illinilaw08

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:03 PM) Sure. But the truest indicator is the push the kids get from the people around them. I live in a town with about a 50% poverty rate in the schools. My daughter goes to school with kids who are quite literally homeless. Her best friend has a dad who was never around, and mom who lost custody because she is a drug addict and part time criminal to pay for it. An Aunt who is herself working 3 jobs is raising this kid. Despite the situation the kid is close to a straight A student. It is all because the Aunt forced the child to do early education activities from day one of taking over her parenting. For other kids in the situation, school is nothing but a day care and lunch counter. Their performance reflects that as well. I mean government can try to help all it wants, but there is an absolutely vital period very early on that if development doesn't take place, the kid is close to doomed statistically speaking. Sure. And we don't disagree on the point that parents have a huge impact on how kids develop, and that if that window gets missed, the kid is much less likely to succeed. The point I'm making is that it's much, much more difficult for the parent in the poverty cycle to provide that support. If we're trying to make an efficient use of federal (or local) tax dollars, targeting them toward those kids seems like a smart thing to do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) Honestly through the exposure I have gotten to differing amounts of early education, the biggest thing that needs to be done is to convince parents stuck in the poverty cycle that the best way for their kids to break out of it starts from Day 1, and not Age 5. I run into so many people who think because they didn't do anything with their lives, that their kids won't either, so their kids never get exposed to things like reading until a much later age than they should. That failure follows them as they trail their contemporaries all of the way through school, and never full recover as a whole. Sure some individuals get saved and recover, but as a group, no. This is definitely spot on. Part of this, however, is that the difficulties of getting by on a day-to-day basis are much more difficult for those in the poverty cycle. Couple of easy examples from my career: When I was a prosecutor, and I handled misdemeanor courts, the people on the lower end of the income spectrum were much more likely to bring their kids to court because they didn't have reliable childcare. They were more likely to miss a court date because they didn't have reliable transportation. They were more likely to end up coming back to court over and over because they failed to make the payments required on their speeding ticket or what not. When I was doing debtor bankruptcy work, it was the same thing. The people at the lowest end of the poverty spectrum, and with kids, have a harder time getting by. If they are working minimum wage, they have to deal with crappy scheduling that they have no control over. It's more likely they don't have reliable transportation, so they end up missing work, or their commute is significantly longer. If something throws a wrench into the schedule, they have to scramble for childcare because that's a thing that is absurdly expensive. If you want to make a dent in the poverty cycle, there need to be resources available so that the kid of a single parent who works 12 hours a day doesn't end up with their kid behind the 8-ball. It's crappy that the choice in the poverty cycle is frequently working or spending time reading to their kids.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:24 PM) I do believe that early child education, pre-K, is hugely critical for development. That said, I don't necessarily think the federal government should be the ones to address that. This is one I think the states and localities need to get addressed. It is something that benefits the entire community, and much like public education in general, should be funded by local and state taxes. If you want to keep the existing providers, then use a voucher system for pre-K levels (and only pre-K levels, because that's where the private structure is already the ONLY structure for the most part). But it is important, and I do think it should be an added tax. Then remove the federal credit entirely, and if people want to pay above what the public structure provides in services or voucher amounts, then don't get a tax break on it. I will probably manage to piss of R's and D's at the same time with that one, haha. Part of the issue with funding that locally is that you run into the same disparate levels of funding that already exist in education. Wealthy tax bases will see the benefit. Poor tax bases will not (unless, of course, it's done at the state level, but I'm skeptical the will power exists to get that done at the state level). And those are the groups that need the subsidized pre-k services the most. Thus, I think that is an initiative that needs to be done at the federal level, if it's ever going to get done.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) Again the difference is the incivility IS the political process today, versus it being a part of political process at times. I don't think that's right. Incivility has always been part of the political process. It is still a part of the political process. I don't buy that it IS the political process. This election is an outlier in that one of the candidates for the Presidency was nominated with his incivility being touted as a strength by a large enough portion of the Republican primary voters. And there's has been a great deal of incivility between the Legislative and the Executive since the Republicans took back Congress. But it's overstating things to say that incivility is now the political process...

