or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 119

post #1771 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I was mostly just yanking your chain, but I wasn't implying you made it up in isolation. The implication was more about a willingness (which Gawker certainly is prone to) to throw around terms that fit the general reactive narrative even if they have no relationship to the actual facts under discussion.
Crazies often find "support" in the fact that other people are on the bus, whether the boogie man in question is the Clintons, Halliburton, measles vaccination, or Bill Belichik.
smile.gif


Understood, and thanks.

The problem is that the narratives and buzz phrases seem to work. War on women in 2012. Phoney scandals. The Democrats would point to Willy Horton, I'm sure.

I am torn on whether professionalism, integrity, sacrifice, and truth is a winning strategy, or is it a strategy for losers?

Is truth and fact, right and wrong, now just a matter of jersey color, compartmentalization, and relativism?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/

This dilemma crops up from time to time.

Do we wipe out the filibuster? Do we go Alinksy too? Do the ends justify the means? Is Machieavellism/Alinskyism the new morality?
post #1772 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Anyone else think Rahm might actually lose the runoff?

It seems unlikely.

Anecdotally, a lot of people have claimed to vote for Chuy as a spite vote. They don't want him to win, they just want Rahm to sweat a bit and have to moderate his positions to placate the masses since he is not invincible.

Chuy doesn't have anything resembling a plan for what he is proposing (how are you going to pay for 1000 new cops? the $100m spent on overtime isn't the answer). The real election already happened--you shouldn't still have "teams working" on your proposals, they should have been done before last week.

Add in the fact that the right has nobody else to support...but would be really unhappy if Chuy won, and I feel like it will go to Rahm.

The big thing that I can see swinging it away from Rahm would be a voter turnout issue. Local elections already aren't a high draw...how many people are going to do it a second time? Especially if the second time doesn't have an alderman vote or any meaningless ballot questions? I bet a lot of the people who just vote for Rahm because he's the mayor and they know the name don't show up.
post #1773 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Understood, and thanks.

The problem is that the narratives and buzz phrases seem to work. War on women in 2012. Phoney scandals. The Democrats would point to Willy Horton, I'm sure.

I am torn on whether professionalism, integrity, sacrifice, and truth is a winning strategy, or is it a strategy for losers?

Is truth and fact, right and wrong, now just a matter of jersey color, compartmentalization, and relativism?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/

This dilemma crops up from time to time.

Do we wipe out the filibuster? Do we go Alinksy too? Do the ends justify the means? Is Machieavellism/Alinskyism the new morality?
Dunno. To paraprase various folks, I know a bit about the law, not justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

It seems unlikely.

Anecdotally, a lot of people have claimed to vote for Chuy as a spite vote. They don't want him to win, they just want Rahm to sweat a bit and have to moderate his positions to placate the masses since he is not invincible.

Chuy doesn't have anything resembling a plan for what he is proposing (how are you going to pay for 1000 new cops? the $100m spent on overtime isn't the answer). The real election already happened--you shouldn't still have "teams working" on your proposals, they should have been done before last week.

Add in the fact that the right has nobody else to support...but would be really unhappy if Chuy won, and I feel like it will go to Rahm.

The big thing that I can see swinging it away from Rahm would be a voter turnout issue. Local elections already aren't a high draw...how many people are going to do it a second time? Especially if the second time doesn't have an alderman vote or any meaningless ballot questions? I bet a lot of the people who just vote for Rahm because he's the mayor and they know the name don't show up.

We had something like 9% turnout for a municipal election here yesterday. (I haven't actually checked that figure, it's just what I think I heard on the radio in the background this morning while talking to my daughter in the car. But it fits with the thesis, so what the hell.)
post #1774 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

We had something like 9% turnout for a municipal election here yesterday. (I haven't actually checked that figure, it's just what I think I heard on the radio in the background this morning while talking to my daughter in the car. But it fits with the thesis, so what the hell.)

Well, this was mayor plus aldermen, so we got a respectable 33% turnout!
post #1775 of 5117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post



Chuy doesn't have anything resembling a plan for what he is proposing...

This totally worked for Rahm's former boss.
post #1776 of 5117
Should we be saying "RODHAM FOR PRESIDENT"?

Clinton's email address is HRD22@Clintonmail.com

HRD must mean Hillary D. Rodham.

Interesting that she didn't use HRC.
post #1777 of 5117
..
post #1778 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Should we be saying "RODHAM FOR PRESIDENT"?

Clinton's email address is HRD22@Clintonmail.com

HRD must mean Hillary D. Rodham.

Interesting that she didn't use HRC.

I'm probably missing an obvious joke here, but aside from general sneakiness why would one use "HRD" rather than "HDR" for "Hillary D. Rodham"?
post #1779 of 5117
For the love of God stop quoting lighthouse.
post #1780 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This totally worked for Rahm's former boss.

I hope Rahm wins...I don't think Chuy will be good for the real problems facing the city/state. The problem is mostly money...we don't have it. It isn't crime (that has been on a pretty solid downward trend), it isn't the school closings, it isn't even the guns (which the mayor can barely do anything about anyways).

If Chuy is elected, he is probably going to spend the next 4 years trying to dismantle policies that are already in place. Instead of dealing with the imminent financial problems, he is going to try and change how TIF funds are allocated and try to change how the school board operates. He would try and change the power structure that allowed Rahm to close a bunch of schools, without doing anything about the fact that the school system has 100,000 less students in it than it had a decade ago.

Rahm's an ass, but at least he is willing to make the asshole moves...trying to tell the privatized parking meters to go fuck themselves, closing half-empty schools even if it has the unfortunate side effect that some kids will have to cross gang lines (that probably only exist there because of the old school boundaries), etc.
Right now the city needs an asshole (and probably half as many aldermen...but that's a different story)
Yay 2nd ward: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Cross that shit out--there, I just saved the city the expense of one useless alderman who can't possibly have a cohesive constituent group.
post #1781 of 5117
I hope a conservative Republican becomes mayor of Chicago.
post #1782 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I'm probably missing an obvious joke here, but aside from general sneakiness why would one use "HRD" rather than "HDR" for "Hillary D. Rodham"?

My bad, its HDR. I guess like FDR.
post #1783 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhowie View Post

For the love of God stop quoting lighthouse.


You can't get rid of me that easily, Jerome.
post #1784 of 5117
It looks like the White House counsel (as well as others) never noticed the domain name when emailing with Hillary.
post #1785 of 5117
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

It looks like the White House counsel (as well as others) never noticed the domain name when emailing with Hillary.
I'm assuming it's more "didn't care" (or maybe "chose not to say anything") than "didn't notice".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob