Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

I guess if you are not offended by his racist and insensitive response to attracting more people of color to the Ward or his support of Mendelson's autocratic tendencies, then sure, hilarious.

What he said was no different than what Cheh said and the people most offended were white. It’s all performative. And you calling him a racist as a result is a joke.

But the truth is that is not why you don’t like him. You don’t like him because he doesn’t proscribe to your politics. That’s all this is about and it’s terrible to degrade the term racist over what are petty politics.

I guess you missed the outrage at what Cheh said. In fact, I would attribute it as a major contributing factor to her dropping out of the race.

And the issue wasn't what he said, per se, but the answer he gave was to a question about how to attract people of color to live in the Ward, and his response was about how most black people who live in the ward are on vouchers. It was a horrifying statement, except to his defenders. Go figure.

I did not miss the contrived “outrage” at Cheh’d remarks and I find this “outrage” similarly contrived. A bunch of white folks calling each other racist is crazy irony in the now gentrified Chocolate City.

Just because you think it is contrived doesn't mean it is contrived. You should be proud of your ignorance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

I guess if you are not offended by his racist and insensitive response to attracting more people of color to the Ward or his support of Mendelson's autocratic tendencies, then sure, hilarious.

What he said was no different than what Cheh said and the people most offended were white. It’s all performative. And you calling him a racist as a result is a joke.

But the truth is that is not why you don’t like him. You don’t like him because he doesn’t proscribe to your politics. That’s all this is about and it’s terrible to degrade the term racist over what are petty politics.

I guess you missed the outrage at what Cheh said. In fact, I would attribute it as a major contributing factor to her dropping out of the race.

And the issue wasn't what he said, per se, but the answer he gave was to a question about how to attract people of color to live in the Ward, and his response was about how most black people who live in the ward are on vouchers. It was a horrifying statement, except to his defenders. Go figure.

I did not miss the contrived “outrage” at Cheh’d remarks and I find this “outrage” similarly contrived. A bunch of white folks calling each other racist is crazy irony in the now gentrified Chocolate City.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

I guess if you are not offended by his racist and insensitive response to attracting more people of color to the Ward or his support of Mendelson's autocratic tendencies, then sure, hilarious.

What he said was no different than what Cheh said and the people most offended were white. It’s all performative. And you calling him a racist as a result is a joke.

But the truth is that is not why you don’t like him. You don’t like him because he doesn’t proscribe to your politics. That’s all this is about and it’s terrible to degrade the term racist over what are petty politics.

I guess you missed the outrage at what Cheh said. In fact, I would attribute it as a major contributing factor to her dropping out of the race.

And the issue wasn't what he said, per se, but the answer he gave was to a question about how to attract people of color to live in the Ward, and his response was about how most black people who live in the ward are on vouchers. It was a horrifying statement, except to his defenders. Go figure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

I guess if you are not offended by his racist and insensitive response to attracting more people of color to the Ward or his support of Mendelson's autocratic tendencies, then sure, hilarious.

What he said was no different than what Cheh said and the people most offended were white. It’s all performative. And you calling him a racist as a result is a joke.

But the truth is that is not why you don’t like him. You don’t like him because he doesn’t proscribe to your politics. That’s all this is about and it’s terrible to degrade the term racist over what are petty politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

I guess if you are not offended by his racist and insensitive response to attracting more people of color to the Ward or his support of Mendelson's autocratic tendencies, then sure, hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious to see people demonizing Goulet. Absolutely hilarious.

I can understand preferring one candidate over another. But the antics juts make you all look so silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really. After all this, I am about ready to pull the lever for Goulet. And he wasn’t even on my short list before.

And why not? He will be Ward 3's Trayon "Washington DC" White. We'll be hated by the rest of the city for electing such a clown, but at least we won't be bored!

Goulet winning (which doesn't look unlikely at all) would be a disaster for our ward and our city. With the rate at which incumbents hold council seats here barring insanely obvious corruption, we'll probably be stuck with him for the next 20 years as well.

Well then, how about addressing his positions on the issues important to the ward? Why would he be a disaster? Housing? Development? Schools? Who would be better? Why?

