Brutus_buckeye

Any new developments in Cbus on the Crew or do most people think it is a lost cause?

^ don't see that happening either. Dems don't care about that, what Dems want is to increase the social security threshold to apply to high earners too. That is a higher priority to them than distributing it to the poor.

^ wont happen. This is just a negotiating tactic being floated around. Too many people, especially GOP voters would not be in favor of this.

I was telling my friends back in September to remember what happened to the last AL team to win 20 games in a row.

Right, no is always the default vote, especially when the yes side does a bad job articulating such a complex issue. To me this Weinstein guy is just wasting a ton of money on this.

^ Not quite a new owner, just a restructuring.

Its not going to pass anyway, Issues like this always fail.

^ When you hear profit, they mean operating profits. Sales of assets, while profitable for P&G are one time events and therefore do not affect the operating profits of the company. What investors are looking for is higher profit margins or greater revenue growth on the existing products. Sometimes the investor will be happier with lower profits and more long term growth potential than a higher profit with no growth.

Mallory was always known as someone to sit quietly in the corner and let people argue out an issue and then come in at the end to provide his opinion and try and find a little common ground. I was not a huge Mallory fan as mayor but this was a very effective leadership style.

The fact that we haven't heard anything of Cranley's internal polling indicates it's not looking good. He was furious on primary night. He knows he's at risk of blowing millions of his country club donors' cash...AGAIN. I don't think the polls favored him in 2012 either

agreed

^ I was always going to vote for Cranley. I like what he has done with the business community and feel he has done a good job overall. Personally, I know Yvette and think she is a good person and I like her a lot as a person, but I am and have always been more of a Cranley person. Will I be disappointed if Yvette wins, no, because she is a good person.

^ The whitewashing of names and people because history has a changed view of them is not a good idea. I am not saying Columbus should be honored, but instead use the day to educate and remember who he was both good, bad and ugly. Yes, we need to teach out kids about Columbus but make it age appropriate. Telling your first grader or kindergartner is a murderous loon is not age appropriate. I find the people who want to change the name to indigenous people day just as bad as those who celebrate Columbus. There is nothing monumental about what the Native Americans did either. They were also responsible for a lot of blood shed and killing of other native tribes in the region throughout their history. In many ways, they were not much different than Columbus. So changing the name to indigenous people's day out of some sort of intellectual purity is flawed too.

^ We all know Columbus is not a sympathetic character, but none of our founders or leaders were when you boil it down. Show me someone who is truly pure. People need to get perspective here. You can celebrate (if you want to call it that because I don't think anyone outside of bankers and postal workers celebrate it) Columbus day or (recognize it with a collective yawn like most of the country) without feeling guilty about what Columbus as a man personally stood for. You have to quit holding him to modern standards and recognize that it is not necessarily Columbus that is being recognized here but rather the Western World becoming enlightened to a new land, a new way of thinking, the founding of a modern era. Columbus really had very little to do with this but out of ease, his name is on the day. It is not that big of deal. People who get their panties in such a tizzy over these micro slights really should take a deep breath and do something productive with their lives. Bitching and complaining about micro aggressions and the like is no way to go through life.

This intersectionalism thing is divisive and causing people to hate each other. Teaching people to notice small slights and take offense to them by recognizing micro aggressions may seem "woke" but in reality just gets people to hate each other more. Instead of getting angry at each other over some perceived slight, people should focus on what brings us together and connects us as a people.

^ I am sure there is more on both sides that meets the eye. But the point is, she was facing the giant and allowed herself to be painted into a corner rhetorically by her opponent and the hospital. They had much more means than her and a much larger communications staff so it is inevitable that they would control the message. She was naïve for not realizing this. Save your fight for battles you can win. THis was not it.

^ It does not matter who created the narrative, that is the narrative that is sticking. I am not arguing that Simpson has no point and may not be right on the issue, however, she choose to pick a fight on something she had no chance of winning and because of this, she allows this narrative to be created. She may have had morality and right on her side, but she walked into a battle with horses trying to take on an armored tank division. It makes you question her judgment and wisdom at the minimum.

If you think it was about historic preservation, you don't have any idea what this issue was about. Children's shows little respect to Avondale. Just like the Zoo. Christ Hospital is the same way with Mt. Auburn. They create plans, go through a BS public input session where they update lighting or landscaping, and then come to the city and say "see, we got neighborhood input". Children's wasn't going to leave Avondale, or Cincinnati. They weren't going to abandon an expansion 4+ years in the making because the first public vote failed to provide the necessary count. Everyone is acting like this put the entire thing in jeopardy. It didn't. They would get their way eventually, but maybe they would have to be a little more responsive to the neighborhood's needs, and not treat the area as their suburban complex. Would Children's have completely left Avondale, of course not, but they could have started moving essential research jobs out of the core into West Chester or developing other areas of town. However the bigger issue is not whether Children's would leave, but what this signifies to other companies either in town looking at expansion or looking to come to town. Does the mayor and administration want to be conducive to helping them bring hundreds of jobs to the city or do they want to throw up obstacles. Simpson has shown that by trying to take on a pediatric non-profit research center, she would be someone who throws up obstacles and makes it difficult to do business. The thing is, her supporters can spin it however they want, but this is the narrative that has been created because of her vote, and it was a very stupid move on her end. Even if she were 100% right on the issue, she was going to lose and it was a battle that did not need to be fought at this time, at least by her. She showed a complete lack of judgment here and that gives people pause for concern.

At least you're consistent. That's your take on gun control too, Yes, it is called pragmatism. It is a good quality to have

^ At the end of the day, you have to break a few eggs for the betterment of all. What Yvette is essentially doing or saying is that if you are looking to invest money in the city, we have the right to extort significant capital from your deep pockets and give to the projects that we favor. Not only is that extortion, it is not a good way conduct business in general and you do not want to get a reputation as someone who operates like that because it will chase capital and investment away from the city to other neighborhoods or regions. You don't pick a fight with a world class non-profit institution that provides health care to children, especially many of the poor who live in the area based solely on a desire to save a few old houses. I am all for historical conservation but you have to be pragmatic and pick battles you can win and that are worthwhile. With the amount of money Children's generates for the city, you can save a heck of a lot more than the 15 houses they were going to tear down to build their expansion. This is not just about making the wrong decision on Children's but it shows poor judgment on her part that she was so adamant and dug her heels in on what was going ot be a losing battle from the start.

I think Simpson stepped in it too much with the Children's hospital thing and will hurt her in the long run.

I get the temptation to vote for Quinliven because she may represent your interests even though she is beyond a horrible councilman and I personally feel she is kind of a b*tch, but why not give your vote to a fresh face and cultivate someone who may actually promote ideas without the drama that you can get behind. Sure, there is a chance they may let you down, but there is also a chance they would exceed your expectations. You are talking about the final seat on council, what do you have to lose?

^ Even if she aligned with you on all the issues, based on your chart, you have like 6 others to choose from. Give one of them a shot. I have to say I had a good laugh when she championed 4 year terms for council and then lost after that.

Do not vote for Laure Quinliven. She is a complete clown.

Shoemaker Center is too small for the tourney now and does not have the appropriate amount of locker rooms. Neither does US Bank for that matter either. UD Arena has had significant upgrades through the years to maintain tourney ready.