Jump to content

Prairie Pucker

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    NW IL
  • Interests
    Firearms, reading, collecting other hobbies (per my wife)

Recent Profile Visitors

445 profile views

Prairie Pucker's Achievements


Member (21/24)

  1. Problem is, election after election IL's Repub party seems to think they can dredge up a Mr. No-Name-Recognition White guy, from someplace in Illinois that the northeast corner of the state considers "The Sticks," and then pray that photo-ops and flyers in our mailboxes will turn him into a candidate that's capable of winning a general election. How's that been working? Especially considering that there'll be little support from the media in the way of unbiased reporting, fair reporting, or even reporting at all. Especially in the NE corner where it's especially needed. If a solid R candidate had a real chance, then clearly I'd vote for him/her. But upsetting the established Dem machine in <this state>, turning it on it's ear by electing someone with solid conservative credentials (which would be ideal) has less than the proverbial snowball's chance. It's wishful thinking. It hurts, but it's the truth. Trump's endorsement will turn away as many voters as it attracts. We don't need perfection. We need Pritzker gone. Which at this time would be an amazing victory. Or in other words, good enough. I figure there's a reason a lot of the anti-Irvin flyers stuffing my mailbox are funded by the Democratic Governor's Association. They see Irvin as a threat to Pritzker. Which is good enough for me.
  2. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in the R primary is whether the winner stands even a <chance> against Pritzker. We can talk about candidate polls and argue 2A positions all day long, but in the world of realpolitik all that matters is how the candidate will fare in the northeast corner of the state, regardless of theories of how he got on the ballot to begin with. As I see it, Bailey or Sullivan have less than zero chance against Pritzker. They'll draw next to no votes from Chicago. IMO, the problem with IL conservatives is that, much like Chicago voters who habitually vote D "just because," IL cons vote R the same way....because that's what they've always done. When their candidates lose, they stand around looking at each other like a cow at a new fence. In doing so they completely neglect the realpolitik, the practical fact of the matter that Chicago wields an undue influence at election time. It really sucks to be an IL conservative. But instead of developing a different approach, one aimed at attracting more votes out of Chicago, what happens? We keep on doing the same old thing and losing more votes to urban areas along the way! And wow, does <that> ever work well! D's now control both branches of the legislature and a porcine D roots around in the gov's sty. It's a shame to have to play politics with politics, but as IL residents that's the hand we've been dealt. I've been voting R and 2A positions only for decades. Locally, the situation isn't great but it is tolerable. But at the state level? I'm <very> tired of seeing witness slips ignored by committee chairs. I'm tired of seeing the Speaker refuse to call bills. I'm tired of a gov who rubber stamps any and all antigun bills that hit his desk. Something needs to change. How could a vote for Irvin possibly be any worse than the complete D control that exists now?
  3. Voting for whom best represents my values does absolutely no good if they're not electable in Illinois. Sad, but political reality. It makes me sick after each election to see the IL county map that shows all but 2 or 3 counties voting red, yet blue wins at the state and federal level. I decided long ago that I would be a single-issue voter and that issue would be the 2A. I've been voting my values for decades and it's gotten me/us/the state nowhere. Despite electing local local pols who support the 2A, Chicago swamps out everything. Plus now I'm stuck with a D in the US House and 2 D's in the US Senate and zero representation of my views at the federal level. I'd like to see an R candidate for gov who can go after JB in a knife fight and at least inflict serious damage, if not outright win. My new motto is: Whatever It Takes. I think Irvin has the best chance of doing that.
  4. Hey, Valinda. I've been trying to help a client process his CCL renewal online and have run into a problem. I've probably done around 100 of these before and never had a situation I couldn't resolve. But this one has me stumped. This started well before the expiration date on his CCL of 4/11/22. The renewal button on his dashboard was active. He'd been helped with his original application 5 years ago by someone else and he had no record of the original User ID and password. He still had his original email addy, but entering that for the renewal produced an "already in use" error message. Finally we set up a new Gmail addy for him expressly for the purpose of being able to process his renewal. I've done this successfully before. I'll skip the drama. Suffice it to say, ultimately it did not work this time. Ultimately we arrived a a page that announced that "additional verification was needed" and to contact the ISP by either phone or email using the info provided. The phone was ISP's main line and from prior experience I knew the chances of speaking to a live person were minimal. I opted for email. A couple sentences at the bottom of the screen indicated that verification could be expedited by including a photo of the applicant holding his drivers license, his DOB, address, etc. with the email. This was done from the applicant's phone. No response was received. A few weeks later we tried again with a similar result. This time I did try the phone and as expected it went straight to voicemail. I'd have thought that since the renewal application webpage specifically recommended this phone number as part of "additional verification" that one of the voicemail menu options would reference "additional verification." No such luck. Ultimately after chasing down every menu choice I could think of I was eventually led back to "send them an email." This was done again with no response. Do you have a contact inside ISP that could reset this account back to "ground zero"? Or anything that would help move this forward? I'm in possession of photos of the guy's DL, FOID, CCL, user name and password, as well as his security Q & A. So I can answer most pertinent questions. But one time before when I was actually talking with a real ISP person about a different jam-up he refused to help because I wasn't the "actual" applicant. Presently we've been hammering on this for about 5 hours with nothing to show for it. My concern at this point is whether the applicant's CCL will remain valid if/when this is finally straightened out since the renewal process itself was not completed prior to 4/11/22. Thanks, Tom
  5. This verification business is rapidly turning into a real crock. I help people who find computers "challenging" to process their FOIDs and CCLs, both new and renewals. The last 2 I've worked with have had problems getting locked out with "additional verification is needed." I've been doing this since whenever year 1 was, and this is the first time for this particular error. In both cases the client did not have their original ID and password, so the process had to begin with setting up a new ID. When we got to the part asking for an email addy, naturally the one each provided had been used already. In one case, the client had no second email addy so I set up a new one on gmail. The other person had a second addy but it, too, had been used. Gmail saved the day, again. But then we hit the additional verification wall. Two choices were provided: Either call the main ISPFSB phone number, or send an email to a certain addy. From past experience I knew calling the number was essentially a waste of time & so for client 1 an email was sent with exactly the info requested. Client 2 worked on composing his email while I dialed the number, just to cover all bases. You'd think since the ISP was providing a specific phone number answered by a machine, that somewhere in the extensive menu of options one would specifically state "verification assistance," or words to that effect. You'd be wrong, of course. This, after all, is a state agency within Illinois. After circling the menu for 15 frustrating minutes I was no closer to finding anything relevant to verification but did finally reach an instruction to...wait for it.....send an email. Eventually, client 1 received a response that her ID application had been reset and that she could proceed with her renewal. From this point, the actual CCL portion of the application went normally. The entire thing only required 3 appointments, nearly six hours of my time and over 2 weeks to complete the process. Naturally, the part of the application that takes your money worked perfectly. After spending 2 hours with client 2, his "request for verification" email is still pending a response over a week later. Both clients have relatives that also want me to help them. I'm starting to dread the thought. To your list of data above, the ISP is also requesting a photograph of the applicant holding their ID. The instruction does not state, though I assume, that the ID must be held near their face. I take the photo with it next to their chin. Otherwise, it would surely be tempting to simply tape it to the backside of a single finger. Is there an end in sight? It is an embarrassing shame that Illinois citizens must tolerate this level of incompetency just to exercise a Constitutional right.
  6. Kind of reminds me of years ago when the ISRA refused to endorse Rauner because they didn't "know enough about him." WTH??? All a thinking person needed to know was that he was an R and his opponent was anti-gun. Should have been an automatic endorsement. But Pearson "didn't know enough." I never understood that.
  7. On the Profile page, what goes in the box entitled "Representation " and "Title" when registering as a "Firm/Business or Agency?" I'm thinking that "Title" would be "Owner." No idea about "Representation."
  8. What's your beef with Stewart? He's my rep and solidly pro-gun. And a pro-gun vote on the House Judiciary committee. He was also the House sponsor of SB607.
  9. MN does recognition based on analysis of permit requirements, so one would think they would add Illinois. They don't do agreements or require reciprocity. I've inquired with them as to whether they had yet analyzed IL licenses and not received an answer yet. I wish they did do agreements, if they did, they'd have OH and NM and I'd pick up a non-res from them to cover all the extra states I don't have now. Who did you contact in MN? I'd much like to see MN on the list, too.
  10. Is getting IL to recognize MN the only way MN will recognize IL? Or is there another avenue?
  • Create New...