CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[sentinel]

edit

[Handro]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I disagree.

I'm not bothered by people switching parties. If they feel that a party no longer serves their ideology, then that's fine by me. And usually the people who switch parties tend to be centrists, which are the types that I prefer.

We just need more choices. Pritzker should not have this election "in the bag". That's shitty democracy and we deserve better

https://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...po4-story.html

In Aurora, mayors are elected without party labels, but he previously pulled Democratic primary ballots in 2014, 2016 and 2020. Irvin’s [gubernatorial] campaign heavily focuses on being tough on crime and says he defeated the local “Defund the Police” movement by standing with law enforcement and hiring more cops.

Since 2017, Aurora’s police department went from 235 to 250 officers, according to the city’s budget reports. After the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis brought protests and rallies for police reform to Aurora, Irvin responded by working for the purchase of body cameras for police officers and the creation of an independent civilian police review board.

As news spread about potential immigration raids across the U.S. in 2019, Irvin said the city prohibits the use of its resources to aid or support ICE in its enforcement activities. He said that while Aurora does not have any jurisdiction over federal actions, including any possible raids, “I fully support our immigrant and refugee families who live in Aurora and object to any such raids that will separate families and traumatize entire segments of our community.”

During the height of the coronavirus pandemic, Irvin has stood in line with Pritzker, supporting the stay-at-home mandate and being critical of those not following state mitigation measures. After Irvin contracted COVID-19 in March 2020, he said he did not want others to get the virus.

“COVID-19 is here in Aurora, and we will do whatever is necessary to reinforce the state’s guidelines for safety,” Irvin said at the time. “We cannot have employees working in unsafe conditions and completing non-essential tasks just to meet the company’s bottom line. People are more important than profits.”

A video circulating on social media by the Democratic Governors Association shows Irvin with Pritzker during COVID-19 related press conferences promoting the vaccine. But in a press release Monday, Irvin distanced himself from the Democratic governor.

I wonder what Griffin's "ideology" offer$ Irving after aligning $o closely with the Democrats for $o long (including the very recent pa$t)?

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

lol theres no such thing. look at the national party. if you want a chance of getting elected, you have to be to the far right. the GOP has done everything possible within its power to eliminate centrists from their party, and the reason is their constituency no longer exists.

also, pritzkers tax policy would have benefitted the vast majority of IL residents (those making under $250,000 aka 97% of state residents). leave it to the average american to vote against their own self interest.

I think Larry Hogan or Charlie Baker, the popular Republican governors of Maryland and Massachusetts, beg to differ. Governors need to get things done so they are forced to be pragmatic and actually do stuff and these guys are good at it. Like Romney or Mitch Daniels were. I don't share many of their values, but those are decent men who care about people and display competence in several areas. It's true, though, that if you want to get noticed in Republican politics these days the easiest way is get your/you're mixed up on purpose; say that you don't value knowledge; and pose for pictures burying landmines someplace where immigrants or people with graduate degrees might walk.

Both of those guys would be forced to run as Democrats if there were running for nationwide office. Reagan would be laughed off stage in a 2023 Republican primary debate.

[left of center]

I voted for Pritzker in 2018 and have been very happy with how he has performed for the most part. I don't know much about this Irvin fellow, but that said I am not against a centrist candidate... despite what my forum name may imply, lol. But I would need to learn more about him. If he does indeed have a lot of ties to Griffin, then that would hurt his image in my eyes.

He probably has a massive uphill fight in the primaries, since the more fringe elements of both parties typically vote in those, with the more moderate and independent voters turning out more for the general elections. I don't see downstate voters going for this guy.

I think the 2022 election is Pritzker's to lose, and he would have to fudge up royal to even make it competitive for any other candidate, in both the primary (if he has any Dem challengers) or the general election.

[the urban politician]

^ Glad that you have an open mind.

I don't understand what people's beef here is with Ken Griffin. Somebody here please go into detail about his policies and stances that upset you. Don't just give me a "I don't like him because I don't like him" crock.

He's relatively conservative. So what. He's not a Bible thumping whack-job, though. And so what if he is rich and is funding candidates---duh.... I mean, whoever goes up against Pritzker, a billionaire by inheritance, NEEDS the money in order to level the playing field. I mean, Pritzker just gave $90 million of grandpa's hard-earned money to himself to finance his reelection, so your average person has a HUGE uphill climb against him financially.

[Vlajos]

I can't stand Pritzker and the state Democratic Party. When we should be limiting power of the public employee unions, they went ahead and gave teachers unions more reasons they are legally allowed to strike. They shouldn't be allowed to strike at all.

This Irvin guy sound like a good candidate. I may even take a Republican primary ballot to support him.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I don't understand what people's beef here is with Ken Griffin. Somebody here please go into detail about his policies and stances that upset you. Don't just give me a "I don't like him because I don't like him" crock.

The fact that Ken Griffin's policies matter more than any other private citizen is part of my beef. At least Pritzker has to stand in front of voters, present his policies, and has his name on the ballot. He has some accountability. Griffin gets to control our politics without ever facing the public. We only hear of his policies from speeches to the Economic Club or his own press releases.

