Janeese Lewis George is keeping our kids safe from TURF

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

I'm not mocking election law. I'm mocking you. If anyone is making a mockery of the law, it is you who is making baseless legal threats.

BTW, when you draft your complaint will you be sure to mention the multiple anti-JLG posts that you've made? Those should be reported as campaign contributions as well according to your logic.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

I'm not mocking election law. I'm mocking you. If anyone is making a mockery of the law, it is you who is making baseless legal threats.

BTW, when you draft your complaint will you be sure to mention the multiple anti-JLG posts that you've made? Those should be reported as campaign contributions as well according to your logic.

You sound completely unfamiliar with the concept of an in-kind contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Janeese's signature issue is defunding the police. She's ignored her constituents' pleas for years to start giving a shit about crime. Then, just before the election, she flip flops on her core issue and starts pretending to care about crime? You don't do that if you think you're going to win.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

I'm not mocking election law. I'm mocking you. If anyone is making a mockery of the law, it is you who is making baseless legal threats.

BTW, when you draft your complaint will you be sure to mention the multiple anti-JLG posts that you've made? Those should be reported as campaign contributions as well according to your logic.

You sound completely unfamiliar with the concept of an in-kind contribution.

I am completely familiar with the concept. If you peruse enough campaign finance reports, you will find some from me listed. It is really bizarre that you think I have violated any law. The easiest defense against your allegations would simply to show the anti-JLG posts in this thread. The second easiest would be to provide a list of your posts in multiple threads opposing JLG. It is clear that you are simply a frustrated opponent taking out the fact that she is about to win handily on me. Maybe do some meditation or something. It would be more effective.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Janeese's signature issue is defunding the police. She's ignored her constituents' pleas for years to start giving a shit about crime. Then, just before the election, she flip flops on her core issue and starts pretending to care about crime? You don't do that if you think you're going to win.

Both DFER and Opportunity DC abandoned this race. Unlike you, they see the writing on the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Janeese's signature issue is defunding the police. She's ignored her constituents' pleas for years to start giving a shit about crime. Then, just before the election, she flip flops on her core issue and starts pretending to care about crime? You don't do that if you think you're going to win.

I'm a ward 4 constituent, and too well informed to buy the baloney you're selling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Janeese's signature issue is defunding the police. She's ignored her constituents' pleas for years to start giving a shit about crime. Then, just before the election, she flip flops on her core issue and starts pretending to care about crime? You don't do that if you think you're going to win.

Maybe. It's obvious that all the incumbants are in danger. People do no like the experiments the Council has been enacting.

But with candidates like Gore, and her supporters, shooting themselves in the foot with threads like this it becomes a foregone conclusion. This issue should have been something Gore was all over. It is her backyard and the criticism of the ANCs around there has been there lack of concern for local issues. This thread proves that the Gore people are not ready for prime time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

I'm not mocking election law. I'm mocking you. If anyone is making a mockery of the law, it is you who is making baseless legal threats.

BTW, when you draft your complaint will you be sure to mention the multiple anti-JLG posts that you've made? Those should be reported as campaign contributions as well according to your logic.

You sound completely unfamiliar with the concept of an in-kind contribution.

This poster is a really upright concerned citizen who is concerned about manipulation of social media. Let's look at the poster's own history. For instance, this poster started this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1204112.page

It seems to be completely innocent, asking:

"Anyone have a readout from the education debate tonight?"

But, almost immediately the poster posted a response attacking Janeese Lewis George. The poster would eventually post over a third of the posts in the thread. That includes a post attacking JLG to which the poster replied giving a "+1". How pitiful do you have to be to "+1" your own post?

Moreover, the poster referred to the DC Council as the "City Council", suggesting a lack of familiarity with the District's institutions.

Given this poster's manipulation of social media by sock puppeting posts, the poster should probably complain to the FCC about themself.

[Anonymous]

Remember to vote June 4!

The primary election in the Ward 4 race is the only one that matters.

The General Election is meaningless in this race because whoever wins the Democratic primary will win in November too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember to vote June 4!

The primary election in the Ward 4 race is the only one that matters.

The General Election is meaningless in this race because whoever wins the Democratic primary will win in November too.

Hardly anyone votes in DC primaries. Turnout is very, very low so every vote really does count.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

I'm not mocking election law. I'm mocking you. If anyone is making a mockery of the law, it is you who is making baseless legal threats.

BTW, when you draft your complaint will you be sure to mention the multiple anti-JLG posts that you've made? Those should be reported as campaign contributions as well according to your logic.

You sound completely unfamiliar with the concept of an in-kind contribution.

This poster is a really upright concerned citizen who is concerned about manipulation of social media. Let's look at the poster's own history. For instance, this poster started this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1204112.page

It seems to be completely innocent, asking:

"Anyone have a readout from the education debate tonight?"

But, almost immediately the poster posted a response attacking Janeese Lewis George. The poster would eventually post over a third of the posts in the thread. That includes a post attacking JLG to which the poster replied giving a "+1". How pitiful do you have to be to "+1" your own post?

Moreover, the poster referred to the DC Council as the "City Council", suggesting a lack of familiarity with the District's institutions.

Given this poster's manipulation of social media by sock puppeting posts, the poster should probably complain to the FCC about themself.

Well that's funny. Is it the same.person who posts police union tweets?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Well that's funny. Is it the same.person who posts police union tweets?

In this thread, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you filed the complaint yet? I'm getting tired of waiting. I'm planning on framing it.

You and Trump like to mock election law. You see where that's gotten him. Laws are laws, regardless of whether you choose to respect them.

I'm not mocking election law. I'm mocking you. If anyone is making a mockery of the law, it is you who is making baseless legal threats.

BTW, when you draft your complaint will you be sure to mention the multiple anti-JLG posts that you've made? Those should be reported as campaign contributions as well according to your logic.

You sound completely unfamiliar with the concept of an in-kind contribution.

This poster is a really upright concerned citizen who is concerned about manipulation of social media. Let's look at the poster's own history. For instance, this poster started this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1204112.page

It seems to be completely innocent, asking:

"Anyone have a readout from the education debate tonight?"

But, almost immediately the poster posted a response attacking Janeese Lewis George. The poster would eventually post over a third of the posts in the thread. That includes a post attacking JLG to which the poster replied giving a "+1". How pitiful do you have to be to "+1" your own post?

Moreover, the poster referred to the DC Council as the "City Council", suggesting a lack of familiarity with the District's institutions.

Given this poster's manipulation of social media by sock puppeting posts, the poster should probably complain to the FCC about themself.

Well that's funny. Is it the same.person who posts police union tweets?

Except it’s not funny because it’s not true. The person complaining about Steele’s in-kind contributions and the person posting about deleted posts are not the same people. Steele seems to think they are, and wants you to think so as well. But it’s two different people. You’d think that would be readily apparent to a website operator who could simply analyze the ISP address data and see they are different posters.