StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) I am so very glad I do not live in Cook County. I am so very glad I do not live in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 09:31 AM) The polls will drastically change if Rahm is out. I think a lot of his votes would go to Chico. Rahm will get back in, I simply hope he doesn't. I called him winning this election before Daley even announced he wouldn't run again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Chico becomes the favorite if Rahm is out. I actually agree with the Appelate court on at least one point - that the voter exemption is not the same, and cannot be the same, as the candidate exemption. I truly think Rahm would be the most effective person to hold that office, among the field. Chico just won't be as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) Chico becomes the favorite if Rahm is out. I actually agree with the Appelate court on at least one point - that the voter exemption is not the same, and cannot be the same, as the candidate exemption. I truly think Rahm would be the most effective person to hold that office, among the field. Chico just won't be as good. I don't see why not. Is he as connected? Probably not. But he's been a Daley appointee and has served on various boards and committees for the city and other big agencies. I was thinking that to be an effective mayor you need to be connected with everyone, but maybe an "outsider" is what the city needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Supreme Court issues order keeping Emanuel on ballot for now Edited January 25, 2011 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 07:33 AM) There ARE other qualified people running for Mayor, not just Rahm, sorry to break it to you. Before Obama, odds are you never even heard the name Rahm, and suddenly he's the only qualified mayoral candidate in Chicago because you say so? I think not. Rham sucks, and I hope he can't run so he can't win what would have been handed to him on a silver platter by retarded Chicago voters. This guy is a slimeball and as corrupt as they come. Yep before Obama I had never heard of Rahm Emmanuel, I didnt even know who his father, Benjamin, was because he wasnt a well known Jewish Dr or anything. In fact I wouldnt know that Rahm went to Ashe Emet, where my mothers friends taught, nor would I know that he went to New Trier High School, where a considerable amount of my friends went. Your right, I never knew of Rahm until the day I was walking passed an Obama for Senate sign and I remarked that was awfully close to Osama. If anything I know far more about Rahm, than I ever will know about Obama. I can say who I believe is qualified, its called my opinion. Everyone is entitled to it, so you can disagree that with it, but the rest of your statement is just patently wrong and basically destroys any credibility that you may have had on this matter. Edited January 25, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If the SC has stayed the appeal, its at least 50/50 whether he stays on the ballot, if not better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) Yep before Obama I had never heard of Rahm Emmanuel, I didnt even know who his father, Benjamin, was because he wasnt a well known Jewish Dr or anything. In fact I wouldnt know that Rahm went to Ashe Emet. where my mothers friends taught, nor would I know that he went to New Trier High School, where a considerable amount of my friends want. Your right, I never knew of Rahm until the day I was walking passed an Obama for Senate sign and I remarked that was awfully close to Osama. If anything I know far more about Rahm, than I ever will know about Obama. I can say who I believe is qualified, its called my opinion. Everyone is entitled to it, so you can disagree that with it, but the rest of your statement is just patently wrong and basically destroys any credibility that you may have had on this matter. Blah blah blah, bias bias bias. Rahm is a corrupt piece of garbage, and I hope he can't run. ...and I get that it's your opinion on who is qualified...as is mine...but your opinion is simplistic, black and white bias, mine isn't. That, if anything, destroys your credibility in this argument. You say Rham is the ONLY one qualified...in your opinion...well, that's a simple, closed minded, biased opinion...so you're the one without credibility here. My opinion is that there ARE other qualified candidates... And there are. You are summarily dismissed in your attempt to assassinate my credibility while showing nothing but an opinionated bias for your "favorite"...therefore he MUST be the only one qualified. Edited January 25, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 And no, I don't know him, or his opinions...I just like to argue for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 but your opinion is simplistic, black and white bias, mine isn't. That, if anything, destroys your credibility in this argument. You say Rham is the ONLY one qualified...in your opinion...well, that's a simple, closed minded, biased opinion...so you're the one without credibility here. My opinion is that there ARE other qualified candidates... Great we have different opinions, not sure how you have done anything to attack my credibility. My position is clear, I would vote for Rahm, therefore my bias is in the open, anyone who wants can see that my opinion may be based on bias. You on the other hand wont even say who you are voting for, nor will you say who is a "qualified candidate" you just merely state that Rham is "corrupt", but you havent even said if you believe that makes Rham unqualified. You are summarily dismissed in your attempt to assassinate my credibility while showing nothing but an opinionated bias for your "favorite"...therefore he MUST be the only one qualified. I guess it may matter if I was trying to have any credibility on who should be mayor, if youve noticed in this thread I actually have not made any arguments for or against Rahm or any other candidates. Ive merely stuck to the argument with regard to the law and the residence requirement. If anything my statement about the non-qualified candidates was to show that it seems silly that we are so stringent about a word "reside", and that Chicago voters can lose the right to vote for a candidate just because of an interpretation of the word, not based on other qualifications. To me that seems silly and not in tune with the spirit of the law. I could not care less about who people want to vote for, everyone has the right to chose whoever they want for whatever reason, I just think that the people