The mudslinging is not convincing.

His gymnastics with the Foxhall neighbors about the new schools shows pretty clearly that he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

So who is better?

I also am voting for Tricia Duncan

Honestly torn between duncan and frumin (both are better than goulet). I actually wish there was polling, so I could just pick the stronger of the two.

The stronger of the two would be the person endorsed by the outgoing councilmember: Duncan. She seems to have support across a number of key areas. Frumin doesn’t seem to have such a broad base of support across the Ward and that should be a concern.

Hahha, she has Palisades support because she's a Palisades candidate but has few accomplishments there or elsewhere.

https://dcgeekery.com/dc-campaign-finance/2022/council-ward-3

Frumin leads in both total donations from Ward 3 and eyeball-test has the widest zone of support.

He also fails the WTF test, because he’s been a Cheh campaign chair and she didn’t endorse him. When then people that best know you won’t endorse you, that should be pause for concern.

Cheh has told people including me, that she would only support a woman in the race. If you heard her comments on Kojo last week, she had good things to say about Frumin. It isn't his fault she is being sexist.

I have no idea if Goulet will win - none of us do - but if he does, Cheh should shoulder a fair amount of the blame. Once it became apparent that Goulet had momentum, she could have stepped to properly endorse either Duncan or Frumin and encouraged the others to scale back their campaigns for the greater good. By pseudo-endorsing Duncan over Frumin - who leads the fundraising and attracted plenty of other endorsements - and then doing nothing else to campaign for Duncan, she muddied the waters and has encouraged the splitting of votes between the two. I hope Duncan is elected, but could we'll see Goulet winning with less than the sum of the votes for Duncan and Frumin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really. After all this, I am about ready to pull the lever for Goulet. And he wasn’t even on my short list before.

And why not? He will be Ward 3's Trayon "Washington DC" White. We'll be hated by the rest of the city for electing such a clown, but at least we won't be bored!

Goulet winning (which doesn't look unlikely at all) would be a disaster for our ward and our city. With the rate at which incumbents hold council seats here barring insanely obvious corruption, we'll probably be stuck with him for the next 20 years as well.

Well then, how about addressing his positions on the issues important to the ward? Why would he be a disaster? Housing? Development? Schools? Who would be better? Why?

The mudslinging is not convincing.

His gymnastics with the Foxhall neighbors about the new schools shows pretty clearly that he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

So who is better?

I also am voting for Tricia Duncan

Honestly torn between duncan and frumin (both are better than goulet). I actually wish there was polling, so I could just pick the stronger of the two.

The stronger of the two would be the person endorsed by the outgoing councilmember: Duncan. She seems to have support across a number of key areas. Frumin doesn’t seem to have such a broad base of support across the Ward and that should be a concern.

Hahha, she has Palisades support because she's a Palisades candidate but has few accomplishments there or elsewhere.

https://dcgeekery.com/dc-campaign-finance/2022/council-ward-3

Frumin leads in both total donations from Ward 3 and eyeball-test has the widest zone of support.

He also fails the WTF test, because he’s been a Cheh campaign chair and she didn’t endorse him. When then people that best know you won’t endorse you, that should be pause for concern.

Frumin has many more endorsements than other candidates - just not the Washington Post. According to his website, he is being supported by the Teachers Union, Firefighters Union, Jews United for Justice, SEIU, Moms Demand Justice, almost all of the current and former DCPS PTO's (you know, the people who have worked closely with him on DCPS issues) and the majority of the ANC Commissioners in upper NW.

Frankly, he has the best chance of beating Goulet and it is time for supporters of other candidates to coalesce around one person to make sure Goulet doesn't win. Frumin is that candidate.

What if people like Goulet and want him to represent them? What if there are other fine candidates as well?

There is nothing essential about Frumin.

Frumin has actually rolled up his sleeves and done a ton of work across the Ward over the last 15+ years.

In that same period of time, Goulet has done absolutely nothing for the community.

I guess if you like people to represent you who have no clue how things on the ground work, then Goulet is your guy.