The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Rahm Booted off ballot

I agree with loki81 and MisterMajectic. He's from Chicago and left his congressional seat to work in the White House. I'm no fan of his, or the Clinton crowd in general (MRIII, I, like many progressive NYers, don't think Hillary was a particularly good Senator). JB3, I thought the residency issue had to do with his time in Washington and the fact that he rented out his primary residence. I hadn't heard anything about a suburban home.

What I find a little troubling is that these kind of laws may have the practical affect of disqualifying local people who go to Washington, but do not have the wealth to maintain a home in their home town and Washington at the same time. The laws should not be established in a way that discourages people who are talented, but not wealthy, from working in government. I'm unhappy with the work Rahm Emanuel did in the Obama White House, and have serious doubts he would be a good mayor. Nonetheless, I'm concerned about the effect of the ruling.
 
I'm a little surprised by this opinion.

It means if you have been off serving your country in Afghanistan or Iraq, or perhaps as a diplomat somewhere, that you are no longer considered a resident of Chicago. In fact, it would seem to mean that all the current Congressional representatives from Chicago are not eligible for re-election, since they have not been living primarily in Chicago for the past year!
 
JB3 said:
Because the city of Chicago doesn't need someone that lives in a suburb 30 miles away running for Mayor? Or, they don't need a professional politician like Rahm running when he is asked to leave his previous job and has nothing to do?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they could use an outside influence ;)
 
palemale said:
I agree with loki81 and MisterMajectic. He's from Chicago and left his congressional seat to work in the White House. I'm no fan of his, or the Clinton crowd in general (MRIII, I, like many progressive NYers, don't think Hillary was a particularly good Senator). JB3, I thought the residency issue had to do with his time in Washington and the fact that he rented out his primary residence. I hadn't heard anything about a suburban home.

What I find a little troubling is that these kind of laws may have the practical affect of disqualifying local people who go to Washington, but do not have the wealth to maintain a home in their home town and Washington at the same time. The laws should not be established in a way that discourages people who are talented, but not wealthy, from working in government. I'm unhappy with the work Rahm Emanuel did in the Obama White House, and have serious doubts he would be a good mayor. Nonetheless, I'm concerned about the effect of the ruling.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal with the residency issue. The law states plainly that anyone running for mayor must have been a resident of the city of chicago for at least one year prior to the election. In the ruling, the appellate court makes it clear that he did not meet those requirements. The reason for it isn't that he was off in Washington doing his thing, it was that he rented out his home, making it clear that he had no intention of returning anytime soon. In the opinion the court even said that if he had NOT rented out his home, he would have met the residency requirements.

As for your second paragraph; that's entirely the point of the law. If a person might be from chicago, but hasn't lived there in over a year, how connected will they be to the issues of the city?
 
T-Rexx said:
I'm a little surprised by this opinion.

It means if you have been off serving your country in Afghanistan or Iraq, or perhaps as a diplomat somewhere, that you are no longer considered a resident of Chicago. In fact, it would seem to mean that all the current Congressional representatives from Chicago are not eligible for re-election, since they have not been living primarily in Chicago for the past year!
Click to expand...

Congressional elections have nothing to do with this. The residency requirement is ONLY for the mayoral election.
 
I don't like the man at all, as many of you might guess. :-)

Having said that, I don't care for the ruling or maybe it's the local law that I dislike.

He's obviously a Chicagoan, having been there forever and being part of the local machine. He lived in a house there he owned and only rented out so he could go off to serve in the Obama Administration. Maybe a decision he now regrets?

I sympathize with him.
 
JB3 said:
Here's the deal with the residency issue. The law states plainly that anyone running for mayor must have been a resident of the city of chicago for at least one year prior to the election. In the ruling, the appellate court makes it clear that he did not meet those requirements. The reason for it isn't that he was off in Washington doing his thing, it was that he rented out his home, making it clear that he had no intention of returning anytime soon. In the opinion the court even said that if he had NOT rented out his home, he would have met the residency requirements.
Click to expand...

So he lacked a habitation readily returned to.
 
MisterMajestic said:
I Hope he wins the Appeal...He was a Congressman from the State of IL. for a long time...That is his home...

Had he remained a Congressman he would have been reelected to the House...He answered the President's Call and I'm curious to see how this HOT Ballet dancer lands on his feet...I'm rooting for him...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what his history is, what matters is whether he was a resident, which the court has ruled he wasn't.

The funny part is that, had he remained in congress, he would have been eligible to run.
 
JB3 said:
In the opinion the court even said that if he had NOT rented out his home, he would have met the residency requirements.
Click to expand...

This is the problem I have. If he was wealthy and didn't need to rent out his house, he would have met the residency requirement. It discriminates against people who are not wealthy.
 
palemale said:
This is the problem I have. If he was wealthy and didn't need to rent out his house, he would have met the residency requirement. It discriminates against people who are not wealthy.
Click to expand...

The law discriminates against people who don't live in Chicago, as it should.
 
Regardless of what happens, keep in mind that Chicago politics is unusual. I know Chicago, while not inventing the art of patronage, has refined it to perfection. The expression, "vote early and vote often" did not originate in Pocatello, Idaho. Whatever happens, it will be uniquely Chicago. (Please feel free to use the word "corrupt" if you like). If Mr. Emmanuel would win via a write-in ballot, I would not be surprised. ;)
 
Don't feel too sorry.

It is exactly the kind of shit move he would have pulled with his opponents.

It is Chicago politics.
 
palemale said:
This is the problem I have. If he was wealthy and didn't need to rent out his house, he would have met the residency requirement. It discriminates against people who are not wealthy.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's a loophole that needs to be closed: the law should require a person to actually live there, if it wants residency; having a house sit waiting for you does not constitute "living" there. I'd specify a minimum of forty days present out of a ninety day period.
 
^ But perhaps a waiver for those who leave their home to serve in the military...or are they considered to have dual residency? No, not for purposes of voting twice, but for purposes of not being penalized by being denied the right to seek office back at home.
 
frankfrank said:
^ But perhaps a waiver for those who leave their home to serve in the military...or are they considered to have dual residency? No, not for purposes of voting twice, but for purposes of not being penalized by being denied the right to seek office back at home.
Click to expand...

I'd go with that for members of the National Guard, who didn't sign up to go traipsing around the world playing legion for some president's emperor, but regular military members know they can be sent off any old place. Though what I'd rather do is just have the law say that the National Guard is meant for guarding the nation, not being dragged out of their ordinary lives because some politician bit off more than the Pentagon can chew.

The point of residency requirements is that the people be familiar with the place they're in, so exceptions would sort of ruin the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top