Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They reiterate their endorsements of Bowser, Mendelson and Goulet, reminding voters.

“The District has been blessed with sober, stable leadership, but voters should remember it was not that long ago that its government was in dysfunction and its finances in disarray. It would be a mistake to return to those days.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/15/washington-dc-democratic-primary-endorsements/

I like it. It’s good that the Post is helping to clarify what this is all about. On the one side you have a responsible candidate endorsed by Tony Williams. In the other side you have an orchestrated opposition backed by the far left faction of Silverman and Allen.

Based on that juxtaposition, I expect Ward 3 voters will make the right choice.

Anonymous wrote:
I mean the whole thing is so obvious. The city is half haves and half have nots. The have nots have strong voting power and can ensure weak on crime bills and vote for weak on crime candidates.

Anonymous wrote:They reiterate their endorsements of Bowser, Mendelson and Goulet, reminding voters.

“The District has been blessed with sober, stable leadership, but voters should remember it was not that long ago that its government was in dysfunction and its finances in disarray. It would be a mistake to return to those days.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/15/washington-dc-democratic-primary-endorsements/

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.

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:

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.

It has not been just that one thread though. There has been an obvious and orchestrated campaign. You seem cool with it because you are ideologically aligned. It’s your site, so you are free to do what you want.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The latest “machinations” indicate that these two groups may actually have a very good understanding of Ward 3 voters. We’ll find out on Election Day.

Was it a "machination" when Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden? That's politics. In a crowded field, the candidate of out of state millionaires and Maryland commuters could win with a minority of the vote. Rather than splitting their votes, the candidate opposed to outside influence are uniting so that their candidate can get a majority.

That’s not what happened though, right?

We can acknowledge Silverman’s intervention, attempt to consolidate power and play king maker in Ward 3?

If Bowser/Mendelson tried to pull something like this, the howling would be audible from space, as we can see from the reaction to DFER.

It’s a bit of a double standard at play by the far left, which is indeed politics.

The only thing she did was talk Tricia Duncan out of the race.

Anonymous wrote:Not her fault she has completely woke council members either vetoing stronger attempts or advancing soft on crime bills.