Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The Post's editorials about DC are written by someone who doesn't live in DC. The perspective provided may accurately reflect that of suburban commuters, but not necessarily the views of DC residents. Just like the outside funds coming from DFER, we get outside opinions from the Post.

Yeah, no.

It reflect my opinion of a resident of SE DC who wants more establishment types. Even more moderate types, but that’s a pipe dream.

You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

Also, crime is rising, so I applaud the post for sticking with bowser, as she can read the tea leaves, see voters frustration and sees that maybe folks like Charles Allen and his Yourh rehab act and wasted millions on violence interruptors that do nothing for crime, aren’t that popular. I love that wapo is taking a more moderate approach. I’m genuinely surprised they haven’t pulled for the more of the Uber progressive candidates.

+1

Longtime DC resident here who'd love to see all the leftwing nut jobs on the council go down in flames. We don't have to be ruled by extremists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser's DCPS wants a Macarthur HS. Goulet supports mayoral control as-is (unlike Cheh who wanted to water it down). There isn't much else to say. Everything else he says is simply pandering to the usual suspects.

Now I think DCPS will end up keeping it mostly IB since it is a logistical nightmare to get there for everyone east of Wisconsin.

The only mechanism for DCPS to keep a school "mostly IB" is to offer more seats than needed. They can't turn away IB students.

Anonymous wrote:This is not that difficult.

Goulet posted a video of his response - but not the question - on his Twitter feed. It may still be there or he may have since deleted it - I don't know. His response - when viewed in isolation - wasn't that bad and was very close to what Mary Cheh has said when asked about the issue.

Either in that thread or another thread (I don't remember), someone asked Goulet what the question was. To his credit, he reported the question in full. To his discredit, this showed that he had actually answered a question about how to increase diversity in Ward 3 by talking about the problems created by voucher recipients who are, he noted, overwhelmingly African American.

In isolation, his comments would be OK to most. In the context of the question he was asked, they definitely wouldn't be. And that is why we do not have a video of his comments in context, either from him or the Chamber.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The Post's editorials about DC are written by someone who doesn't live in DC. The perspective provided may accurately reflect that of suburban commuters, but not necessarily the views of DC residents. Just like the outside funds coming from DFER, we get outside opinions from the Post.

Yeah, no.

It reflect my opinion of a resident of SE DC who wants more establishment types. Even more moderate types, but that’s a pipe dream.

You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

Also, crime is rising, so I applaud the post for sticking with bowser, as she can read the tea leaves, see voters frustration and sees that maybe folks like Charles Allen and his Yourh rehab act and wasted millions on violence interruptors that do nothing for crime, aren’t that popular. I love that wapo is taking a more moderate approach. I’m genuinely surprised they haven’t pulled for the more of the Uber progressive candidates.

Anonymous wrote:Bowser's DCPS wants a Macarthur HS. Goulet supports mayoral control as-is (unlike Cheh who wanted to water it down). There isn't much else to say. Everything else he says is simply pandering to the usual suspects.

Now I think DCPS will end up keeping it mostly IB since it is a logistical nightmare to get there for everyone east of Wisconsin.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

I completely agree with you that Goulet's exact statements should be clarified and he should have a chance to respond. Sadly, the Chamber of Commerce has refused to release the video of the event so we have to rely on reports of those who were there.

According the The Washington City Paper:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/

such a video might be especially damaging to the Washington Post’s newly minted endorsee in the Democratic primary: Eric Goulet,

...

Goulet apparently managed to offend attendees by turning a moderator’s question about how to make the ward more diverse into an answer about Black housing voucher holders in new homes along Connecticut Avenue NW.

Of course, this could easily be clarified if the video were released.

Cool. So you actually have no idea what Goulet said? And neither does the City Paper (as it acknowledges). But you're going to go ahead and declare him racist because (checks notes) the Chamber won't release the video? How is this not libel again?

Here is what I wrote: “People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks.” Since some of in attendance are people I know and trust, I have confidence in their version of events. If Goulet would like to pursue libel charges, I will be happy to subpoena the video. But something tells me he won’t be interested.

It's kind of hilarious that you dont even know what he said.

I know what those in attendance have reported he said. I also know that the Chamber of Commerce could easily clear this up. Do you think the video should released?

Ok, then tell us exactly what he said so we can decide if it was actually racist.

I think it would be great if the Chamber released the video but I also know organizations like that can have all kinds of mundane reasons for not releasing something like that, and not necessarily because they're trying to hide something.

You seem extremely quick to assume the worst about people you don't like.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

I completely agree with you that Goulet's exact statements should be clarified and he should have a chance to respond. Sadly, the Chamber of Commerce has refused to release the video of the event so we have to rely on reports of those who were there.

According the The Washington City Paper:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/

such a video might be especially damaging to the Washington Post’s newly minted endorsee in the Democratic primary: Eric Goulet,

...

Goulet apparently managed to offend attendees by turning a moderator’s question about how to make the ward more diverse into an answer about Black housing voucher holders in new homes along Connecticut Avenue NW.

Of course, this could easily be clarified if the video were released.

Cool. So you actually have no idea what Goulet said? And neither does the City Paper (as it acknowledges). But you're going to go ahead and declare him racist because (checks notes) the Chamber won't release the video? How is this not libel again?

Here is what I wrote: “People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks.” Since some of in attendance are people I know and trust, I have confidence in their version of events. If Goulet would like to pursue libel charges, I will be happy to subpoena the video. But something tells me he won’t be interested.

It's kind of hilarious that you dont even know what he said.

I know what those in attendance have reported he said. I also know that the Chamber of Commerce could easily clear this up. Do you think the video should released?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

I completely agree with you that Goulet's exact statements should be clarified and he should have a chance to respond. Sadly, the Chamber of Commerce has refused to release the video of the event so we have to rely on reports of those who were there.

According the The Washington City Paper:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/

such a video might be especially damaging to the Washington Post’s newly minted endorsee in the Democratic primary: Eric Goulet,

...

Goulet apparently managed to offend attendees by turning a moderator’s question about how to make the ward more diverse into an answer about Black housing voucher holders in new homes along Connecticut Avenue NW.

Of course, this could easily be clarified if the video were released.

Cool. So you actually have no idea what Goulet said? And neither does the City Paper (as it acknowledges). But you're going to go ahead and declare him racist because (checks notes) the Chamber won't release the video? How is this not libel again?

Here is what I wrote: “People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks.” Since some of in attendance are people I know and trust, I have confidence in their version of events. If Goulet would like to pursue libel charges, I will be happy to subpoena the video. But something tells me he won’t be interested.

It's kind of hilarious that you dont even know what he said.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re the owner of this forum, why haven’t you clamped down on any of these anti-Goulet AstroTurf posters here who start these little small potatoes opposition research threads trying to throw mud? It seems like you censor anything too conservative, but allow folks to come on here spreading salacious rumors of racism, probably spread by campaign staffers of competing candidates?

People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks. Those are first-hand reports, not rumors. If the reports are false, that could easily be demonstrated by the Chamber releasing the video of the debate. But, the Chamber has refused. Why wouldn't it want to disprove false allegations? The obvious answer is that the reports of Goulet's racist statements are true. Once again, monied business interests are backing Goulet. He definitely has the rich and powerful vote nailed down.

Jeff, this is just grossly irresponsible. First, you should us who exactly these mysterious people are who supposedly heard this (Why do I suspect it's Goulet's political opponents?). Second, you should tell us what exactly Goulet said so everyone can decide for themselves whether it's in fact racist. Third, you should give Goulet a chance to respond to accusations he said something racist.

Otherwise, you're just in the business of libeling people.

We all get a little dumber every time Jeff speaks.

I completely agree with you that Goulet's exact statements should be clarified and he should have a chance to respond. Sadly, the Chamber of Commerce has refused to release the video of the event so we have to rely on reports of those who were there.

According the The Washington City Paper:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/556619/eric-goulet-painted-voucher-holders-as-criminals-during-ward-3-debate-attendees-say/

such a video might be especially damaging to the Washington Post’s newly minted endorsee in the Democratic primary: Eric Goulet,

...

Goulet apparently managed to offend attendees by turning a moderator’s question about how to make the ward more diverse into an answer about Black housing voucher holders in new homes along Connecticut Avenue NW.

Of course, this could easily be clarified if the video were released.

Cool. So you actually have no idea what Goulet said? And neither does the City Paper (as it acknowledges). But you're going to go ahead and declare him racist because (checks notes) the Chamber won't release the video? How is this not libel again?

Here is what I wrote: “People in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce debate say that Goulet made racist remarks.” Since some of in attendance are people I know and trust, I have confidence in their version of events. If Goulet would like to pursue libel charges, I will be happy to subpoena the video. But something tells me he won’t be interested.