Jump to content


Photo

Jeanne Ives will be on the ballot...do more than just vote


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#31 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:36 AM

 

 

<popcorn>  I don't see rauner winning re-election. He isolated too many people that voted for him last election. The push for Ives is proof of that.  The machine controlled media has never stopped blitzing against rauner. The machine marketing money has continuously run anti rauner campaign style ads since rauner took office, those usually end after the election. Those ads have blamed everything that is wrong in this state on Rauner and the sheeple buy it up. 

 

Exactly. Rauner is going to get destroyed either way.

 

 

That's not a given depending on how ugly the whole democratic primary goes and as for "Baby murder" there is that whole Roe vs. Wade thing. Don't vote, it's YOUR right that you are not using. I will say this though, regardless of what party you belong to there are a lot of women who would have some serious things to say about your views as a man on what they should be allowed to do with THEIR bodies.

 

 

I don't think you're hearing me. I don't expect governor Rauner to overturn Roe v. Wade. I DID expect him to continue the ban on using public money to fund abortions. He just couldn't avoid doing that. I can't understand why. Are you aware that Illinois is the only state that allows tax money to be used for abortion? And it happened because a Republican governor signed off on it? That's not acceptable.



#32 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:38 AM

Ok, you understand the repercussions your "no-vote." Some people don't. Lot's of "no-votes" from people who were "rubbed the wrong way" by Trump. Made them feel like they were making a significant stand. Glad Trump still won.

 

Trump isn't using tax money for abortion. I have no problems with Trump. I think he's great. And, if he does have the chance to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices, Roe v. Wade could be in serious jeopardy.



#33 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 05 December 2017 - 08:28 PM

"I don't think you're hearing me. I don't expect governor Rauner to overturn Roe v. Wade. I DID expect him to continue the ban on using public money to fund abortions. He just couldn't avoid doing that. I can't understand why. Are you aware that Illinois is the only state that allows tax money to be used for abortion? And it happened because a Republican governor signed off on it? That's not acceptable."

 

 

Until more people oppose then approve of Roe v. Wade it won't be overturned regardless if it goes against your beliefs. Abortion is a very touchy subject but it seems right now it's Ives only real argument. It is the one thing she is constantly saying: "Rauner signed HB40." She will need a much better argument, plus a plan and ALOT of money to stand a chance in the primary. Do you realize that your statement of "Illinois is the only state that allows tax money to be used for abortion" is COMPLETELY WRONG? There are 17 states that use tax money to be used for abortions so you might want to do some fact checking.


There are currently 17 states who use their own state funds to provide abortions and similar services. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. California spent more then 27 million dollars on more then 83,000 abortions in 2014.


I hear you bright and clear. You don't like what Rauner did. You wont vote for him. You like Ives because she has the same mindset. That's your right. I'm just being realistic. She doesn't stand a chance because she doesn't have nearly enough money to win. That leaves Rauner who has had Madigan being a total PITA his entire term OR Pritzker. I will vote for anybody who is Pritzgers opponent. That's going to be Rauner. That's my right. You can vote or not, I don't care but make no mistake about it, if you don't vote AGAINST Pritzker it's the same as voting for him. There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.



#34 Terry 9595

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 13

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:13 PM

Trump uses Twitter to get his message to the people. Since the "news Media" will not give uou the truth.

President Trump, doesn't that sound so good, has to go around the Democratic controled media.

Even when he does twit they try to turn it around.

Hopefully the people can see through it.

Terry K. Bell

 

Member of NRA

Member of ISRA

State of Illinois Licensed Firearm Instructor - 263.000152

State Police Certified Instructor for FCCL

Utah Firearm Instructor  I111295

NRA Law Enforcement Instructor- Handgun, Shotgun and Patrol Rifle

NRA Instructor for

        Certified Home Safety

        Certified Pistol

         Personal Protection In The Home

         Certified Shotgun

         Refuse To Be A Victim

 

NRA Range Safety Officer

Licensed Private Detective

License Security Contractor

 

 

 

 


#35 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:40 PM

Trump Tweeting is fine but he is the President. Somebody should proof read his Tweets and then the MSM won't have a field day with them. He does Tweet some bizarre stuff and being the President, well some of it is beneath him. It is a changing world. A year plus after the election and you still have Obozo talking about climate change. What ever happened to the days when you left office and just shut up? For example W? He said congratulations, Obozo was sworn in and no more from W. The same with HRC," I wrote a book". Who cares?