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) Hillary is going to be mostly the same as Obama, except substituting her own political baggage for his. Same exact domestic policies, going to run into the same hurdles Obama's did against Republicans in Congress. I wish I had thought to keep track of the number of times this post - or one closely resembling it - has been written in response to Greg re: Hillary...

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) No, what is dumb is that the government is involved in this at all. Marriage as a social construct makes sense though, whatever name you decide to give that construct. It allows the government to tax households rather than individuals. It sets up an easy mechanism for group health insurance. It makes the process by which property transfers from a decedent's estate much simpler. It makes a simple mechanism for pooling and discharging debt. Not to mention the fact that the marriage industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which is good for the economy. So, let me ask you this - do you have an issue with the government being involved in co-habitation? Do you have an issue with people who are not religious making civil commitments to one another? If the answer to both those questions is "no," then your issue is exclusively with the name that the state attaches to that contract.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 08:43 AM) Would it take some work? Yes. And the government should do exactly that IMO. I don't think you understand how much that would cost. The tax code, health care, probate, the bankruptcy code (just off the top of my head) would all need to be changed to accommodate that. And sometimes, the laws regarding married couples make sense! Take the probate code for instance. If you are married and don't have a will, your estate passes to your spouse. That makes sense! It's easier to just understand and recognize the distinction. The State is involved with marriage. So are different churches. The State cannot mandate that the Catholic Church perform the sacrament of marriage between two guys, two gals, or even two people who haven't gone through all the hoops the Catholic Church makes people jump through before they will allow the marriage to take place. By the same token, however, the State cannot deny the equal protection of the law to same sex couples. It would be quite dumb to take all the time and expense necessary to change all the laws just because a certain portion of the population can't recognize the distinction between marriage, the religious sacrament, and marriage the civil contract.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 6, 2016 -> 06:45 AM) I'd but Roe v Wade there. The overturn on Prop 8 (though personally I think marriage should be left out of the government completely no matter how it is defined) So your instances of judicial activism by SCOTUS, mandating a return to a more Conservative, Constitution upholding Court are (1) a decision from 1973 involving none of the current justices; (2) a decision authored by one of the Conservative justices on the Court upholding a law passed by Congress; and (3) gay marriage. It's ok to say that you want SCOTUS to align with the Conservative principles that you believe in. I'd disagree with you from a philosophical standpoint on that. But it's a complete mischaracterization to say that those values are the values of a "constitutional court," implying that the remainder of the Court is not a "constitutional court," and ignores the Constitution in rendering their decisions.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 01:37 PM) Said much better than I. Yes. Then you must have been pretty mad when SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act...

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) Been thru this already in this thread I believe. The court is too liberal and needs to change to a more conservative court. Well, then you seem to assert that the political leanings of the justices are the most important point of the makeup of the Court. I wasn't aware that the text of the Constitution was Conservative vs. Liberal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) EVERY RULING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT? I mean the Constitution is like what 4 pages? Haha! In every 5-4 decision, there are 4 judges who totally understand what the Constitution means and says and 4 who are liberal activist judges who are creating laws. Then there's Kennedy who is either a true defender of the Constitution, or a guy who makes laws depending on the day. As an aside, I think it's funny that any person can look at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby and interpret those decisions as being supported by the text of the Constitution while at the same time finding decisions like Obergfell as judicial activism...

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) One that has judges that do not create law by their judgements, they align it with what the constitution says. Care to cite some examples?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) Yep. It is ridiculous. Although, Langford getting hurt was a good thing IMO as it forced them to play Howard who is a much more talented back. So much this. I'm hoping Howard runs away with the job over the next couple weeks...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 11:42 AM) Well, there are organized protests that get messages out. Some people on here who are blasting me seem to be up for spontaneous protests. If you want yourself or your kid to get arrested and never hold a job again, go ahead and encourage that. Why is kneeling during the anthem an effective protest? Like I said, you are harming a group, the military, that has nothing to do with this. The anthem is their solemn song. If you doubt that, look at them during the anthem. What's wrong with a legal protest. Again, if you do otherwise you may never work again with a big fat blotch on your police record. No employer is gonna give a good job to somebody with a record. I didn't realize it was illegal to kneel during the National Anthem...

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) Replace Clinton with Trump and Progressive with Conservative and you have one of the main reasons I am voting for Donald. We need a constitutional court. You can't get that with someone of Hillary's ilk. Please explain to me what you mean by "constitutional court."

