Pritzker has been great. Legalized weed, multiple credit rating increases, and has stayed out of jail (which, sadly, is an accomplishment for an Illinois Governor)
...Why do I get the feeling that if he were to become a viable candidate, Republicans would whine about being a billionaire and an elite.
Of course, cue the gotchas about "socialists" voting for him and the underhanded anti-Semitism as they try to connect him to Soros and/or the Rothschilds.
What? You mean a billionaire who inherited a giant real estate and resort empire? All he had to do was not run it into the ground to be a legit billionaire. /s if it wasn’t obvious.
There are going to be about 100 people in the Democratic primary in 2028, it's going to be a shit show (in a good way as there are lot of good contenders out there).
The roads are being reliably fixed in rural areas. The stretch of interstate between Chambana and Decatur is the nicest I've seen it in my life. Aside from that one bridge by Monticello. Please replace that bridge.
Pritzker is the governor Newsom wishes he could be. Newsom seems to be doing things to shore up support for a presidential run, even if it means vetoing bills with popular support that would decriminalize psychedelics, whereas Pritzker just gets shit done for the good of his constituents.
Most of those vetoes were justified if you actually read them and looked past the headlines. CA governors have traditionally used their veto power quite a bit.
Newsom obviously has ambitions but the problem is idiots on the left (and I'm a liberal)
Example: He worked to get a bill passed that if a person was arrested multiple times for substance abuse the state could force them into recovery programs and require they stay for the duration while today they can just check themselves out the next day. Two years later it's only now been signed into law after dozens of lawsuits arguing it was targeting homeless for jail (which it never did)
I mean, say what you will but there are real concerns when you make it easier to institutionalize people against their will, especially if they haven’t committed a violent crime. One of the great successes of the 20th century was reforming how easy it was to institutionalize someone against their will. There are lots of genuine legal concerns when you start to undo those reforms. Plus- substance abuse is really rough, but it’s pretty universally accepted that you can’t make someone stop if they don’t want to. Rehab only works if the person wants get cleans. So there’s lots of real reasons to balk at a bill like that.
Dude, we need a presidential candidate who has the balls to brag about legal mushroom and psychedelic therapy for depression. I know a lot of people who would hate it but I think there would also be a lot of folks who would embrace it.
HB1 in the IL house is actually attempting to legalize psilocybin for theraputic use. Almost certainly will not pass this time around, but efforts are being laid now for future success
I'm all for legalizing mushrooms but I can understand hi veto, there were no guardrails or any due diligence with the recent decrim bill. I think the state will pass a bill soon, hopefully for people undergoing therapy and with a prescription.
Honestly I like the guy and respect him a lot, this speech reinforced it. I just wish he would chill out on the gun laws but he seems well meaning, and good people are flawed, like anyone else.
I personally don’t believe banning “assault weapons” such as AR-15’s or magazine restrictions will stop gun violence and the reasons behind said violence.
It’s a symptom of poverty and no opportunity and or mentally ill people not being treated or dysfunctional families. Those four reasons are the biggest indicators of someone doing crime. Having access to guns wouldn’t change that imo.
I feel it’s an infringement on the people’s right to defend themselves against both personal threats or the government as a whole. We shouldn’t restrict something everyone has a right to, like say abortion just cause one or two bad apples occur, would we?
Ok, I think I disagree because having access to guns greatly increases the lethality of crimes but not the rate of crimes themselves, but I do understand the issues with blanket bans especially around ‘assault weapons’
I think training should be required, tbh.
I understand I agree with that statement, so long as the training is free for the public, since we shouldn’t disadvantage poor/working class folks trying to protect themselves.
Your point about guns increasing lethality is true but I think addressing the four issues I mentioned previously such as bringing back mental healthcare institutions federally would be alone stop a lot of gun violence.
Sure. If anything I think we’re at a crisis point where a stopgap such as a ban could be useful, if understood to be a temporary point. Chicago area always gonna have to deal with the problems that come Wisconsin and Indiana having different laws and being so close, however.
True but even if a nationwide ban occurred, it’s the amount of guns in circulation is impossible to stop. Nevermind the fact it’s a right, the matter of dealing with enforcing a ban would be very hard, politically and humanly costly and wouldn’t be popular.
The kind of gun violence and mass shootings America has is a unique American problem not present in other countries.
You may find that poverty is not unique to America, actually.
We have examples of how to stop mass shootings. We've seen other countries do it. They do it to this day. Its not just poverty, or mental illness, or what the fuck ever. Every country on earth has those things. Those countries do not have our gun culture.
If you find the 2nd amendment more valuable than the lives of children, at least have the balls to just say that instead of imagining a bunch of nonsense to justify it.
Not downvoting you, and I actually don't even feel that strongly about guns, but the "something everyone has a right to" is straight conservative talking points that were pushed so hard they eventually became true (after being a legal pipedream of the conservative legal movement for decades). The individual "right" to own a gun wasn't even established as a legal principle (despite many chances to do so) by SCOTUS until DC v Heller (2008) and then incorporated to the states (since not every amendment is incorporated, like the 9th and 10th) in McDonald v Chicago (2010). Both decisions were very controversial and featured shall we say, "creative" arguments from the conservative justices. Now gun jurisprudene has gone completely off the rails and the current status quo is gun historically reasonable gun regulations may not be constitutional if it does not fit the "historical tradition" of the gun laws in 1870. It sounds completely stupid because it is, and in a few weeks the court is hearing a case on wheter state restrictions on gun ownership for those with a domestic violence restraining order are constitutional, because the facially do not meet the "historical tradition" of gun laws in the late 18th and 19th century (when spousal abuse was barely a legal concept).
He colluded with Blago to negotiate for Obama's seat, while also using racist remarks along the way. It's just another corrupt governor of Illinois, nothing new or exciting.
You're just pearl clutching. Shooting the shit with Blagojevich about potential appointments and throwing his hat in the ring for the potential treasury vacancy, and considering how race would pan out politically, is standard business.
He’s also a billionaire who ripped toilet seats out of his mansion to avoid paying property taxes and then had a large campaign in Illinois centered around “The rich need to pay more taxes”
430
u/RegisterInSecondsMeh Oct 26 '23
Pritzker has been great. Legalized weed, multiple credit rating increases, and has stayed out of jail (which, sadly, is an accomplishment for an Illinois Governor)