be curious to know what posts that have been removed actually said.

Of course, it's true. Jeff systematically deletes posts that are critical of JLG, even ones that are demonstrably true and/or merely point to news coverage from the likes of the Washington Post. He doesnt provide any warning or reasoning other than he declares the deleted posts, writ large, to be "nonsense"

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the allegations of illegal conduct, I have not seen if the central complaint was address.

Is it true that this site is curating content for the purpose of favoring Janeese Lewis George? I’d be curious to know what posts that have been removed actually said.

Of course, it's true. Jeff systematically deletes posts that are critical of JLG, even ones that are demonstrably true and/or merely point to news coverage from the likes of the Washington Post. He doesnt provide any warning or reasoning other than he declares the deleted posts, writ large, to be "nonsense"

Can you seriously read this thread and think that I "systematically deletes posts that are critical of JLG"? There are lots of posts critical of her. Several with which I disagree. You seem to think that outright lies should be ignored. I disagree. Too bad for you, my opinion matters more.

The post that I deleted that had links to the Washington Post supported JLG.

[Anonymous]

I think the anti-JLG trolls are just processing their emotions in stages. Right now they're at excuse-making so that they can transition into blaming others when they lose in the election.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the allegations of illegal conduct, I have not seen if the central complaint was address.

Is it true that this site is curating content for the purpose of favoring Janeese Lewis George? I’d be curious to know what posts that have been removed actually said.

Of course, it's true. Jeff systematically deletes posts that are critical of JLG, even ones that are demonstrably true and/or merely point to news coverage from the likes of the Washington Post. He doesnt provide any warning or reasoning other than he declares the deleted posts, writ large, to be "nonsense"

Can you seriously read this thread and think that I "systematically deletes posts that are critical of JLG"? There are lots of posts critical of her. Several with which I disagree. You seem to think that outright lies should be ignored. I disagree. Too bad for you, my opinion matters more.

The post that I deleted that had links to the Washington Post supported JLG.

Too bad for you, you have to worry about the nitty gritty of election law.