of Chicago deserve the chance to vote for the candidate they want, not to lose that right due to an unclear interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) Great we have different opinions, not sure how you have done anything to attack my credibility. My position is clear, I would vote for Rahm, therefore my bias is in the open, anyone who wants can see that my opinion may be based on bias. You on the other hand wont even say who you are voting for, nor will you say who is a "qualified candidate" you just merely state that Rham is "corrupt", but you havent even said if you believe that makes Rham unqualified. I guess it may matter if I was trying to have any credibility on who should be mayor, if youve noticed in this thread I actually have not made any arguments for or against Rahm or any other candidates. Ive merely stuck to the argument with regard to the law and the residence requirement. If anything my statement about the non-qualified candidates was to show that it seems silly that we are so stringent about a word "reside", and that Chicago voters can lose the right to vote for a candidate just because of an interpretation of the word, not based on other qualifications. To me that seems silly and not in tune with the spirit of the law. I could not care less about who people want to vote for, everyone has the right to chose whoever they want for whatever reason, I just think that the people of Chicago deserve the chance to vote for the candidate they want, not to lose that right due to an unclear interpretation. The troll is full, I'm going back under my bridge...when I'm hungry, I'll return to finish you off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 From an out of town perspective, he's a Chicago guy. Too bad the law has to somehow cover every situation that may occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Seriously, though, I don't think Rahm isn't qualified. I just don't think he's the ONLY one qualified. And I don't care for him, which is probably obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Right and the statement "No other qualified candidates" was supposed to be hyperbolic to show that it seems some what unjust to knock off a qualified candidate, who no one denies is from Chicago, on a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 08:27 AM) Just out of curiosity...who out there are you thinking of? I saw Alan Keyes at O'hare yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) Right and the statement "No other qualified candidates" was supposed to be hyperbolic to show that it seems some what unjust to knock off a qualified candidate, who no one denies is from Chicago, on a technicality. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I completely missed that as hyperbolic, because I'm immune to such things now...in an era where almost everything is hyperbolic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Why doesn't there seem to be any Tea Party candidates running? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I fail to see how this situation is one that the drafters of that legislation meant to exclude. He left town intending to work in DC for who knows how long. He might have intended to move back SOMEDAY, but clearly he moved back as soon as he heard Daley was leaving. Despite his connections and despite history, unless he was totally ignoring his responsibilities as chief of staff under Obama he missed out on a LOT of local issues that the people of the city were going through. Sorry, but this isn't some technicality, I think that's meaningful. The guy didn't step foot back in Illinois (save an Obama appearance here or there) during that time. I still maintain that such a ruling opens the door for unconnected rich folk to basically gamble at future political office depending on what district they think might open up (didn't Hillary do this in NY? Basically claiming that she "resided" there because they owned an apt and office?). They buy a house in X state, live in it temporarily (months), leave some "personal items" in the home, leave to work elsewhere, and then state that you had always intended to return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) Why doesn't there seem to be any Tea Party candidates running? racist, redneck, hillybilly, uneducated haters of gays/blacks/browns/women make it tough to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) I fail to see how this situation is one that the drafters of that legislation meant to exclude. He left town intending to work in DC for who knows how long. He might have intended to move back SOMEDAY, but clearly he moved back as soon as he heard Daley was leaving. Despite his connections and despite history, unless he was totally ignoring his responsibilities as chief of staff under Obama he missed out on a LOT of local issues that the people of the city were going through. Sorry, but this isn't some technicality, I think that's meaningful. The guy didn't step foot back in Illinois (save an Obama appearance here or there) during that time. I still maintain that such a ruling opens the door for unconnected rich folk to basically gamble at future political office depending on what district they think might open up (didn't Hillary do this in NY? Basically claiming that she "resided" there because they owned an apt and office?). They buy a house in X state, live in it temporarily (months), leave some "personal items" in the home, leave to work elsewhere, and then state that you had always intended to return. Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does? Trust the voters? Hahaha. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does? Why require citizenship? Why require a certain age limit? The voters will figure it out, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) Why require citizenship? Why require a certain age limit? The voters will figure it out, right? I certainly get your point, but the rule just seems a bit antiquated to me. In this age of information, you really don't have to live in a place to have a pulse on what the issues are there. It's not like he's riding in on his horse from some far away land with no idea what has been going on in the city of Chicago over the past several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) It's not like he's riding in on his horse from some far away land with no idea what has been going on in the city of Chicago over the past several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Then the legislators should change the law. We shouldn't rely on the Court's decision for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts