CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[moorhosj1]

Another note on Vallas' time at CPS and the potential long-term impacts.

During Vallas’ six years with the district, and for several years following his tenure, CPS paid next to nothing toward teacher pension costs. The Vallas era at CPS coincided with the dot.com bubble that sent markets soaring, helping the pension fund stay healthy even without the annual injections of cash it began missing out on.

We asked Vallas in a phone interview why he opted to stop pension payments. "The system was earning such strong returns, it didn’t require that we make contributions during those few years," he explained.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

We've already discussed LL extensively, and why we collectively dislike her, so not going to beat a dead horse there.

My first beef I had with Chuy was his opposition to the Ashland BRT. Anyone against BRT in the city is a no-go for me. With that said, if I had to pick between LL and Chuy in a runoff, I would clearly go with Chuy.

I was just calling out that all of the major candidates support more police, so that isn't a differentiator. There was some talk about BRT when Chuy ran 8 years ago, his current stance from his campaign site literally mentions Ashland BRT as something to consider. Again, Vallas' site doesn't even mention public transit:

Expand the system to meet demand. I am committed to seeing the completion of the Red Line extension on Chicago’s south side. We will also explore other improvements and possible expansions of the CTA system to make sure that all neighborhoods get regular, reliable and frequent service. Dynamic cities don’t stand pat – they are constantly looking to improve, grow, and connect places that are isolated from each other. Among the ideas to consider:

o Extending the Blue Line beyond O’Hare to nearby manufacturing jobs

o A connector between Midway and O’Hare along existing right-of-way

o Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure on arterial roads like Ashland or Western Avenues.

o A “circle line” that links all of CTA’s rail lines and all of Metra’s lines

[Handro]

It’s disheartening that none of the candidates are good. I talk myself out of voting for Candidate X the second I feel convinced to vote for them. Vallas has a pretty sketchy record, Johnson wants to turn the city into a CTU fiefdom, I’m not sure Chuy is a real human, LL is a non-starter, and the rest are polling so poorly it doesn’t seem worth it to vote for them. Chicagos problems are so deeply entrenched and the people we have vying to lead the city do not seem up to the task.

[CrazyCres]

Vallas updated his website and added his plans for Education, Aging in Place, the Pension crisis, reducing youth violence, women's health and safety, and environmental justice.

Some are more comprehensive than others

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Basically in Chicago, you can be totally normal and good but if there is even a SCENT that you tolerate conservative organizations or values, you are DONE.


Great. A local politician is being judged based on non-issue national issues.

Why did he have to denounce Florida's governor? How on Earth does that relate to Chicago?

At least for me - Bullshit. This has nothing to do with aligning with any conservative organization. There are various things I have conservative leanings on and I don't mind various politicians having alignment with various orgs. I have a problem with that specific organization and various others. I have voted locally for conservative politicians before. There are many others in my camp too. This is the midwest, not the Bay Area. Most people in Chicago whether you and especially they like to admit it or not have moderate or conservative leanings on some things.

Stop trying to make this about a "conservative vs. liberal" thing for everyone who raises this up because it's not that with me, and I don't appreciate having some blanket statement put on me just because I happen to think Awake is a completely screwed up organization.

And why did Vallas raise up issue with DeSantis? Part because DeSantis is a nutjob with some of his social leanings and while there might be truth to Vallas not aligning with it, he also knows that aligning with someone who passed the so called "Don't Say Gay" law amongst other things is political suicide in the 3rd largest US city. This is Politics 101 for large US cities. Aligning with people who are on the fringes is typically going to get you in trouble in terms of a major election (not talking about smaller elections like for an alderman of a small area of a city).


And also, Vallas is winning or in 2nd place in pretty much every poll out there. He's most likely going to make the run off. What are you talking about "he's done"?

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Vallas literally denounced Awake after that speaking engagement stating, "I will be more vigilant about vetting invitations in the future."

https://patch.com/illinois/napervill...hetoric-report

nothing burger. . . moving on. . .

. . .

Here is my issue with that and has always been. I'll forgive a normal person for aligning with an organization they didn't do their due diligence on. However, someone gunning for mayor of the 3rd largest city not doing their due diligence and hiding behind that is not a good look. If you are asked by any organization to speak and you hold a certain level of power and/or work for a company with a certain reputation, you do your due diligence for it. I can forgive him for not doing it, as a regular guy, but knowing that he spoke at an event for a group he then later found out with easy research that it might not align to him is sloppy at best. It does not instill confidence that he can have his act together to lead the 3rd largest city in America, and one of the largest economies in the entire world. Lightfoot gives me the same vibes to be honest.


There's a few things for Vallas that are kind of orange flags for me. There is a small possibility I may vote for him still, but that's because pretty much everyone either sucks or there's no use in voting for those select couple I do find good. But to be very frank too, I'd trust someone like Chuy any day (who btw I was very against when he ran against Rahm) to do simple due diligence checks over Vallas and LL.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Basically in Chicago, you can be totally normal and good but if there is even a SCENT that you tolerate conservative organizations or values, you are DONE.

Vallas is leading the majority of polls and virtually guaranteed a spot in the runoff. How is he “DONE”? Get real.

Local elections aren’t about party politics.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I'd trust someone like Chuy any day (who btw I was very against when he ran against Rahm) to do simple due diligence checks over Vallas and LL.

You know.... You are right - Chuy obviously has done a much better job of doing due diligence.

Oh wait....

https://www.wbez.org/stories/chuy-ga...f-a31bbcf5529a

[cityofneighborhoods]

Surprised no one mentioned this, but it is increasingly looking more likely that the run-off will be Vallas vs. Johnson: https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/ch...vallas-johnson

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods

Surprised no one mentioned this, but it is increasingly looking more likely that the run-off will be Vallas vs. Johnson: https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/ch...vallas-johnson

This is the worst case scenario IMO. Vallas/Lightfoot/Chuy are not borderline existential threats to the city's future like I feel Johnson is... if he's able to implement half of what he's proposing that is.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by twister244

You know.... You are right - Chuy obviously has done a much better job of doing due diligence.

Oh wait....

https://www.wbez.org/stories/chuy-ga...f-a31bbcf5529a

I meant "more" when i said thag. I never said I'd trust him. Totally different things. The bar is low with almost all of these candidates.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Here is my issue with that and has always been. I'll forgive a normal person for aligning with an organization they didn't do their due diligence on. However, someone gunning for mayor of the 3rd largest city not doing their due diligence and hiding behind that is not a good look. If you are asked by any organization to speak and you hold a certain level of power and/or work for a company with a certain reputation, you do your due diligence for it. I can forgive him for not doing it, as a regular guy, but knowing that he spoke at an event for a group he then later found out with easy research that it might not align to him is sloppy at best. It does not instill confidence that he can have his act together to lead the 3rd largest city in America, and one of the largest economies in the entire world. Lightfoot gives me the same vibes to be honest.


There's a few things for Vallas that are kind of orange flags for me. There is a small possibility I may vote for him still, but that's because pretty much everyone either sucks or there's no use in voting for those select couple I do find good. But to be very frank too, I'd trust someone like Chuy any day (who btw I was very against when he ran against Rahm) to do simple due diligence checks over Vallas and LL.

I think you're nit-picking. . . we don't have an ideal slate of candidates to work with, so it's a game of lesser-evils, and he seems to be the least evil. . . despite the fact that he or his staff didn't fully vet the organization that he spoke at two years ago. . .

. . .

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I think you're nit-picking. . . we don't have an ideal slate of candidates to work with, so it's a game of lesser-evils, and he seems to be the least evil. . . despite the fact that he or his staff didn't fully vet the organization that he spoke at two years ago. . .

. . .

His actions suggest he did vet it and found that he agreed with their message. After listening to the lady talk, he endorsed her run for Governor. He got called out, then started to backtrack. Lack of vetting is his excuse.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

I think you're nit-picking. . . we don't have an ideal slate of candidates to work with, so it's a game of lesser-evils, and he seems to be the least evil. . . despite the fact that he or his staff didn't fully vet the organization that he spoke at two years ago. . .

. . .

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

His actions suggest he did vet it and found that he agreed with their message. After listening to the lady talk, he endorsed her run for Governor. He got called out, then started to backtrack. Lack of vetting is his excuse.

How low are the standards when that is nit picking? The mayor of the 3rd largest city in the US and one of the most powerful economies in the world can do a 5 minute Google search on this. Sorry, it's not nit picking. It's called having some basic standards. And yes, he even said Shanon Adcock should run for governor after hearing her speak. There are some things I like about Vallas, but there's also other things that I see that are just not "right."

His Twitter account, also supposedly not run by him, liked a bunch of questionable shit. Again, even if you truly believe it's not him (very possible it's not) - he can't do something so simple as to ensure that someone running his social media accounts isn't going to do something that bites him later or currently?

The guy is sloppy and unfortunately almost all the other candidates are too. There's really only a few sane ones it seems.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by marothisu

How low are the standards when that is nit picking? The mayor of the 3rd largest city in the US and one of the most powerful economies in the world can do a 5 minute Google search on this. Sorry, it's not nit picking. It's called having some basic standards. And yes, he even said Shanon Adcock should run for governor after hearing her speak. There are some things I like about Vallas, but there's also other things that I see that are just not "right."

His Twitter account, also supposedly not run by him, liked a bunch of questionable shit. Again, even if you truly believe it's not him (very possible it's not) - he can't do something so simple as to ensure that someone running his social media accounts isn't going to do something that bites him later or currently?

The guy is sloppy and unfortunately almost all the other candidates are too. There's really only a few sane ones it seems.

I'm really confused here......

You are getting hung up on Vallas speaking at an event for a group that he denounced as soon as he saw their posts about Pritzker. You can criticize him for making that event attendance, but he did denounce his connections to the group as soon as he saw what they posted.

Again - Paul Vallas has stated he's pro choice - He has marched in pride parades past - Yet I keep seeing articles hinting he's a ultra super conservative. He's not super left for sure, but the likes of LL and Garcia keep trying to throw mud at the wall as it's a distraction from the real issues.

Garcia received donations from Bankman-Fried who (for those who don't remember) was part of a multi-billion dollar fraud. Garcia served on the committee that allegedly oversaw this stuff, and he took in nearly $200k (if you read the article I posted).

So - What should we care more about?
1 - A candidate who spoke at an event for a group where he denounced that group as soon once they called Pritzker a groomer?
2 - A candidate who was a member of a committee meant to oversee an industry where an entrepreneur swindled billions out of investors, blew it up his nose on an island, and the same entrepreneur donated to said candidate?

I'm sorry, but this is not a difficult choice.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

This is the worst case scenario IMO. Vallas/Lightfoot/Chuy are not borderline existential threats to the city's future like I feel Johnson is... if he's able to implement half of what he's proposing that is.

Completely agree, almost everyone running is bad, but Johnson is the worst. Anyone with kids in CPS knows that the CTU is the most vile organization. I voted for Vallas to bring a bit of sanity back to the city. I do wonder if it's too late though.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

So - What should we care more about?
1 - A candidate who spoke at an event for a group where he denounced that group as soon once they called Pritzker a groomer?
2 - A candidate who was a member of a committee meant to oversee an industry where an entrepreneur swindled billions out of investors, blew it up his nose on an island, and the same entrepreneur donated to said candidate?

I'm sorry, but this is not a difficult choice.

You seem to take Vallas' word about his actions, but not Chuy's. Probably because you already chose to support one over the other.

I think Vallas denounced the group once he was called out on it, after appearing with them at two different events. Other things like calling the mayor a racist or the police superintendent a "diversity hire". The Tribune has a whole article about it.

Isn't it possible that he actually does believe those things? He repeatedly courted the same demographic when laying the groundwork for his campaign. Then, when called out on it, he changed course. Given how little we know about his agenda (and his plans to pay for it), I could understand trusting Chuy more as he's been around for 40 years.

None of this even goes into the fact that skipping CPS pension payments started under his watch. In many ways he led us to the current fiscal state. Why can't we cask about that?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by twister244

I'm really confused here......

You are getting hung up on Vallas speaking at an event for a group that he denounced as soon as he saw their posts about Pritzker. You can criticize him for making that event attendance, but he did denounce his connections to the group as soon as he saw what they posted.

Again - Paul Vallas has stated he's pro choice - He has marched in pride parades past - Yet I keep seeing articles hinting he's a ultra super conservative. He's not super left for sure, but the likes of LL and Garcia keep trying to throw mud at the wall as it's a distraction from the real issues.

Garcia received donations from Bankman-Fried who (for those who don't remember) was part of a multi-billion dollar fraud. Garcia served on the committee that allegedly oversaw this stuff, and he took in nearly $200k (if you read the article I posted).

So - What should we care more about?
1 - A candidate who spoke at an event for a group where he denounced that group as soon once they called Pritzker a groomer?
2 - A candidate who was a member of a committee meant to oversee an industry where an entrepreneur swindled billions out of investors, blew it up his nose on an island, and the same entrepreneur donated to said candidate?

I'm sorry, but this is not a difficult choice.

Chuy has 40 years of experience doing nothing.

Lightfoot has been a terrible Mayor, allowing crime to explode, downtown to be decimated by rioters, caving to CTU, etc

Johnson is a stooge for the CTU. And apparently loves every form of tax ever imagined.

Vallas has proven to be an able administrator. Skipping pension payments when the market was achieving massive returns makes economic sense. And it was approved by the state and CTU. CPS pensions were 100% funded in 1999 when the pension holidays were in effect. Vallas was gone from CPS by 2001. CPS pensions were still 90% funded in 2006, 5 years after Vallas left which is actuarially acceptable.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Completely agree, almost everyone running is bad, but Johnson is the worst. Anyone with kids in CPS knows that the CTU is the most vile organization. I voted for Vallas to bring a bit of sanity back to the city. I do wonder if it's too late though.

Johnson actually scares me more than Lightfoot. Him and Lightfoot in a run off is the worst possible scenario imagineable.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Vallas has proven to be an able administrator. Skipping pension payments when the market was achieving massive returns makes economic sense. And it was approved by the state and CTU. CPS pensions were 100% funded in 1999 when the pension holidays were in effect. Vallas was gone from CPS by 2001. CPS pensions were still 90% funded in 2006, 5 years after Vallas left which is actuarially acceptable.

Vallas doing things on a large scale is pretty much the only reason I consider voting for him. Even if he's sloppy with some of his things on a personal level And I may still do so because the other options I have either are pointless to vote for or probably the same. Vallas and Chuy are probably the only people who wouldn't come into office and completely implode a government.


Also, it's funny how Twister points out Vallas is pro choice and implies that people are calling him "very conservative." Remember when being conservative meant small government? Pro choice IS small government. It means it's my choice and not letting the government decide for me if I can or can't do something. It IS an actual conservative view point. The political system is completely f'ing convoluted with these terms these days it's a joke.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Johnson actually scares me more than Lightfoot. Him and Lightfoot in a run off is the worst possible scenario imagineable.

Agree 100%. Johnson is the worst candidate running.