His politics aren't that extreme (low taxes, low business-regulation), but his ability to wield personal wealth to implement those politics feels extreme.

[the urban politician]

^ Big pools of unaccounted for money behind politics is a much bigger and deeper, and more widespread problem with just Ken Griffin, and it afflicts both sides of the spectrum equally.

Let there be no mistake: the REAL reason so many people on this almost uniformly politically one-sided website have a problem with KG isn't because he puts money behind candidates, but because he puts money behind candidates that don't support their agendas/world views.

So lets stop beating around the bush: what specifically does KG stand for, and what about it do you guys think is an incorrect position? Why are those positions incorrect, and why do you feel that Pritzker's approach to those same problems are better?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

So lets stop beating around the bush: what specifically does KG stand for, and what about it do you guys think is an incorrect position? Why are those positions incorrect, and why do you feel that Pritzker's approach to those same problems are better?

As stated in my post above that you completely dismissed, a big part of the problem is that we have no idea specifically what Ken Griffin stands for because he never has to answer those questions.

The thing we do have are records of his political donations. His two biggest local political donations have been to (1) Bruce Rauner Re-Election Campaign (2) Defeat Income Tax Amendment.

(1) Bruce Rauner was elected as a moderate Republican, and I voted for him to be that. Unfortunately, his first four years were him battling to make Illinois a "right-to-work" state and refusing to negotiate with the Democratic super-majority unless he got that. In his wake our credit rating was slashed and our bill backlog exploded. The state ran without a budget for 2+ years. He didn't do the "governing" part well. Ken Griffin wanted more of that chaos which tells me he is more ideological than practical.

(2) The income tax amendment is something I supported, but have many friends who didn't. Ken Griffin funded a commercial that relied on the false premise that the amendment would somehow make it "easier to raise taxes in the future". I didn't like how he needed to lie to make his case.

Now try holding yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else and answer your own questions about why you reflexively defend him.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

As stated in my post above that you completely dismissed, a big part of the problem is that we have no idea specifically what Ken Griffin stands for because he never has to answer those questions.

The thing we do have are records of his political donations. His two biggest local political donations have been to (1) Bruce Rauner Re-Election Campaign (2) Defeat Income Tax Amendment.

(1) Bruce Rauner was elected as a moderate Republican, and I voted for him to be that. Unfortunately, his first four years were him battling to make Illinois a "right-to-work" state and refusing to negotiate with the Democratic super-majority unless he got that. In his wake our credit rating was slashed and our bill backlog exploded. The state ran without a budget for 2+ years. He didn't do the "governing" part well. Ken Griffin wanted more of that chaos which tells me he is more ideological than practical.

(2) The income tax amendment is something I supported, but have many friends who didn't. Ken Griffin funded a commercial that relied on the false premise that the amendment would somehow make it "easier to raise taxes in the future". I didn't like how he needed to lie to make his case.

Now try holding yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else and answer your own questions about why you reflexively defend him.

Well, I am not necessarily going to defend KG because I don't really have to. He's not running for office. However, I think that within our current broken system he can do whatever he wants with his money, that's his right.

But I generally lean towards supporting the GOP candidates he backs because of the same reason you voted for Rauner years ago: the Democrats fucked Illinois up big time and they are simply doubling down on their same broken way of doing things. Now KG obviously picked the wrong horse in Rauner, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to change philosophies and suddenly become a woke leftist who believes in ever more powerful public unions, ever higher taxes, and opening the door to a higher State income tax which I believe will eventually affect everybody. I will go with the other option, hopefully somebody better than Rauner this time

[moorhosj1]

KG is absolutely free to do whatever he wants with his money and I am free to criticize him for it.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Now KG obviously picked the wrong horse in Rauner, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to change philosophies and suddenly become a woke leftist who believes in ever more powerful public unions, ever higher taxes, and opening the door to a higher State income tax which I believe will eventually affect everybody. I will go with the other option, hopefully somebody better than Rauner this time

This is where you lose me. I don't support more powerful public unions or ever higher taxes. I don't know many who do. I viewed the income tax as a way to pay down pensions and wish it had language specifying that. In the end, it failed and Pritzker adjusted his plans to account for it. He didn't shut down everything to get his way.

On the flip side, I do support an actual plan for pensions, Illinois Republicans haven't presented one since the Illinois Supreme Court struck down reform in 2016. I support the $15 minimum wage, legalizing sports betting, legalizing marijuana, balanced budgets, the infrastructure bill, and the clean energy bill.

I don't like how Illinois Dems are in bed with unions and corrupt as the day is long. I also haven't seen the other party present a legitimate governing platform.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

This is where you lose me. I don't support more powerful public unions or ever higher taxes. I don't know many who do. I viewed the income tax as a way to pay down pensions and wish it had language specifying that. In the end, it failed and Pritzker adjusted his plans to account for it. He didn't shut down everything to get his way.

^ That's just it. Nobody trust the Dems in control of Springfield right now. Don't you see that that is why Pritzker's constitutional amendment got canned? The voters rightfully saw it was a way to introduce higher taxes to everybody. Sure, it would start out only affecting the rich but........we just don't trust those bastards. Having a healthy mistrust for Government may not be for everybody, but it's there. And it's there for a reason. Ask the voters why they struck it down, I won't speak for them. But they obviously smelled BS.

On the flip side, I do support an actual plan for pensions, Illinois Republicans haven't presented one since the Illinois Supreme Court struck down reform in 2016. I support the $15 minimum wage, legalizing sports betting, legalizing marijuana, balanced budgets, the infrastructure bill, and the clean energy bill.

I don't like how Illinois Dems are in bed with unions and corrupt as the day is long. I also haven't seen the other party present a legitimate governing platform.

Well, I guess the Illinois Republicans have stopped presenting plans because, if I were to guess--it's analogous to you being told to spend a month creating a play that nobody is going to watch because everybody is already convinced that any play made by the likes of you is immoral and almost certainly going to be lousy.

That's one party rule for ya in a nutshell.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Well, I guess the Illinois Republicans have stopped presenting plans because, if I were to guess--it's analogous to you being told to spend a month creating a play that nobody is going to watch because everybody is already convinced that any play made by the likes of you is immoral and almost certainly going to be lousy.

That's one party rule for ya in a nutshell.

That is making excuses in a nutshell. Make a plan and sell it to voters. "Not Madigan" isn't a plan. This is the exact type of politics over logic that you accused others on this board of employing a few posts ago.

If someone is running for a political office, I require them to provide solutions. It's ok if you don't or if you just assume all politicians are corrupt and vote for the one who who promises the lowest taxes, but you shouldn't be surprised when others disagree with that stance

[the urban politician]

My response to you is to quote Steely Dan in 2014, and it applies to the current Mayor of Aurora running for Governor today:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

donkeys and elephants both make stinky farts.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

like really, really stinky farts.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

My response to you is to quote Steely Dan in 2014, and it applies to the current Mayor of Aurora running for Governor today:

It’s been 8 years and in those years, we gave a Republican Governor a chance to fix things. He actively made all of things that were bad much worse. You keep ignoring that to bang the “Dems are bad” drum.

If you like state budgets, lowering pension liabilities, and credit ratings increases then you have to admit that Illinois Democrats have delivered those in the years since Rauner. It’s hard to listen to people talk about fiscal responsibility and then vote for a party who ruined our fiscal standing and still has no plan to improve it. This is because they don’t actually mean “fiscal responsibility”, which would require paying accumulated bills, they just mean “lower taxes”. I don’t pretend that Democrats helped things in the 90s/early 2000s, but I also remember that we’ve had Republican Governors for half of my life.

I’m interested to hear what Mayor Irving has to say. He seems like the type of moderate I could get behind. The fact that he went through the Ken Griffin primary approval process does not inspire hope that he will align on my priorities. But I’ll do my research.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

(2) The income tax amendment is something I supported, but have many friends who didn't. Ken Griffin funded a commercial that relied on the false premise that the amendment would somehow make it "easier to raise taxes in the future". I didn't like how he needed to lie to make his case.

.

Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the main perceived "benefits" of the tax amendment, that it is easier to raise taxes in the future? What could you possibly disagree with on that statement?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the main perceived "benefits" of the tax amendment, that it is easier to raise taxes in the future? What could you possibly disagree with on that statement?

It wouldn't have changed anything about the process of increasing taxes. It was about creating new rates today that would have generated more revenue. If the legislature wanted to raise taxes in the future, they would have had to go through the exact same process that exists today. All the same votes.

Maybe you are suggesting that it would be politically easier to raise them in the future because they could theoretically target a certain income segment. Using this logic, the amendment would also make it easier to lower taxes. In fact, most people would have had lower tax rates under the proposed plan.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

It wouldn't have changed anything about the process of increasing taxes. It was about creating new rates today that would have generated more revenue. If the legislature wanted to raise taxes in the future, they would have had to go through the exact same process that exists today. All the same votes.

Maybe you are suggesting that it would be politically easier to raise them in the future because they could theoretically target a certain income segment. Using this logic, the amendment would also make it easier to lower taxes. In fact, most people would have had lower tax rates under the proposed plan.

The bolded part is what I am saying. Sure taxes could go down, but for a dysfunctional, deadbeat state like Illinois, good luck with that.

I don't remember the details of the plan, but if "most people" would have lower taxes, that is certainly short term and was used a carrot to convince people to vote in favor.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

The bolded part is what I am saying. Sure taxes could go down, but for a dysfunctional, deadbeat state like Illinois, good luck with that.

I don't remember the details of the plan, but if "most people" would have lower taxes, that is certainly short term and was used a carrot to convince people to vote in favor.

That is a reasonable stance to take. I get it, I don’t like paying taxes. The number thrown around at the time was that 97% would see a decrease or the same. I personally think KG used his money to convince people to vote against an actual tax cut for themselves based on the boogeyman of a future tax increase. In the meantime, he saved himself a big tax hike. And he still threatens to move away and take his company with him.

[the urban politician]

..