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) My mom and dad who were ripping on Trump the whole debate process, now say they'll vote for him cause at least the supreme court. NO THAT IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. And on the flipside, the people I know voting for Hillary, are voting cause well, it can't be Trump. Again, no that is not acceptable. That is not okay for America's presidency to come down to those type of arguments. The government needs to realize how fed up people are with the status quo and start working together and driving real change to ensure that the America of 50 years from now is better then the America today (which is better then the America of 50 years ago). To me, the Supreme Court is an extremely good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton if you care at all about social issues. Supreme Court positions are lifetime appointments. If the next President replaces Scalia and Ginsburg, they are shaping the Court for the next 40 years potentially. And with the gay marriage decision out there, and the Right's push to overturn that decision, if you are moderate or progressive on social issues, Clinton is the obvious choice... To the other point, I've said it before in this thread, but it's a binary decision. Either Trump or Hillary are going to be the next President of the United States. I think we know, generally, what we'll get with Clinton. It will be a center left government that will probably be to the right of Obama on foreign policy, and will struggle to get any major reforms passed because the Republicans will control the House. I don't know what you get with a Trump Presidency, beyond the fact that he's a thin skinned narcissist who flies off the handle at the smallest slight. I know you are in CA, and so you can get away with a protest vote. But to me, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is not Donald Trump is absolutely a good argument for voting for her in any state that can swing either way.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 1, 2016 -> 05:15 PM) Man, those refs always have it out for Illinois. Every year, every sport. That was an objectively bad spot on 4th down. Even the Nebraska boards acknowledged they got a huge break. When you are a 20 point underdog, you can't win games where those calls go against you. I can't be too mad because it's great that Illinois was actually competitive today, but that horrible spot on 4th down took away any chance Illinois had of winning this game...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:59 PM) I think you have to write around it and word it differently. Let the quote speak for itself. In a non opinion piece why throw in your opinion? My point is this is how they get Hillary to win by a landslide. It's not fair. Greg - let's say that Chris Sale throws a complete game, two hitter, with 12 Ks and the Sox lose. The article on the game states that Sale pitched brilliantly in a losing effort. It's a non-opinion piece, but the author used the word brilliant to describe the outing. That's not editorializing. Based on your issues above, however, they should have just put in Sale's line and let the reader infer that the outing was brilliant. Neither is the example above. Trump, unprompted, insulted a beauty contestant's weight. That comment is crude. It is not editorializing to call it that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) Matt - You absolutely have a choice. Write in the candidate you wanted. At least then you have a clear conscious knowing that you voted for who you thought would be the best candidate and you never put your name next to the candidate that was the "least" bad. That's the logic that gets Donald Trump elected President with 40% of the popular vote. What does the world look like today if Nader doesn't swing the 2000 election to Bush? Does the US ever invade Iraq? Is the entire Middle East destabalized to the point that we end up with ISIS? If the Iraq War doesn't happen, and we don't have the "everyone gets $300" tax break, is the deficit as high as it is? That's the issue with not voting for Clinton in a swing state (in California or Illinois, sure, go ahead and vote your conscience). If you are scared of a Trump Presidency, and you cast a vote in a swing state for Johnson or Stein or write-in somebody, you are in essence casting a vote for a Trump Presidency. Because the choice is ultimately a binary one. On November 8, 2016, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are going to be the next President of the United States.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) I dunno, but it's not Republicans! That's the point. This is infuriating. What policies on a national level is the Republican party offering to help African American communities? There are none. They want less funding for public schools, less funding for public transportation, less social safety nets, to keep the status quo on healthcare and college, and they refuse to acknowledge the systematic racism that exists in this country that is still impacting poor inner city communities. The, welp, why don't they give the Republicans a try argument has no basis in fact because they have no policies at a national level geared toward helping African American communities.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:23 AM) I don't know how you can say that when the Republican policies in black communities and major cities are nonexistent at this point. Inner cities under Democratic rule have a bunch of people on welfare, inadequate schooling and Democrats going there every election year to tell them they are victims and that race is the biggest problem in America. There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015 and only 258 deaths by police gunfires. Stop locking them up for selling weed, stop ruining their employability with a flawed legal system and make an emphasis of stopping single mother households instead of race. Maybe then we'll see progress. Democrats in Chicago built the highway system to keep black people contained in certain neighborhoods and have since just locked them up, given them horrible school systems (Bush's plan certainly shares blame there) and given them welfare while calling the Republicans racist for having no part in their fate. It's a shame. Rahm Emanuel doesn't even make a point of making a difference until some thugs come up to the Lakeview and Lincoln Park and start wreaking havoc where the money is at. I'm talking about Republican policies at the national level. If you are looking for a party who is trying to reform the prison system nationally, look at the Democrats, with Clinton actually criticizing the for profit prison system. If you are looking for a party who is trying to provide opportunity for kids coming from poor neighborhoods, look at the party that wants to make college free and reduce the rate on outstanding student loans. If you are looking for the party that wants to fix schools, look for the party that wants to invest more in public schools, not the party that wants to reduce taxes across the board. If you are looking for the party that will make it easier for single parents to work and parent, then look at the party who wants to bring government support to childcare and standardize time off for maternity (and paternity) leave. At the end of the day, the Republican policies are worse than Democratic policies for those communities. And examples of crappy policies in Chicago, locally, by White Democrats in the 60s does not change that analysis.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:18 AM) I presume 98% of his contractors get paid, or some high percentage. IF people didn't do their job, they shouldn't be paid. You can have amazing hotels without always having the best contractors on various sub-projects, etc. That is life in business. Now there could be examples where he is being ridiculous, I don't know, but not enough facts were presented to make me care one way or another. The tax issue was played brilliantly by Hillary and he was a knuckle head...should have just said those are the laws of this country and I follow the laws. SS posted this link two pages back, but it merits re-posting here - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...or-decades.html Paraphrasing from the article - at least 60 lawsuits against Trump and hundreds of liens and judgments for failure to pay - and not merely limited to contractors and subs. Read the article - this isn't an isolated one off. Trump's history suggests that he looks for every reason to not pay people who do work for him. But what started this discussion is Jenks saying that the idea of discussing this was a low blow, and akin to criticizing someone for not tipping. The way that Trump treats his employees, contractors, etc. is absolutely relevant to the narrative he's built around himself.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:49 AM) Repubs don't run because it's a waste of time. They have no chance. That's the point. There is no alternative option. So you've got a city and county with a myriad of problems, all created by democrats, and the fixes are all promised by democrats but never happen. So why is not ok to question whether democratic policies are working/are the answer? Leaving aside Chicago and Illinois, the Republicans have controlled the federal government at various times over the last 30 years. Over and over again, their solutions for issues facing minority communities are: (1) lower taxes on the "job creators"; (2) fewer social safety nets; (3) not raising the minimum wage; and (4) charter schools or voucher programs. Furthermore, after SCOTUS shot down the VRA, Republican led legislatures rushed to pass through voter ID laws that make access to the polls more difficult and targeted at minority communities. Simply put, Democratic policies are better for minority communities than the Republican policies. And it's not particularly close.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) The other low blow was bringing up not paying contractors. Having done many construction and commercial agreement cases in the past, a contractor doing s***ty work is not exactly uncommon. I don't know the specifics of the cases she's referring to, but if someone was hired to do a job and didn't do it right or did it for beyond cost or whatever, Trump not paying may be totally reasonable. But if you think about it, what an unimportant issue for a Presidential debate. Might as well bring up the time he only tipped 15% instead of 20. A multi-billionaire who claims that he is going to be good for the middle class who, at the same time, has a history of not paying contractors is absolutely relevant. If he's been spending his professional stiffing people who did work for him, then why should we think that will change once he's in office? I do a fair bit of construction work as well, and agree that there are a lot of really crappy contractors. BUT in one breath he says that his hotels are all the best in the world, and in the other breath, the contractors who built them did poor jobs and shouldn't be paid. It can't be both...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 06:54 AM) As an American and a voter, I feel like I should have watched it, but I just can't. I don't like either candidate, don't want to vote for either one, and it makes me not care. This rigid two party system sucks. Even when you get a 3rd candidate, his chances of competing are 0.00001%. The third parties need to show up more than once every four years. If you really want the Libertarians or the Green Party to be successful, you need to start building at the local level.