Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And contrast that with Brandon Todd. Before being a councilmembers, he was a lackey for a councilmember. Oh, and a Republican. Don't forget that stain.

An objective observer would view being an aide to a council person as good preparation for the job. Of course that doesn’t mean one should vote for him simply because he had that position, but I don’t view that as a negative.

Anonymous wrote:And contrast that with Brandon Todd. Before being a councilmembers, he was a lackey for a councilmember. Oh, and a Republican. Don't forget that stain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, have you ever talked to Janeese? I don't see how you could how her as anything but highly competent. Also highly accomplished. She's an attorney, not a lackey.

Oh, an attorney. Well, then she clearly is worthy of support.

You said you don't view her as "highly competent". Maybe you have some other kind of bias going on?

What kind of bias are you thinking?

Perhaps you know yourself best? Perhaps not.

Think about what would make you question the competence of a highly accomplished person like her.

At this point, I have to assume you work for her campaign.

The idea that the fact that she is an attorney means that I should inherently view her as competent to be councilwoman is ridiculous. There are plenty of incompetent lawyers, and plenty of competent lawyers might not be a good councilwoman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, have you ever talked to Janeese? I don't see how you could how her as anything but highly competent. Also highly accomplished. She's an attorney, not a lackey.

Oh, an attorney. Well, then she clearly is worthy of support.

You said you don't view her as "highly competent". Maybe you have some other kind of bias going on?

What kind of bias are you thinking?

Perhaps you know yourself best? Perhaps not.

Think about what would make you question the competence of a highly accomplished person like her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, have you ever talked to Janeese? I don't see how you could how her as anything but highly competent. Also highly accomplished. She's an attorney, not a lackey.

Oh, an attorney. Well, then she clearly is worthy of support.

You said you don't view her as "highly competent". Maybe you have some other kind of bias going on?

What kind of bias are you thinking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, have you ever talked to Janeese? I don't see how you could how her as anything but highly competent. Also highly accomplished. She's an attorney, not a lackey.

Oh, an attorney. Well, then she clearly is worthy of support.

You said you don't view her as "highly competent". Maybe you have some other kind of bias going on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, have you ever talked to Janeese? I don't see how you could how her as anything but highly competent. Also highly accomplished. She's an attorney, not a lackey.

Oh, an attorney. Well, then she clearly is worthy of support.

Anonymous wrote:Also, have you ever talked to Janeese? I don't see how you could how her as anything but highly competent. Also highly accomplished. She's an attorney, not a lackey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

I guess I look at it on a macro, rather than micro, level. Maybe Todd hasn’t been great on the micro, constituent service issues. But I trust him much more on the macro issues and broader policy. To me, that is more important.

I don't get that either. On a macro level, you'd prefer a stooge of the mayor who brings no original thought? Versus someone highly competent that understands issues, legislation, and the tie to ethics? Janeese seems like the clear winner there.

Sure, we don't know how Janeese will run constituent services. No idea. But I trust her more than Brandon Todd. I strongly disliked loyalty politics.

I don’t view her as highly competent or understanding of issues or legislation. I can’t speak to her ethics.

She may have original ideas, but I think her ideas are bad and will set back the Ward and the city.

I’m not sure I agree with you characterization of Todd having no original thought, but even if true, I would much rather have that than bad ideas.

Do you have some examples of bad ideas that are not just misconstrued propaganda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

I guess I look at it on a macro, rather than micro, level. Maybe Todd hasn’t been great on the micro, constituent service issues. But I trust him much more on the macro issues and broader policy. To me, that is more important.

I don't get that either. On a macro level, you'd prefer a stooge of the mayor who brings no original thought? Versus someone highly competent that understands issues, legislation, and the tie to ethics? Janeese seems like the clear winner there.

Sure, we don't know how Janeese will run constituent services. No idea. But I trust her more than Brandon Todd. I strongly disliked loyalty politics.

I don’t view her as highly competent or understanding of issues or legislation. I can’t speak to her ethics.

She may have original ideas, but I think her ideas are bad and will set back the Ward and the city.

I’m not sure I agree with you characterization of Todd having no original thought, but even if true, I would much rather have that than bad ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

I guess I look at it on a macro, rather than micro, level. Maybe Todd hasn’t been great on the micro, constituent service issues. But I trust him much more on the macro issues and broader policy. To me, that is more important.

I don't get that either. On a macro level, you'd prefer a stooge of the mayor who brings no original thought? Versus someone highly competent that understands issues, legislation, and the tie to ethics? Janeese seems like the clear winner there.

Sure, we don't know how Janeese will run constituent services. No idea. But I trust her more than Brandon Todd. I strongly disliked loyalty politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

I guess I look at it on a macro, rather than micro, level. Maybe Todd hasn’t been great on the micro, constituent service issues. But I trust him much more on the macro issues and broader policy. To me, that is more important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve met them both. Todd strikes me as slimey and agree that I would not want to vote for Bowsers sidekick, especially after the past few months.

Janeese is earnest, but her extreme position on crime is dangerous and ignorant.

This is how I feel. I really don't like George's position on crime but I do like her endorsement by Racine.

I loathe Todd, though. He and his supporters brag about his constituent services but I found them extremely lacking. The one time I reached out I had a conversation with a staffer (Carnes) who said he'd look into my issue and call me back with a solution. He never did; after a week I called him back and left a message. Left 6 more unreturned messages. Then to put a cherry on top, Todd knocks on my door asking for my vote and when I tell him I had a bad experience with his office his response was "no you didn't, constituent services is my strength!" (I am absolutely not making this up, that's a quote.)

So I think I'll vote George and hope for the best, because she has the best chance of unseating him. Although if my mailbox is to be believed Todd has infinity dollars to spend on outreach so it might be tough.

Todd constituent here. We had a very similar experience. We asked him for help with something. He said he would help us, and then we would hear nothing. We would ask again, and he would say our request fell through the cracks or that the staffer responsible for our issue was sick, and that he would get on it. But then he never would. We would ask again and again and again. And there was always some excuse about how he meant to help us, but something came up but that he was on it and then...nothing.

I honestly find it very strange that any constituent of Todd's would vote for him. Literally anyone else would be an improvement.

+1

Todd is literally the worst representative I've ever had at any level of government. Seriously, it cannot possibly get any worse.

If he loses, it will get worse.

Trust me, as someone who has lived in Nadeau's ward for the entirety of her tenure: it can get worse.