Anonymous wrote:I don't even know what that means.

Go and support the guy that said the 1/6 GOP is the party for me!

Just own it.

Frumin gladly accepted the WTU endorsement. That union did more actual harm to my family than a bunch of loser deer hunters did on 1/6. I won’t vote for anyone who associates with the WTU and luckily my neighbors will not either. That organization stole a year of education from our kids and set in motion a mental health crisis on a scale never scene before.

Anonymous wrote:I don't even know what that means.

Go and support the guy that said the 1/6 GOP is the party for me!

Just own it.

God I hope you have nothing to do with national politics. These next two elections are too important for this kind of crap.

I don't even know what that means.

Go and support the guy that said the 1/6 GOP is the party for me!

Just own it.

Anonymous wrote:So you are saying you favor retrocession? Because that is a mighty small number of DC residents that message resonates with.

I’m saying I don’t even think about retrocession. Like ever. Neither do most DC residents except for the professional victim class.

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for Krucoff, in case anyone cares.

Good for you. I hope you tell all your friends you are voting for a Trump era Republican.

I'm voting for Krucoff, in case anyone cares.

So you are saying you favor retrocession? Because that is a mighty small number of DC residents that message resonates with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frumin seems like a smart and nice guy. It would be great to have a guy like Frumin on the Council. But . . . do we need 13 Frumins on the Council? I mean, there is basically no diversity of thought on the Council. I’m voting for the other guy who will be completely powerless, but at least able to raise other ideas and solutions.

So instead, lets have a republican who favors retrocession?

The guy garnered exactly 13 ward based donations in the October 10th filing.

That....isn't very many.

Once we get violent crime under control and fix the overcrowded Ward 3 schools we can have a little chat about retrocession, ok? If you think “retrocession” registers high on the list of the average Ward 3 I think you might be surprised on Election Day.

Anonymous wrote:Frumin seems like a smart and nice guy. It would be great to have a guy like Frumin on the Council. But . . . do we need 13 Frumins on the Council? I mean, there is basically no diversity of thought on the Council. I’m voting for the other guy who will be completely powerless, but at least able to raise other ideas and solutions.

So instead, lets have a republican who favors retrocession?

The guy garnered exactly 13 ward based donations in the October 10th filing.

That....isn't very many.

Frumin seems like a smart and nice guy. It would be great to have a guy like Frumin on the Council. But . . . do we need 13 Frumins on the Council? I mean, there is basically no diversity of thought on the Council. I’m voting for the other guy who will be completely powerless, but at least able to raise other ideas and solutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was, and since the younger people are advocating for the world they want to live in and not the one of their grandparents, we should listen to them. They are more concerned about living healthy and climate change because they have more to lose.

Thank you for this. I know people of all generations support change in this neighborhood and are educating themselves about the issues, but it doesn't feel that way sometimes. Like the speaker running against Keith who literally said that the solution to the business struggles on Connecticut Avenue is creating more parking. I'm exhausted.

Exactly. Cleveland Park is among the most walkable neighborhoods in the city, with about as much residential density on Connecticut Avenue both north and south of the commercial strip. So the goal ought to be to make it as pleasant and inviting as possible for the thousands of potential customers to walk and bike to the commercial area to support said businesses. The idea that there should be more cars, more traffic, more pollution is 1950's style BS that should be completely ignored.

The plan is not limited to Cleveland Park. There's a case for it south of Porter. Notth of Porter on the other hand.

Also, the plan increases congestion and increases traffic. The cars don't magically disappear they get compacted. It only works with a series of fanstasy land assumptions that don't reflect how people act, no changes to any other roads, and no increase in population density. It will result in exactly what you are complaining. The dream is nice but it's fool's gold promising the exact opposite of what it will achieve.

Oh someone stated those goals? Doubtful. Some variety in municipal politics would be great tbh.

GOP: retrocession, end vouchers for housing and maintain unsafe streets so motorists maintain supremacy.

Did any Republicans share their ideas? I'd be interested in what they have to say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was, and since the younger people are advocating for the world they want to live in and not the one of their grandparents, we should listen to them. They are more concerned about living healthy and climate change because they have more to lose.

Thank you for this. I know people of all generations support change in this neighborhood and are educating themselves about the issues, but it doesn't feel that way sometimes. Like the speaker running against Keith who literally said that the solution to the business struggles on Connecticut Avenue is creating more parking. I'm exhausted.

Exactly. Cleveland Park is among the most walkable neighborhoods in the city, with about as much residential density on Connecticut Avenue both north and south of the commercial strip. So the goal ought to be to make it as pleasant and inviting as possible for the thousands of potential customers to walk and bike to the commercial area to support said businesses. The idea that there should be more cars, more traffic, more pollution is 1950's style BS that should be completely ignored.