illinilaw08

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 01:14 PM) I know nobody wants to hear this right now but the continuing to call people sexist, racist etc for disagreeing with you isnt helping anything. I hazard to guess that most people who voted for Trump are not sexist, racist, etc. But when he, or his supporters, act is a sexist, racist, etc. way, those particular supporters deserve to be called on that and held accountable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 12:20 PM) Every Democrat needs to stop with the "easy" stuff. I will always believe part of the reason Trump did so well is because he was the "underdog" which gave this false illusion that he somehow is fighting for the little guy. Right now the best thing any liberal can do, is wait and see. A big part of the reason this country cant do s*** anymore is because everyone prejudges. Obama is the worst Ill never agree with anything he does. Trump is the worst. Bush is the worst. Clinton is the worst. Sanders resonated with voters in the Rust Belt. Warren should resonate with those same voters. Anti-Wall Street sentiment is high and both can sell a record on fighting for the middle class. Sanders will age out in 2020 and I tend to think Warren is in the perfect spot for her wheelhouse - as the Democrat's financial attack dog in the Senate. But IF Trump is not able to resurrect those rural Rust Belt areas, and isn't able to Make America Great Again, the Democrats need someone to show up with those types of credentials. What the Democrats need to do is pivot on their message - away from the middle of the road Democrats, and toward the Progressive wing of the party. If Trump's policies align with those goals, great (and it's conceivable that he could on some of his economic messages - the Republican Party literally abandoned free trade in this election cycle)! If Trump's policies reflect his rhetoric in the campaign, fight him tooth and nail and try to win back a divided government in 2018.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:31 AM) Well said. This entire campaign was an ego trip. He doesn't care about MAGA or any of that bulls***, he just wanted to become President for his own arrogance. Now that he actually won, who knows how seriously he will take it, if he will try to do it himself, or let his "CEOs" make all the decisions. Christie's role is going to be interesting going forward. I have to imagine he's been gunning for AG since he endorsed Trump. And Christie said on the campaign trail that he would start enforcing the federal laws on marijuana in states that have legalized it. Despite the gains by the Republicans yesterday, marijuana laws passed - I think in every state in which they were on the ballot. So the question is: Does Trump appoint Christie as AG? And if so, does he allow Christie to enforce federal laws on marijuana, even in states where legalized? I know that enforcement of the federal laws there would be pretty catastrophic for Colorado's economy...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) I think it's similar to 2008 when Obama came into office, Dems controlled Congress and everyone thought it was going to be 2 or 4 years of non-stop policy change. And in reality little changed because of the infighting. Repubs don't typically have that, but there are some clear policy differences between Trump, Ryan and other top Repubs in Congress. The Rs are, in my opinion, a lot more united on policy from leadership down on the big issues. It's tough for Ds to pass anything on the Progressive agenda because anything on the 2nd Amendment or a public option for health care are wedge issues down ballot. So Obama threw all his political capital into the ACA thinking that (1) he'd be able to get broad support; and (2) it was a step in the right direction. The ACA backfired (death panels and whatnot) and led to the Republicans winning back the House and the rest is history. The Rs do have a vocal minority in the party, but that minority has seemed to really push and act when R leadership is reaching across the aisle. So, for instance, I don't think there will be pushback from the Rs on pulling funds from renewable energy. I don't think there will be pushback on Ryan's budget or on massive tax cuts to the top tier. In fact, the only issue that is of importance to me that the Senate might divide on is sale of public land. I know that Cory Gardener (CO's Republican Senator) has been against selling off public land in the West. Hopefully Gardner stays strong on that issue. In any event, where I agree with you is that I think the Obama election galvanized the Republican Party. I'm hoping it does the same for the Democrats and makes the progressive wing stronger...

