Anonymous wrote:After considering how much the DC DSA/liberals went off the rails at the WaPo endorsement, I’m going to assume that this is a made up scandal. And I certainly don’t trust white folks telling evaluating what’s racist and what isn’t. If the media is not covering it, and why wouldn’t WAMU/DCist or WCP Loose Lips who typically jump all over transgressions of local politicians from the woke orthodoxy, then it didn’t happen.

I’m not going to say that it didn’t happen, but people are going to need more than a DCUM thread and a few comments on Reddit to believe that it did. Even if the video isn’t released, a press release put out by multiple candidates that is picked up by the local media would do the trick. The statement that is being attributed to him is horrible.

Anonymous wrote:After considering how much the DC DSA/liberals went off the rails at the WaPo endorsement, I’m going to assume that this is a made up scandal. And I certainly don’t trust white folks telling evaluating what’s racist and what isn’t. If the media is not covering it, and why wouldn’t WAMU/DCist or WCP Loose Lips who typically jump all over transgressions of local politicians from the woke orthodoxy, then it didn’t happen.

It was covered on twitter by people watching the live stream of the forum. You can see the tweets from last week. It was abhorrent and not a "made up" transgression. The man said it. He should be held accountable for his words.

After considering how much the DC DSA/liberals went off the rails at the WaPo endorsement, I’m going to assume that this is a made up scandal. And I certainly don’t trust white folks telling evaluating what’s racist and what isn’t. If the media is not covering it, and why wouldn’t WAMU/DCist or WCP Loose Lips who typically jump all over transgressions of local politicians from the woke orthodoxy, then it didn’t happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really undermines the credibility of both the Chamber AND Goulet.

It is truly shameful. The man made a very racist comment. It needs to be brought to light so the voters know what they would be getting.

Is he correct? What was the context?

Are you an idiot? Do you think that most Black residents of Ward 3 are on voucher recipients? That is clearly untrue. Omg.

See PPs above. He did *not* say, most voucher recipients are POC, which is likely to be true.

Anonymous wrote:

Let’s stop trying to massage this away. Jesus people.

+1

Anonymous wrote:This really undermines the credibility of both the Chamber AND Goulet.

It is truly shameful. The man made a very racist comment. It needs to be brought to light so the voters know what they would be getting.

Is he correct? What was the context?

Anonymous wrote:1. It is a fact that almost all voucher recipients in W3 are AA.

2. It is not a fact that most AA in W3 are voucher recipients.

Did he say 1 or 2? Because I have no issue with 1.

He said 2. The bigoted one.

Let’s stop trying to massage this away. Jesus people.

1. It is a fact that almost all voucher recipients in W3 are AA.

2. It is not a fact that most AA in W3 are voucher recipients.

Did he say 1 or 2? Because I have no issue with 1.

Anonymous wrote:The question was about economic disparity between races in the ward.

Goulet went first and immediately equated persona of color in Ward 3 with voucher recipients. The racial disparity in the ward is because voucher recipients don’t have enough support services from the city.

The other candidates immediately castigated him for assuming all persons of color in the ward are voucher recipients.

Seems very mild, especially with so many DC constituents being openly racist and anti-Semitic themselves. Honestly it's very performative to castigate someone for claiming most voucher recipients in any ward are POC because it's true. No way will the Chamber back down and allow another pro-crime, unhoused welcoming progressive to win.

He is definitely unfit for public office.

What I don’t understand is why the Chamber of Commerce is refusing to release the video.

Anonymous wrote:He's a bigot. I don't think he has malicious intent, so I hesitate to call him a racist. But he is bigoted and ignorant and I fear he will act on those bigoted beliefs.

He cannot possibly be elected to represent the city. This is reprehensible. I will support every other candidate in the race before voting for Goulet.

Whether he had malicious intent or not, he is ignorant and unfit for public office. Of course, if he were running as a republican, it would be on brand, but we alerady have another GOP candidate running as a democrat and then there are actual registered republicans running as well.

He's a bigot. I don't think he has malicious intent, so I hesitate to call him a racist. But he is bigoted and ignorant and I fear he will act on those bigoted beliefs.

He cannot possibly be elected to represent the city. This is reprehensible. I will support every other candidate in the race before voting for Goulet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question was about economic disparity between races in the ward.

Goulet went first and immediately equated persona of color in Ward 3 with voucher recipients. The racial disparity in the ward is because voucher recipients don’t have enough support services from the city.

The other candidates immediately castigated him for assuming all persons of color in the ward are voucher recipients.

I’m sure, disproportionately, they are. People of color, particularly African Americans, are at the bottom of every demographic comparison across every and all systems we measure. Health, education, housing, income, wealth, employment, and crime. That’s what systemic racism is. So was he saying he’s trying to improve access for people of color? Or was it actually nefarious?

It is likely true that voucher recipients are disproportionately POC, as compared to their % in the DC population. But it is an entirely different thing to say that POCs in Ward 3 are more likely to be voucher recipients than not!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question was about economic disparity between races in the ward.

Goulet went first and immediately equated persona of color in Ward 3 with voucher recipients. The racial disparity in the ward is because voucher recipients don’t have enough support services from the city.

The other candidates immediately castigated him for assuming all persons of color in the ward are voucher recipients.

I’m sure, disproportionately, they are. People of color, particularly African Americans, are at the bottom of every demographic comparison across every and all systems we measure. Health, education, housing, income, wealth, employment, and crime. That’s what systemic racism is. So was he saying he’s trying to improve access for people of color? Or was it actually nefarious?

There are two solutions.

!) improve wraparound services for people in the lower strate across the city and in the Ward
2) expand housing opportunities for all people, but partocularly people of lower and working class income.

On the second, Goulet has come out against the basic affordable housing opportunties that others in the race have been working for or achieved. The bottom line, we need more housing density in the Wad, along the avenues and better access to services for the people who need it. It is simply not helpful to drop people into the limited housing that exists without the support necessary to make them successful.

Given there are two women of color who are not on vouchers who are running for this seat, the idea of assuming that even the number of people of color on vouchers in the ward is disporportionate is absurd.

Also absurd, someone coming on this forum to justify the comment.

Goulet was called out immediate by Frumin, Brown and Monash for his idiotic and racist comment.

I guess I can understand now why is supposedly disliked in the Wilson Building, as others have said in this thread.