Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Elissa being a pompous ass took out Elissa. Allen will be fine. Nadeau, too. Lewis George may be in trouble, but Lisa Gore is not a good candidate and will be a lot like Zach Parker as a CM.

..like Zach Parker?? How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

Anonymous wrote:
No, retail theft is not equivalent to murder but it harms businesses and eventually causes stores to leave. What is wrong with good old fashioned community service. Kids in bright yellow vests forced to be out picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, essentially being obligated to do something positive for their own community to atone for the damage thievery does to the social fabric.


You're describing slavery, not community service.

This W4 resident supports JLGs amendment, in line with 46 states. It doesn't legalize theft under 1,000, it's just not a felony on the first offense.

You seriously think that being required to perform community service is "slavery"?? You sound like a 10 year old child complaining about household chores. We need appropriate consequences tied to the offense. We don't need to lock up juveniles for shoplifting. But they do need to be required to have some consequences. "Restorative" justice isn't just some surly teen muttering an apology they don't mean. It's having to actually do something to remediate damage so that there is an understanding that everyone is part of a community that needs to function together. It's logical consequences---like requiring vandals to clean graffiti off walls. Chronic retail theft damages communities in that retail stores will leave, thus creating retail "deserts" for the elderly---who may not have the means or ability to drive to shop or aren't tech savvy to order on-line (and even if they did, the unpunished package thieves will just steal off the stoop). Kids---particularly kids who are coming from dysfunctional family situations--do not understand those type of linkages until those linkages are explained and they are required to complete some action in connection with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

“Violence prevention programs” have been tried for forty years. They don’t work. You what works? Putting people in jail for a really long time.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

European countries don't have the gun problems we do. If I lived in Europe, I'd be all for violence prevention/interruption and reducing jail time.

We have a gun problem. People in DC need to be prosecuted and jailed for gun crimes. The only thing that has made my family, including my two kids, feel safe within the last year is the huge federal operation that resulted in the arrests of about 20 members of the Kennedy Street Crew for several offenses, many gun-related. I finally feel somewhat safe walking my kids to get ice cream at 7th and Kennedy. That's not because of violence interrupters.

I realize violence interruption is a good long term plan. Right now, I need to care about the short term so that my family and kids can walk around Petworth and Brightwood---to school, to friend's houses, to the library---without the fear of being shot, like my neighbor was 3 months ago.

+1 People need to stop pretending that the United States is Norway and if we'd just adopt Norwegian policies we'd have Norwegian outcomes. US criminals are armed to the teeth, and in DC have no fear of repercussions. Violence interruption doesn't work here, and the de facto decriminalization of everything from speeding to theft to light gun criming is ruining everyone's quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

“Violence prevention programs” have been tried for forty years. They don’t work. You what works? Putting people in jail for a really long time.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

European countries don't have the gun problems we do. If I lived in Europe, I'd be all for violence prevention/interruption and reducing jail time.

We have a gun problem. People in DC need to be prosecuted and jailed for gun crimes. The only thing that has made my family, including my two kids, feel safe within the last year is the huge federal operation that resulted in the arrests of about 20 members of the Kennedy Street Crew for several offenses, many gun-related. I finally feel somewhat safe walking my kids to get ice cream at 7th and Kennedy. That's not because of violence interrupters.

I realize violence interruption is a good long term plan. Right now, I need to care about the short term so that my family and kids can walk around Petworth and Brightwood---to school, to friend's houses, to the library---without the fear of being shot, like my neighbor was 3 months ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Janeese obviously thinks she’s going to lose. Why else would she constantly want to debate Lisa Gore? Incumbents never want to debate challengers except when they know they’re in trouble.

Because Lewis George outclasses Gore on depth and substance. You're just used to empty suits like Brandon Todd.

We didn’t realize how good we had it with the M.T Suit as opposed to someone now actively working to make life worse in the city due to crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Janeese obviously thinks she’s going to lose. Why else would she constantly want to debate Lisa Gore? Incumbents never want to debate challengers except when they know they’re in trouble.

Because Lewis George outclasses Gore on depth and substance. You're just used to empty suits like Brandon Todd.

Anonymous wrote:The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Janeese obviously thinks she’s going to lose. Why else would she constantly want to debate Lisa Gore? Incumbents never want to debate challengers except when they know they’re in trouble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

“Violence prevention programs” have been tried for forty years. They don’t work. You what works? Putting people in jail for a really long time.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

The average murder suspect in Washington D.C. has previously been arrested 11 times.

25 years ago, the average murder suspect in Washington D.C. had previously been arrested 5 times.

Please, tell us again how we're putting too many people in jail?

We don't have a functioning crime lab. Someone else (not me) made a reference to that. Police can arrest all they want, but no proof of anything because the Mayor (and Council through oversight) dropped the ball big time on that.

But regardless, jail isn't a solution. It's gets someone off the street for a bit. They do eventually get out again. And in many cases, their time in jail doesn't result in "rehabilitation".

That’s why I carry. City leadership have shown they have zero interest in protect citizens and would prefer to coddle criminals.

Two very prominent examples of citizens shooting back in the past several years and i expect more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

“Violence prevention programs” have been tried for forty years. They don’t work. You what works? Putting people in jail for a really long time.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

The average murder suspect in Washington D.C. has previously been arrested 11 times.

25 years ago, the average murder suspect in Washington D.C. had previously been arrested 5 times.

Please, tell us again how we're putting too many people in jail?

We don't have a functioning crime lab. Someone else (not me) made a reference to that. Police can arrest all they want, but no proof of anything because the Mayor (and Council through oversight) dropped the ball big time on that.

But regardless, jail isn't a solution. It's gets someone off the street for a bit. They do eventually get out again. And in many cases, their time in jail doesn't result in "rehabilitation".

Anonymous wrote:The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Elissa being a pompous ass took out Elissa. Allen will be fine. Nadeau, too. Lewis George may be in trouble, but Lisa Gore is not a good candidate and will be a lot like Zach Parker as a CM.

Anonymous wrote:The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Maybe, but I don't think that will be the case.

The same wave that took out Elissa Silverman, that will soon take out Charles Allen, that *hopefully* will take out Brianne Nadeau, will also take out Janeese.

There's a pretty clear backlash against the hard left nutjobs on the city council.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what is the council good for if they refuse to address crime, and claim their well-documented efforts to defund failed even as crime skyrocketed? Maybe we can elect someone who doesn’t gaslight that crime in our ward is significantly worse than before her time in office and is willing to address it.

Janeese knows her constituents despise her stance on crime, and she knows she is going to lose in June, so we just have to suffer through her lame talking points between now and then. To wit, she says:

1. Crime isn't nearly as bad as people say

2. If it is that bad, it's not her fault. It's the mayor's fault or the police's fault or the attorney general's fault or Republicans' fault. But it's never her fault (and it's *never* a criminal's fault)

3. Yes, she ran on defunding the police department but she failed, so what's the problem?

4. City council members have no power over crime (even through they're constantly voting to decriminalize something and opposing every single bill Bowser puts up to crack down crime). See #2.

No. 3 is my favorite. "Yes, I tried to destroy the police department but I wasn't successful because my colleagues stopped me and that's why you should reelect me," isn't much of a campaign pitch.

1. Make up what Janeese said.
2. Claim she failed to do what she never said she'd do.
3. Victory?

Great plan guys!

Divesting from the police department to fund violence prevention programs isn't "destroying the police department". It's just good policy.

Good policy for giving us the highest murder rate in 25 years last year.

Violence prevention programs are a social interruption. They take time to play out, as they typically focus on stopping kids from going down the wrong path or continuing down it in the first place. Throwing a bunch of people in jail might have an immediate effect, but guess who eventually gets out?

“Violence prevention programs” have been tried for forty years. They don’t work. You what works? Putting people in jail for a really long time.

Oh really?

They have not been actually invested in for forty years - in the US. Meanwhile in other countries like most European ones they have. Putting people in jail for a really long time has been the US's de facto policy though. It's going sooo well. We have sooo much less violent crime as a rate than say Oslo here in DC. Right? Oh wait. Not even freaking close.

The average murder suspect in Washington D.C. has previously been arrested 11 times.

25 years ago, the average murder suspect in Washington D.C. had previously been arrested 5 times.

Please, tell us again how we're putting too many people in jail?

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

Her amendment to defang the retail theft section passed. Retail deserts can join the food deserts in DC.

At least she’s consistent. Janeese can always be counted on to give her constituents the middle finger.

She thinks she knows better than her constituents. That's why she ignores them.

Counter; you aren't the majority that you think you are.

Everyone knew Brandon Todd was going to lose long before the election.

It wasn't because of Janeese. No one even knew who she was or what she wanted and they didnt care either. Ward 4 just frustrated that Brandon never seemed to do anything. He was a potted plant.

But the antipathy today to Janeese runs far deeper than it ever did with Brandon Todd because her constituents think she is making their lives a lot worse. What's worse, she seems openly contemptuous of her constituents, and now the feelings are mutual.

I volunteered for Janeese in her first run. There was definitely not an assumption that she'd win over Brandon Todd. As the incumbent with name recognition and the Mayor's backing it was not a done deal. The previous election, Brandon Todd beat challengers even though he was just as useless then.

You are welcome to your own feelings about Janeese. I disagree and still appreciate the perspective she brings. We'll see soon who is the majority.

Weren't there Todd supporters claiming disenfranchisement allowed Janeese to sneak the win? There was some former bartender from Dino's who was a Todd surrogate who screamed that from the rooftops.

I don't remember that, but I also tend to tune out the whackos. Disenfranchisement?? Whew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh look janeese is now trying to weaken the crime bill before the council. she says it's too tough (ha!). the mayor is urging her to back off. june can't come soon enough. janeese needs to go.

Her amendment to defang the retail theft section passed. Retail deserts can join the food deserts in DC.

At least she’s consistent. Janeese can always be counted on to give her constituents the middle finger.

She thinks she knows better than her constituents. That's why she ignores them.

Counter; you aren't the majority that you think you are.

Everyone knew Brandon Todd was going to lose long before the election.

It wasn't because of Janeese. No one even knew who she was or what she wanted and they didnt care either. Ward 4 just frustrated that Brandon never seemed to do anything. He was a potted plant.

But the antipathy today to Janeese runs far deeper than it ever did with Brandon Todd because her constituents think she is making their lives a lot worse. What's worse, she seems openly contemptuous of her constituents, and now the feelings are mutual.

I volunteered for Janeese in her first run. There was definitely not an assumption that she'd win over Brandon Todd. As the incumbent with name recognition and the Mayor's backing it was not a done deal. The previous election, Brandon Todd beat challengers even though he was just as useless then.

You are welcome to your own feelings about Janeese. I disagree and still appreciate the perspective she brings. We'll see soon who is the majority.

Weren't there Todd supporters claiming disenfranchisement allowed Janeese to sneak the win? There was some former bartender from Dino's who was a Todd surrogate who screamed that from the rooftops.