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:55 AM) Climate change is worse than the eventual loss of healthcare by millions? Anyone that has a preexisting condition - private insurance or ACA, will be refused coverage. I think we can agree that both are pretty terrible, no? ACA with a greater short term impact. Climate change with a greater long term impact. Both bad for a lot of people.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) Oh my how the tables have turned. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/technology...linkId=30970242 Ugh. Anyone who talks about secession is the worst.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) What's funny to me is that people are freaking out as if this is some sign that the country has flipped, but really it's the same country with just a minor tweak. If 2-300k more democrats (blacks especially) had voted in Detroit, Milwaukee and Pennsylvania, Clinton still likely wins and no one is talking about White American and the rest of the bulls*** overreaction. I don't know that that's why people are freaking out. In hindsight, it's pretty clear why Clinton lost the Rust Belt, but all of those races were much closer than ANYONE predicted. The votes out West basically followed the projections. The Rust Belt defied the polls (as did NC and Florida). But this was a close election. In fact, Trump lost the popular vote. The impact, however, is a Republican controlled Congress and President, meaning that policies are going to flip, and there will be absolutely no check on those policies for 2 years.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) I also voted for Clinton/Kaine (most of my family didn't). I spent last night watching coverage with disbelief, but this morning, have a very hard time seeing the nightmare scenarios that so many people are fearing getting off the ground, let alone coming anywhere close to fruition. I see this as a temporary impediment of progress rather than a ticket directly back to medieval times. Let's not forget that Trump's own party wasn't thrilled about his nomination- so, despite the Republican majorities in place now, I think he'll be moderated by them. I'm more concerned about what happens to the Supreme Court going forward. I'm also not going to look at everyone who voted for him as bigots who yearn for the days Nazi-era Germany. Obviously, some exist, and that's terrifying, but as was mentioned above, painting everyone who voted for Trump with that broad and disgusting brush (as anti-women, anti-anything not white, anti-gay, anti-anything not Christian) probably wasn't the right way to go about it, and it wouldn't surprise me if that played a role in what we just saw take place. The reality is what it is. The next four years likely won't be glorious (are they ever?), but based on a lot of the reactions, you'd think that the overnight black burlap sack over the head arrests were in full swing already. I hope I'm right. If Pence has any power in the administration (likely assumption), then this election is bad for LGBT rights. Without any opposition party in power, the Republicans will have two years to pass their legislation, largely unfettered - including at least one Supreme Court justice. That will be bad for LGBT rights, that will be bad for the working poor, and that will be bad for people who have pre-existing health issues that will prevent them from being insured when the ACA is repealed. To the extent that you are at all worried about the effects of climate change, this result is really bad for that as well. Because of the rhetoric of Trump's campaign, it is very shortsighted to not recognize the fears of Muslim-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and African-Americans as a result of this election. Trump appealed to a Rust Belt that did not recover from 2008, and, frankly, from the globalization of the economy. Clinton underestimated that and it cost her PA, WI, MI, OH and the election. But it would be naive to ignore the nativist, isolationist undertones from Trump's campaign. Trump's acceptance speech was a good start. And I hope that I'm wrong about everything that I typed above. I hope that the Trump Administration governs on behalf of all Americans and that the concerns of segments of our country stemming from the rhetoric in the election are unfounded. I also hope that this is a wake-up call to Democrats, and we are back to a divided government at this time in 2018.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:20 AM) 1) It really isn't that different. The Texas law caused 30/40 of the clinics in the state to close. A similar Alabama law almost knocked down the total number of clinics down to 3. And these were just the "testing the waters" laws. Once they know they can get some restrictions through, they'll pass more until every clinic is regulated to the point where it's impossible to open. 2) Right, but that doesn't relate to what I said. The importance of getting the Religious Right hasn't ended just because Trump personally isn't a member. It's extremely easy to draw that YUGE block of people on gays and abortion alone. 3) Dude, they applauded for gay people not being murdered by terrorists. That's a far cry from supporting gay marriage, opposing horrific "conversion therapy", and opposing anti-gay discrimination. This is a great post.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 10:20 AM) I'm guessing no chance that Obama's nominee will get in at this point. We're screwed. Just hope RBG is able to last another 4 years...

