Mayor Emanuel ?!?!?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

They have a rule now. If they make a new rule in an attempt to be more clear, it's still going to be challenged by anyone who stands to gain politically from doing so.

I know. My point was a Utopian one - trying to eliminate all that BS.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

More regulation at a federal level?

Clarifying and cleaning up some of the crap that is already on the books isn't "more regulation" at all. In theory, its just the opposite. It would eliminate the need for any.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

I know. My point was a Utopian one - trying to eliminate all that BS.

If you want to cut all the bullshit, stop worrying about the mayoral election in Chicago. You should have enough to worry about with things that actually affect you, without spending all day looking for things that don't.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If you want to cut all the bullshit, stop worrying about the mayoral election in Chicago.

I'm not. I couldn't give a rats ass about the mayor of Chicago.

You should have enough to worry about with things that actually affect you, ...

I certainly do, thanks for reminding me.

...without spending all day looking for things that don't.

I don't. I thought it might be an interesting topic for discussion.
You missed the forest (simplifying rules/regulations.....)
for the trees (specific mayoral election)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The question was, Can Rahm run? Doesn't sound general to me.
Simplifying is never simple, rules are always specific to what/who they are ruling. Must be a resident, is different when it comes to political office, than it does to driver's licenses, or beach permits. So you can't discuss the rules without discussing the application, and solutions are not transferable, or universal.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Clarifying and cleaning up some of the crap that is already on the books isn't "more regulation" at all. In theory, its just the opposite. It would eliminate the need for any.

Rules start simple. They get complicated as people figure out the ways the world isn't simple, and get around the rules, and then the rules are changed to take that into account.

That's why it's so stupid to complain about "thousand page bills" from Congress. They have boilerplate law code, and when they do X they have to put in the 20 pages of boilerplate that handles all of the known permutations of X. If they just put in a "simple" rule, that would just run us back to the point where we were before we closed all of the loopholes the boilerplate addressed; you wouldn't even need to discover new ones.