You're lucky to not be in prison.



#36 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,108 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:46 AM

Trump Tweeting is fine but he is the President. Somebody should proof read his Tweets and then the MSM won't have a field day with them. He does Tweet some bizarre stuff and being the President, well some of it is beneath him. It is a changing world. A year plus after the election and you still have Obozo talking about climate change. What ever happened to the days when you left office and just shut up? For example W? He said congratulations, Obozo was sworn in and no more from W. The same with HRC," I wrote a book". Who cares?

You're lucky to not be in prison.

You and anybody else who bad-mouths Trump's tweets just doesn't get it.



#37 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:05 AM

 

Trump Tweeting is fine but he is the President. Somebody should proof read his Tweets and then the MSM won't have a field day with them. He does Tweet some bizarre stuff and being the President, well some of it is beneath him. It is a changing world. A year plus after the election and you still have Obozo talking about climate change. What ever happened to the days when you left office and just shut up? For example W? He said congratulations, Obozo was sworn in and no more from W. The same with HRC," I wrote a book". Who cares?

You're lucky to not be in prison.

You and anybody else who bad-mouths Trump's tweets just doesn't get it.

 

 

I get it, he's the PRESIDENT and when he Tweets something stupid the MSM jumps all over it. I'm all for him Tweeting but he needs to show a little more self control. He's supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet and some of his Tweets are not Presidential.

 

I'll give you one thing, you definitely stick up for Trump and LaPierre regardless of some of the stupid things they say or do. They are human and make mistakes. That doesn't mean I don't like them or "get it". Did you ever think that maybe you don't "get it".



#38 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,108 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:13 AM

 

 

Trump Tweeting is fine but he is the President. Somebody should proof read his Tweets and then the MSM won't have a field day with them. He does Tweet some bizarre stuff and being the President, well some of it is beneath him. It is a changing world. A year plus after the election and you still have Obozo talking about climate change. What ever happened to the days when you left office and just shut up? For example W? He said congratulations, Obozo was sworn in and no more from W. The same with HRC," I wrote a book". Who cares?

You're lucky to not be in prison.

You and anybody else who bad-mouths Trump's tweets just doesn't get it.

 

 

I get it, he's the PRESIDENT and when he Tweets something stupid the MSM jumps all over it. I'm all for him Tweeting but he needs to show a little more self control. He's supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet and some of his Tweets are not Presidential.

 

I'll give you one thing, you definitely stick up for Trump and LaPierre regardless of some of the stupid things they say or do. They are human and make mistakes. That doesn't mean I don't like them or "get it". Did you ever think that maybe you don't "get it".

 

Have you ever noticed the times when Trump baits/manipulates the left-wing media?



#39 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:20 PM

On occasion he has baited them into a frenzy. I actually love that. My only problem is when he Tweets about something that's clearly beneath his office and is usually personal. The MSM runs with it, he is just a human being and they just keep pounding it into the ground.

I actually love when he Tweets something that leaves everybody guessing and it gives them days to speculate on what he meant and gives them a chance to make ***** out of themselves. We are on the same side here, it's just on occasion he should just not Tweet.

 

He could accomplish so much if wasn't for the entire Democratic Party not even trying to do what's right for the Country and listen to reason. It also doesn't help when he has Republicans who stand against him for stupid reasons. Congress should be working together to make this a better Country. Instead the Dems stick to their party lines and a few Republicans need a kick in the head.



#40 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,108 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:12 PM

On occasion he has baited them into a frenzy. I actually love that. My only problem is when he Tweets about something that's clearly beneath his office and is usually personal. The MSM runs with it, he is just a human being and they just keep pounding it into the ground.
I actually love when he Tweets something that leaves everybody guessing and it gives them days to speculate on what he meant and gives them a chance to make ***** out of themselves. We are on the same side here, it's just on occasion he should just not Tweet.
 
He could accomplish so much if wasn't for the entire Democratic Party not even trying to do what's right for the Country and listen to reason. It also doesn't help when he has Republicans who stand against him for stupid reasons. Congress should be working together to make this a better Country. Instead the Dems stick to their party lines and a few Republicans need a kick in the head.you

You said "My only problem is when he Tweets about something that's clearly beneath his office and is usually personal.."

Those are the ones I'm talking about. Shocking. Personal. motional. Those are the manipulative ones.

#41 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,052 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:56 PM

There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.

What is more important than stopping the spending of tax payer money to murder unborn infants?


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#42 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:45 PM

Jeanne Ives swore an oath to defend the Constitution and she is serious about it - she's a champ !

 

I wish she'd run for president, our country needs her !

 

Don't they all swear that same type of oath - then ignore it?


Edited by Talonap, 06 December 2017 - 06:45 PM.


#43 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:47 PM

 

Jeanne Ives swore an oath to defend the Constitution and she is serious about it - she's a champ !

 

I wish she'd run for president, our country needs her !

 

Amen. Yes, she is a veteran.

 

 

Not saying anything against her, but so is Tammy Duckworth ...


Edited by Talonap, 06 December 2017 - 06:47 PM.


#44 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:13 PM

 

There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.

What is more important than stopping the spending of tax payer money to murder unborn infants?

 

 

I'll leave it at "Quite A Lot" and let you figure it out. If either realistic candidate gets elected HB40 doesn't change. If Pritzker gets elected a bunch of things we take for granted do. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how Pritzker getting elected changes the entire picture.

Basically do you think that Ives who isn't remotely a realistic candidate just makes HB40 go away? It's a Law, like it or not. Plus I don't see Ives name on the Thomas More Society lawsuit which is the only chance to block HB40. Tomorrow should be interesting.



#45 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:08 PM

There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.

What is more important than stopping the spending of tax payer money to murder unborn infants?
[purple] One less liberal, one less welfare recipient, one less special snowflake my kids have to accommodate at school, one less kid dumbing down and liberalism the school system, one less kid my kid has to compete with in this everyone goes to college society, one less potential criminal.

Really, if you guys hate liberals so much why are abortion bad when only liberals get abortions? It's kind of a self administered eugenics program. Quite frankly I think it's the best use of my tax dollars yet! [/purple]

Quite frankly I'm disappointed that Rauner didn't fulfill what the liberals told me he promised, to make fully automatic assault rifles legal.

Edited by chicagoresident, 07 December 2017 - 03:12 PM.


#46 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:35 PM

 

 

There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.

What is more important than stopping the spending of tax payer money to murder unborn infants?

 

 

I'll leave it at "Quite A Lot" and let you figure it out. If either realistic candidate gets elected HB40 doesn't change. If Pritzker gets elected a bunch of things we take for granted do. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how Pritzker getting elected changes the entire picture.

Basically do you think that Ives who isn't remotely a realistic candidate just makes HB40 go away? It's a Law, like it or not. Plus I don't see Ives name on the Thomas More Society lawsuit which is the only chance to block HB40. Tomorrow should be interesting.

 

 

So keep voting for the guy who gave us HB40...? When will you turn on the guy? Would you still vote for Rauner's re-election if he signed a bump stock ban? Assault weapons ban? I mean, is there any limit?



#47 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:36 PM

 

There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.

What is more important than stopping the spending of tax payer money to murder unborn infants?

 

 

I can't think of a single thing.



#48 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:48 PM

"I don't think you're hearing me. I don't expect governor Rauner to overturn Roe v. Wade. I DID expect him to continue the ban on using public money to fund abortions. He just couldn't avoid doing that. I can't understand why. Are you aware that Illinois is the only state that allows tax money to be used for abortion? And it happened because a Republican governor signed off on it? That's not acceptable."

 

 

Until more people oppose then approve of Roe v. Wade it won't be overturned regardless if it goes against your beliefs. Abortion is a very touchy subject but it seems right now it's Ives only real argument. It is the one thing she is constantly saying: "Rauner signed HB40." She will need a much better argument, plus a plan and ALOT of money to stand a chance in the primary. Do you realize that your statement of "Illinois is the only state that allows tax money to be used for abortion" is COMPLETELY WRONG? There are 17 states that use tax money to be used for abortions so you might want to do some fact checking.


There are currently 17 states who use their own state funds to provide abortions and similar services. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. California spent more then 27 million dollars on more then 83,000 abortions in 2014.


I hear you bright and clear. You don't like what Rauner did. You wont vote for him. You like Ives because she has the same mindset. That's your right. I'm just being realistic. She doesn't stand a chance because she doesn't have nearly enough money to win. That leaves Rauner who has had Madigan being a total PITA his entire term OR Pritzker. I will vote for anybody who is Pritzgers opponent. That's going to be Rauner. That's my right. You can vote or not, I don't care but make no mistake about it, if you don't vote AGAINST Pritzker it's the same as voting for him. There's a lot more at stake then state funded abortion in this election.

1) One more time...I didn't expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I only expected a Republican governor to refuse to use public funds to pay for abortions.

 

2) I stand corrected on how many states use public money for abortions. It doesn't matter. It's wrong no matter how many states do it. If you want to murder your baby, pay for it yourself. I mean, wouldn't it be patently ridiculous to use tax money to buy guns for citizens who can't afford to buy guns for themselves? Do you believe the right to own a gun is more, less, or equal of a right as getting an abortion?

3) No, sorry, Ives is not a single-issue candidate. You should watch some of her videos on youtube. She's giving speeches and doing debates on the floor of the legislature about a myriad of topics...including the state's inexcusable spending problem (which Rauner has been completely ineffective in doing anything about).

4) A refusal to vote isn't a vote for anyone. You can say that all you want. I prefer a clear conscience to a lesser-of-two-evils. I can tolerate quite a lot. I can hold my nose and vote for a person who I don't particularly care for. I will not, however, compromise on using my money to murder babies. Sorry.  This state is finished anyway. Rauner really was the last hope and he botched it. The state is bankrupt ant that's going to spiral right down the toilet. They refuse to cut spending (or can't) and the more you raise taxes, the more people will leave...just exacerbating the problem. Now we are shielding illegal immigrants from deportation...just insuring that the state will turn more and more commie with time. A Republican governor put the nail in the coffin. When the state is full of illegal immigrants who vote and drive and don't pay taxes and take all the low-skilled jobs...what kind of state will we have? Probably one that bans guns...thanks to a "Republican" governor you're arguing to keep.



#49 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 07 December 2017 - 06:49 PM

1) Roe v. Wade is the LAW so it's not murder regardless of your personal views, your taxes are going up regardless of HB40. 

2) The 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and therefore is an unalienable RIGHT so there's no comparison.

3) Blah, blah, blah I need my 15 minutes and am probably going to get most of my campaign money from the Democrats.

4) Not voting is your right but don't think for a second you aren't handing the election to Pritzker by abstaining.

 

5) There's a saying, "No Uterus, No Opinion" and that applies to people with a Y chromosome, which is you.

6) Isn't there an abortion clinic you should be picketing at screaming BABY MURDERER at random young women?

7) Three posts in a row, perhaps a Wingnut? I can be a fine upstanding Republican and not be part of the lunatic fringe. 

8) When your CCL renewal costs $5000 under Pritzker look in the mirror and say "I caused this, this is my fault".


Edited by Mick G, 07 December 2017 - 06:51 PM.


#50 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:28 PM

B R I N G I N G   T H E   C O N V E R S A T I O N   B A C K   O N   T O P I C . . . 

 

Ives' running mate is former Representative Rich Morthland. I don't know if anyone remembers, but during his service in Springfield, Mr. Morthland was the main sponsor of HB3500, the FOID Privacy Act, that prohibited Attorney General Lisa Madigan from releasing the name and address of every FOID card holder to one of the Chicago newspapers. 

 

I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Morthland at the Rock Island County Right To Carry Town Hall back in 2012. Despite being recently trampled by a bull on his farm, Mr. Morthland showed up to the Town Hall meeting in crutches to express his support for right to carry in Illinois. He is currently an instructor at Black Hawk College in Moline.

 

He's a great Second Amendment supporter, and I'm glad to see him on the ticket.

 

 

-- Frank


Edited by Frank, 07 December 2017 - 08:29 PM.

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#51 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 07 December 2017 - 09:13 PM

This thread pretty much affirms what I already thought of Jeanne Ives, she just wants to use this election as her Roe v Wade smackdown platform.

The last thing we need is her and Rauner to have a conservative-off in the local news and papers in a highly contested election in a North VS. South blue/red state.

Rauner can't get anything done, and that's just fine. We need someone in the governer's house to stand against the machine. Otherwise Skeletor bankrupts our state.

#52 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 09:38 PM

 Otherwise Skeletor bankrupts our state.

 

He already has.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#53 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 08 December 2017 - 06:46 AM

This thread pretty much affirms what I already thought of Jeanne Ives, she just wants to use this election as her Roe v Wade smackdown platform.

The last thing we need is her and Rauner to have a conservative-off in the local news and papers in a highly contested election in a North VS. South blue/red state.

Rauner can't get anything done, and that's just fine. We need someone in the governer's house to stand against the machine. Otherwise Skeletor bankrupts our state.

 

Actually Ives and Rauner will not have conservative-off highly contested primary because I live right on the edge of the 42nd district and have never heard of this bored Wheaton housewife until she started her HB40 nonsense. Rauner crushes her in the primary regardless of how much money the Dems manage to sneak into her primary fund and she disappears after she gets crushed 80% - 20%.

 

One of the biggest problems with Rauner is Madigan has been nothing but a PITA his whole term. You basically have "The Machine" putting roadblocks in everything he has tried to do. He came into an office that was in shambles from Quinn and Blago before him. Rauner didn't bankrupt Illinois, It was already wrecked compliments of Mike Madigan. As for Mr. Morthland, I'm sure he's swell but no chance.

 

It boils down to this, Pritzker who is nothing more then a rich spoiled 52 year old, Kennedy who is nothing more then a rich spoiled 54 year old, Ives who is a shill for the Dems or Rauner who is the only REAL Republican candidate. 

 

It will come down to this: If Pritzker gets into office he will go after the 2nd amendment. Kennedy can cause him some issues but he crushes Kennedy in the primary, Rauner has nothing to worry about from Ives even if the Dems sneak a few million into her $ 32,000 war chest, she is a non factor. In the actual race for governor it comes down to Pritzker vs. Rauner.

 

Pick your poison, Rauner or Pritzker who with help of the Dems will have complete control of Illinois.

These are billionaires squaring off, it's nice to think that money doesn't win elections but it does.

Gone are the days when you grew up thinking that you could be the POTUS. You cant even be a governor without hundreds of millions spent on your campaign. The poison I choose is Rauner because Pritzker is basically a tax cheating scumbag who will use the office to make his wealthy friends and family wealthier and completely destroy Illinois in the process.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make. I have no special agenda, HB40 is law and there is no candidate who is going to change that even if they wanted to. I'm stating how this plays out in next year based on reality and not emotion.

 

 

Rauner or Pritzker? - Choose wisely


Edited by Mick G, 08 December 2017 - 06:47 AM.


#54 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 08 December 2017 - 07:20 AM

There's no way she's going to be on the primary ticket, but she can cause the Bernie Sanders effect.

And you can bet all the papers and TV will give her coverage and ask Rauner to respond to whatever accusations she throws out about his time in office.

It serves 2 purposes, it will make Rauner look more ultraconservative (not a good thing), and it will back up the picture the Dems want to paint of him being ineffective in in office. Which as we all know as long as Madigan is speaker all you can do as a Republican governor is veto and often get overruled.

#55 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 08 December 2017 - 09:56 AM

There's no way she's going to be on the primary ticket, but she can cause the Bernie Sanders effect.

And you can bet all the papers and TV will give her coverage and ask Rauner to respond to whatever accusations she throws out about his time in office.

It serves 2 purposes, it will make Rauner look more ultraconservative (not a good thing), and it will back up the picture the Dems want to paint of him being ineffective in in office. Which as we all know as long as Madigan is speaker all you can do as a Republican governor is veto and often get overruled.

 

We are total agreement if she gets enough coverage which the Dems will surely make happen. With Madigan in power there really isn't much a Republican governor can do. You can actually see Rauner is already getting aggravated and honestly if he were smart he would just drop out and avoid himself further aggravation. Let Ives take the beating in the general election, she would be like a deer in the headlights going against BIG money. Her and Pritzker debating while he's eating a sandwich, "Yeah I'll address that when I'm done chewing". At the end of the debate, "Jeanne, do you need gas money to get home?" No JB, I have $20 which should give me a half a tank. I say that because if Rauner drops out her money from the Dems goes poof.

BTW: Ives loses her seat in the House but at least Morthland has something to fall back on.

 

WE ARE BACK ON TOPIC



#56 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 08 December 2017 - 10:46 AM

Rauner has a very good chance, Illinois is a Red state down South so it balances us out from totally going to heck.

Rauner can't get anything done, but he can make bad things not get done with veto power when there isn't 2/3 vote to overturn.

Despite what Madigan would like to believe Illinois is not just Crook County. More and more people are getting tired of their tax dollars going to support Madigans ponzi scheme in gov workers and education.

Edited by chicagoresident, 08 December 2017 - 10:48 AM.


#57 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 08 December 2017 - 11:45 AM

Illinois is basically a red state except for a few counties. The problem is that a lot of FAR right people have been triggered by the whole HB40 nonsense as has been witnessed on this thread. That includes Ives or maybe she just thought that was her way onto the ballot.

 

I would love to see him win re election because while Madigan has been playing sick filthy for many years, Quinn is proof of that, more so is Blago so it would be nice to have a Republican governor who can just veto any nonsense bill that gets passed by the Dems.

 

IOW if Rauner doesn't let the smear campaign that Pritzker is going to run affect him, maybe he can turn the tables and use the FBI tapes between Blago and Pritzker against Pritzker. This whole conversation makes me feel like I need a long shower.

http://www.chicagotr...0531-story.html

 

Warning: The conversation taped by the FBI between Pritzker and Blagojevich contains explicit language.



#58 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 08 December 2017 - 12:18 PM

So what about Kennedy? I realize his war chest is far smaller then Pritzker's but he could get a lot more in out of state astroturf cash.

He hasn't really taken position on a lot of issues becauses he's studying the demographics. Obviously he's using his family as a reason to be antigun, but that's about it. Also, for a Kennedy there seems to be very little dirt other then a failed no bid construction project http://www.chicagotr...1115-story.html

And that Kennedy name recognition goes a long way with the left. Which one has the union connection?

Edited by chicagoresident, 08 December 2017 - 12:20 PM.


#59 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 09 December 2017 - 05:48 AM

They are pond scum and that's why I'm hoping the Democratic primary turns into a serious mudslinging contest and it's starting already with Kennedy calling out Berrios which leads right to Madigan. They both come out looking badly in the end and one goes up against Rauner. In all likelihood it will be Pritzker and the beauty of Ives is she is going to be saying the same thing over and over until the primary is over. Did Rauner lose some of the far right fringe? Yes he did but right now he isn't taking Ives seriously at all. On the news some reporter asked about debating Ives and he just rolled his eyes. 

 

I'm sure they polled how many votes he lost by signing that bill and I would guess less then 10%. That is just a wild guess and there isn't a poll available to back that up yet. The point of this is those 10% that are all hopped up mad right now are going to get out and vote for Ives even though right now she is basically a tape on a loop. People with average intelligence or above are going to know how Madigan is the "REAL" governor of Illinois as that FBI tape shows. Blago couldn't get anything done and he was a Dem before he went to prison unless Madigan wanted it done.

 

The thing is the fringe will come out and vote for Ives. She gets destroyed in the primary and those people who had no intention of even voting at all get a wake up call during the actual election. They are going to look at what is in front of them and realize it's going to be the lesser of two evils so they go and vote for Rauner. Will all of them? No. Does he pick up votes because they registered for the primary? Yes. In the end he picks up votes from people who were going to abstain.

 

As for Kennedy he and Ra Joy look like Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor, Pritzker looks a steak and potato away from a massive coronary, Ives looks like one of those women where you want anywhere but near her (like your sister who just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over again - ("I know I broke your doll in 1975 but I was 7 and that was 42 years ago") and yes Rauner does look like Skeletor. I don't get the whole Ra Joy thing "Tonight at Joes - Chance The Rapper with DJ Ra Joy". It's a goofy bunch but if Pritzker keep piling the butter on his potato and skipping his salad then it's Kennedy against Rauner and Rauner wins that one easily.

 

Would you vote for this guy? Maybe in Massachusetts if he drove an Oldsmobile off a bridge but not in Illinois.

 

 

                           5425676_2.jpg?v=8C7F97917831670

 

 

                             



#60 bmurph44

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 17

Posted 09 December 2017 - 08:41 AM

This thread pretty much affirms what I already thought of Jeanne Ives, she just wants to use this election as her Roe v Wade smackdown platform.

 

Exactly, she's pandering to the single issue voter.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users