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) I don't know about which candidate in four years, but as far as the party goes from here on. They need less Clintons, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. More Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison and Jeff Merkley. Agree with this 100%. The response is to become more Progressive, not less and hope that enthusiasm flips one of the chambers of Congress in 2 years.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Nov 9, 2016 -> 07:56 AM) That would be a worse system. First off we are a united nation of states. Secondly if you go to popular vote you have only three or four areas of the nation determining everything (California, Florida, New York) which if you thought the limited campaign stops was bad, this would be way worse. Florida and the Rust Belt (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) were the only states that mattered in this election. How is the electoral college different than a popular vote then? In a true popular vote, a Republican vote in Manhattan matters the same as a Democrat vote in Alabama. More importantly, elections would swing on national issues rather than on regional issues.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Nov 8, 2016 -> 06:02 PM) When you know the electoral map, this part of the night is just annoying, no s*** Trump won Indiana and Kentucky, no s*** Hillary won Vermont Yeah, I just checked in on 538. Trump wins Indiana, they breathlessly report, our model now gives Trump a 28% chance of winning the election! Rand Paul wins Kentucky Senate seat, the Republicans now have a 54% chance of holding the Senate! Ugh. None of the races called thus far have any real bearing on who is President, or whether the Republicans hold the Senate. Settle down 538.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2016 -> 10:05 AM) Some states they're appointed, other states they aren't. I'd imagine they became elected positions in the late 19th century as a push back against patronage and machine politics corruption, but it seems more hurtful than helpful these days. Yeah, there were 20+ judges on my ballot. I've appeared in front of a handful. Unless the bar association didn't support retention, or I had a particularly bad experience in front of a judge, I voted to retain. As an aside, this is why lawyers should absolutely respond to surveys from their State Bar Association on judges. That's generally the basis of their recommendations.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) Honestly I don't care about it either way, but when the conversations turns to a holiday or moving the date being something that would increase turnout, I don't see it being true. Even with having an entire month to vote early, people still don't make the effort. I don't see any of the other solutions around changing the election date fixing anything either. People who want to vote, figure it out. Those that don't make up excuses to not vote. People shouldn't have to wait in line for 3 hours on a work day to vote. I think it's as simple as that. Colorado mails out ballots a month early and has a number of drop off points for ballots if you'd rather not put them in the mail. That made voting extremely convenient for me this year.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 3, 2016 -> 01:56 PM) You are a smart attorney. Why are you shocked people think things are rigged? Bernie got screwed, so to speak by the DNC. Hillary gets questions fed to her in debates. Think of all the corruption in Illinois politics. Why wouldn't national politics be the same. It's all crooked. 1) What do you mean by "rigging"? To me, rigging an election means stealing votes, not counting votes, people fraudulently voting. 2) Assuming that definition, there is no evidence that the DNC stole votes, refused to count votes, or had people vote for Clinton repeatedly, who were not eligible to vote, etc. The fact that the DNC preferred Clinton as a candidate is not evidence that anything was "rigged." 3) Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. Every study finds that. 4) There is evidence that Brazille sent a debate question to the Clinton campaign. That is a bad thing to do! But the question was a question about the lead poisoning in Flint AT A DEBATE IN FLINT! Do you really think Clinton wasn't already prepared for that question? I can say with 100% confidence that sending Clinton that question did not change the debate in the least. Thus, I don't see how that is evidence that the election is rigged. 5) Even assuming Illinois politics has plenty of corruption, there is no evidence of "rigged" elections. The closest thing that exists in politics today as to "rigging" elections is gerrymandering Congressional Districts. And in recent years, that has occurred with much greater frequency in Republican controlled state legislatures. Simply put, I am shocked that people think the election is "rigged" because there is no evidence to actually support that. It is fear mongering at its worst, and it is just not based in reality.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hilla...new-poll-shows/[/url] From the Denver Post - Clinton and Trump tied in Colorado. 1 in 5 polled would not accept a Clinton victory as legitimate. Jesus.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 09:10 AM) Cutler is a pretty damn good QB when he doesn't turn the ball over. He was really good last year, and great on Monday night. The other games this year, he would cough it up. I suppose you could blame the o-line for some of it, but for what he's paid, he needs to overcome that, and either get rid of it before a fumble, or throw it away instead of an INT more often. It appears like with Marshall, the new regime's plan was to get rid of Cutler as soon as it made cap sense. Maybe he will change minds the rest of this season. The Bears were looking for QBs for decades, then trade for him. Most everyone thought he was the savior initially. I think Peter King predicted the Bears would win the Super Bowl. I am aftraid cutting him will bring back the same problem. No QB. Cutting Cutler makes no sense if you don't have a replacement lined up. Any replacement in FA will cost similar dollars to Jay (see Osweiler, Cousins and Fitzpatrick money this offseason) and won't be an upgrade over Cutler. Any replacement in the draft requires either giving up lots of draft capital to move up, or is generally a guy who isn't ready to play on day one. The Bears don't have the assets in place to make a later round pick successful right away. Prescott is in a position to succeed because the Cowboys' line and run game are so good. The Bears don't have that going for them. The dead cap money in '17 is negligible, but it's a small hit in '18 as well (less actually). Simply put, it makes zero sense to walk away from Cutler without somebody ready to go to replace him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 10:15 AM) Lynch tells everyone they aren't charging Clinton shortly before the election, even after meeting with Bill Clinton, not politics. Comey reopens the investigation, telling everyone why, politics. This is why people have no faith in our political system anymore. After the meeting with Clinton, Lynch told everyone that the DOJ would abide by the recommendation from the FBI - to charge or not to charge. So unless I missed something, the first statement is not really accurate (and I might have missed something). Comey was in a bad spot, and he was obviously worried about something leaking - hence notifying Congress. But I think it's fair to say that his letter was worded in such a way that it allowed people to run with wildly divergent interpretations of the facts. The facts here are that e-mails from Clinton's private server appear to have been discovered as part of the Weiner investigation, but there is literally zero information as to whether those e-mails are duplicates, consistent, or in any way change the FBI's prior recommendation. IMO, Comey knew or should have known that the letter was vague as all hell. And, as a result, he should have disclosed as much relevant information as he was legally allowed to disclose. My initial reaction to the headline that the investigation was reopened was "oh crap - there must be a smoking gun!" And for people who don't read beyond the headline, Comey's act might be enough to convince them that Hillary Clinton is guilty (or in Greg's case to convince them that they were right about this stuff from the word go).

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 28, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) I try my best with analogies. I never said I was good at it. Punch me for trying. A fair rebuke IMO. I wish people would answer the questions in my long post in the other thread.Partisanship aside, this has interesting consequences. I still do think Comey let her off the hook. He did say she perjured herself but nobody cares, Illini. Do you agree she purgered herself at the very least? When he said she lied six times? He did not ever say that she perjured herself - to my knowledge anyway. This is a pretty good summary from the Hill as to why perjury charges against Clinton would be extremely difficult to prove. http://thehill.com/policy/national-securit...against-clinton

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 28, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) Again with all due respect ... I didn't intend on dropping that cigarette butt in the trash can in my failing restaurant and didn't know it would burn down." etc etc. That was a very weak excuse of Comey the first time. Greg - intent is an element of the crime of arson. So the prosecutor would have to prove that the owner intended to burn down the property. The fact that the business was failing would be evidence of that intent. Intent is a pretty important part of criminal law. The robbery example is really weak. The intent is whether or not they intended to rob the place, not their motivations in intending to rob the bank. The point here - don't armchair lawyer things you don't understand.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:49 AM) Technically, more people have insurance now with Obamacare than before (so more people would have some form of coverage). I agree that there are disasters and major issues with it. To me you either go single payer or you don't. That is the only way it can truly work successfully. Whether as a country we are ready to do that while still having the right standards in place to ensure we have high quality care, incentives for innovation in the medical industry (as well as incentives for doctors to go through all it takes to be a doctor). Not an easy solution. The interesting thing is once you turn 65, everyone in this country is all for a single payer model (i.e., medicare / medicaid). prior to that, burn in hell if you want to socialize medicine. What gives? The problem is that it's difficult to vote against your interest. If you have good, employer provided insurance, or if you are generally healthy, you didn't see the issue with the pre-Obamacare system. Catastrophe policies were cheap - even if you didn't really get much coverage. So unless you had a pre-existing condition, or your employer didn't provide coverage, there was no reason to see the problem with the system. I am struggling with how to vote on a measure in CO this year that would turn the state to single payor - no premiums to insurance companies, no deductibles for the vast amount of care. The measure will be funded by (1) the State would move off the exchange and under ACA would receive the amount paid to CO residents in ACA subsidies as federal funding; and (2) a 10% payroll tax - 2/3 of which is paid by the employer and the remaining 1/3 paid by the employee. I'm generally very in favor of single payor. But here's the problem: my employer covers the cost of my insurance premiums entirely. It's a really, really great benefit for me and I consider that in my total compensation package. I'm relatively healthy (knocks on wood), so my total annual expenditure on healthcare is practically nill. A vote for single payor in CO means higher taxes for me without the corresponding benefit so long as I stay healthy. If I paid insurance premiums, this would be an easy decision because I'd basically be trading those premiums for a deductible free insurance policy. Under ordinary circumstances, I'm absolutely the voter that the amendment would hit, but a vote against my pocket book is a tougher sell. So the dilemma is do I vote for the societal good, or do I vote my own selfish gain?

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 01:26 PM) Deny it all you wish Um... you haven't given me anything to deny. Do you think the Democrats are miscounting votes? Do you think the Democrats are having people vote multiple times? If the answer to that is no, then they aren't "rigging" the election. If the answer is yes, then where is your evidence. The simple reality is that Trump is committing more gaffes than any candidate in my lifetime. Every day a new scandal comes out that would be the biggest scandal against a candidate in any prior election during that time. That's why every poll shows Trump down. He is absolutely unfit to hold the highest office in this country. But go ahead - keep your head in the sand on this stuff...

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 13, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) Really? With the leak of questions by CNN, the DNC doing what they could to make sure Bernie failed. you're right, no rigging at all. "Rigging" means fraud. The DNC hoping Clinton beat Sanders does not mean that Sanders got more votes than Clinton, but the DNC prevented him from winning the primary. None of the behavior you have cited comes close to "rigging"...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) That is just it. I don't think there is a particularly effective usage to be had here. Even in the offering of public education, if a student isn't willing to participate in it, it is a waste. In this case, if a parent who already has the attitude that education is worthless is being depended on to provide for that child, even if it means getting them to some programing, it isn't going to be done with education in mind. I agree with you on one aspect - if the parents just flat out don't care about education, in the vast majority of cases, no amount of intervention will fix things. But that's not every case. There are plenty of documented examples of parents amongst the working poor who know that education is the path out. But they don't have the time or resources to provide that attention to their kid. Subsidized pre-k services would absolutely make a difference in those cases. To me, it's an efficient allocation of tax dollars to means test for, and subsidize (either through a voucher system or federally run programs) some standard level of day care services at the pre-k level. For one thing, it might lead to greater participation in the workforce (the amount of money day cares charge is absurd). For another, it might lead to greater success for kids coming from poor households in school. The poverty cycle doesn't get fixed by saying "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" or by throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done... Edit: I wasn't aware there was actually a federal fund that provides those services. The more you know... http://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/fact-sheet-occ