You don't share my feelings because I follow facts and data. You don't. Major differnce there.jivecitystl wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025Then don't take me seriously, why would I care? Make all the assumptions you want about my political allegiances- anything to distract from the lackluster current administration. I admire your optimism about how great the past 4 years have been for the city. Wish I shared your feelings, but good luck selling that message to the masses.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025No, you haven't. You've gone on multiple Reddit rants that include no comprehensive or substantive argument or case being made. Just rambling.jivecitystl wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I actually have expounded at length throughout this thread about why I think Cara Spencer is a better candidate for mayor than Tishaura Jones. Not my problem you choose to ignore it or don't think it rises to your own subjective standards of what constitutes a "good reason". Persuading you to agree with me is pretty low on my list of goals.
Again, I have been a small business owner in the City of St. Louis for more than 15 years-- I have paid close attention to this and all citywide races for more than 22 years and my personal and professional experience inform my opinions. A strong and popular incumbent would not be facing this kind of challenge from the same challenger she beat handily the first time around. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that Tishaura Jones has fallen far short of convincing St. Louis that she is the better candidate in this race. Period. Not sure how you would even manufacture an argument against that fact.
The one single time you tried laying out your beliefs point by point, DB immediately responded to each point and showed why they're wrong and you never responded.
Francis Slay was mayor for 16 years. Being "strong" and "popular" doesn't mean you're good or correct. You were probably a Slay voter though, which would explain so much.
If you paid ANY attention to the trend the city has taken over the past 4 years, nearly all of it points towards improvement on multiple fronts- as I have laid out the multiple times I've provided comprehensive, detailed arguments for why Joens deserves 4 more years.
Persuading me isn't the point. You being able to support yourself and explain your own views with anything more than your completely subjective feelings is the point. If you're unable to do that, there's no reason anyone should take you seriously.
- 741
Jones was a far better candidate four years ago.
She was a happy progressive warrior fighting for change.
She's not as good at selling the status quo. She gets distracted and agitated.
She was a happy progressive warrior fighting for change.
She's not as good at selling the status quo. She gets distracted and agitated.
Tishaura would be wise to lay off the "Cara is bought by Bob Clark" bit already. It's a big fat nothingburger. No one cares. That's all the dirt Team Tishaura has on Cara? Really? Yawn. Anyone who is paying attention is well aware that it was Cara who lead the charge against airport privatization and Paul McKee. Keep fishing.
The idea that "no one cares" doesn't magically mean she hasn't gotten over $100k from Clark and another $600k from a fundraiser put together by him. It also doesn't magically mean that it doesn't matter.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025Tishaura would be wise to lay off the "Cara is bought by Bob Clark" bit already. It's a big fat nothingburger. No one cares. That's all the dirt Team Tishaura has on Cara? Really? Yawn. Anyone who is paying attention is well aware that it was Cara who lead the charge against airport privatization and Paul McKee. Keep fishing.
Lots of logical fallacies today it seems.
I'd add that "you're probably a Slay voter" attacks fall a little flat considering the fact that Slay's own Richard Callow is a Tishaura Jones advisor and booster. There have been plenty of Slay/Krewson hires and retentions that likely reflect his influence. (This, by the way, is not an attack on Tishaura per se. I'm just stating that the Slay/Krewson sphere has a defined overlap with Jones).
- 835
It also doesn't mean that campaign contributions magically make Cara Spencer Bob Clark's b*tch.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025The idea that "no one cares" doesn't magically mean she hasn't gotten over $100k from Clark and another $600k from a fundraiser put together by him. It also doesn't magically mean that it doesn't matter.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025Tishaura would be wise to lay off the "Cara is bought by Bob Clark" bit already. It's a big fat nothingburger. No one cares. That's all the dirt Team Tishaura has on Cara? Really? Yawn. Anyone who is paying attention is well aware that it was Cara who lead the charge against airport privatization and Paul McKee. Keep fishing.
Lots of logical fallacies today it seems.
- 741
Jones calling Bob Clark another Elon Musk seemed like quite a reach to me.
Especially with Clark being a major fundraiser for Obamas Presidential library.
I don't think stuff like thar will win back the progressive south side wards but I guess we'll see.
Especially with Clark being a major fundraiser for Obamas Presidential library.
I don't think stuff like thar will win back the progressive south side wards but I guess we'll see.
- 9,564
What do you think media will do if Spencer wins and 6 months into the admin Clayco proposes a project in the City and asks for big tax abatement incentive?
Based on how poor the year is on building permits, I hope she says “yes, thank you for investing in our city Mr. Clark”dbInSouthCity wrote:What do you think media will do if Spencer wins and 6 months into the admin Clayco proposes a project in the City and asks for big tax abatement incentive?
There are also Slay appointees inside Jones' cabinet because they are good at their job.stldotage wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I'd add that "you're probably a Slay voter" attacks fall a little flat considering the fact that Slay's own Richard Callow is a Tishaura Jones advisor and booster. There have been plenty of Slay/Krewson hires and retentions that likely reflect his influence. (This, by the way, is not an attack on Tishaura per se. I'm just stating that the Slay/Krewson sphere has a defined overlap with Jones).
I couldn't care less who worked for Slay, lots of people worked for Slay. The clown was there for 16 years.
My point is that Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.
- 977
My guess, for better or worse, will be that the prevailing media narrative is more likely to be that Cara is leveraging her relationships with business leaders to foster investment in the city. I think a big CLAYCO project announced in the first six months of Cara’s term would be well received.
Ah I see, campaign contributions mean nothing only when it's for your candidate. Thanks for clarifying.jivecitystl wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025It also doesn't mean that campaign contributions magically make Cara Spencer Bob Clark's b*tch.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025The idea that "no one cares" doesn't magically mean she hasn't gotten over $100k from Clark and another $600k from a fundraiser put together by him. It also doesn't magically mean that it doesn't matter.stlgasm wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025Tishaura would be wise to lay off the "Cara is bought by Bob Clark" bit already. It's a big fat nothingburger. No one cares. That's all the dirt Team Tishaura has on Cara? Really? Yawn. Anyone who is paying attention is well aware that it was Cara who lead the charge against airport privatization and Paul McKee. Keep fishing.
Lots of logical fallacies today it seems.
This is my expectation at a minimum. I expect major jobs to be moved not only into the city but downtown from Clayco or one of Clark's companies. Anything less will be a disappointment for $700k.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025My guess, for better or worse, will be that the prevailing media narrative is more likely to be that Cara is leveraging her relationships with business leaders to foster investment in the city. I think a big CLAYCO project announced in the first six months of Cara’s term would be well received.
- 977
This Slay thing continues to make no sense.Auggie wrote:There are also Slay appointees inside Jones' cabinet because they are good at their job.stldotage wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I'd add that "you're probably a Slay voter" attacks fall a little flat considering the fact that Slay's own Richard Callow is a Tishaura Jones advisor and booster. There have been plenty of Slay/Krewson hires and retentions that likely reflect his influence. (This, by the way, is not an attack on Tishaura per se. I'm just stating that the Slay/Krewson sphere has a defined overlap with Jones).
I couldn't care less who worked for Slay, lots of people worked for Slay. The clown was there for 16 years.
My point is that Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.
1) Choosing to vote for Slay was under a different time period with some different priorities and more importantly totally different options to vote for other than Slay.
2) Voting for Cara Spencer doesn’t mean you necessarily think Jones is a bad Mayor. It means you think Cara is the better option moving forward.
There is no metaphor to draw between Slay’s elections 12-25 years ago and the current decision between Cara Spencer and Tishaura Jones. It makes no sense.
Messenger: Lawyer battling landlords hopes next St. Louis mayor can fix records fiasco
“But under Mayor Tishaura O. Jones, all Sunshine Law requests have to be made through the portal, a website that refers every request to Sims, who then forwards them to the proper departments. In some ways, the move has been a disaster, with several lawsuits alleging open records violations and attorneys, reporters, residents and elected officials all complaining about how public records are handled.”
- 9,564
lol, don’t be silly. That will not be the prevailing media narrative. I know these people, personally. They will rip her apart for it.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025My guess, for better or worse, will be that the prevailing media narrative is more likely to be that Cara is leveraging her relationships with business leaders to foster investment in the city. I think a big CLAYCO project announced in the first six months of Cara’s term would be well received.
- 977
We’ll see. I haven’t seen much media negativity or public backlash on Bob Clark. Whether it be when he made the donations to Cara or when he got rejected for that North City proposal. To me most of the media narrative has been on Clark’s side. If he decides to invest in the city, my bet is that sentiment will continue.dbInSouthCity wrote:lol, don’t be silly. That will not be the prevailing media narrative. I know these people, personally. They will rip her apart for it.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025My guess, for better or worse, will be that the prevailing media narrative is more likely to be that Cara is leveraging her relationships with business leaders to foster investment in the city. I think a big CLAYCO project announced in the first six months of Cara’s term would be well received.
- 9,564
There is a simple explanation for that, media doesn’t care about the challenger, and when you’re in the mayors office, you are no longer the challenger.
- 977
I’m not sure I agree that the media doesn’t care about the challenger, I just don’t see any evidence for that. I guess we’ll see.dbInSouthCity wrote:There is a simple explanation for that, media doesn’t care about the challenger, and when you’re in the mayors office, you are no longer the challenger.
1) Many of our modern issues are quite literally directly related to how horribly the city was run under Slay. This would be like saying George Bush's and Obama's policies and legacies don't matter today. Where we are today is inherently tied to the mayoral administration that reigned over the city for 16 years.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025This Slay thing continues to make no sense.Auggie wrote:There are also Slay appointees inside Jones' cabinet because they are good at their job.stldotage wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I'd add that "you're probably a Slay voter" attacks fall a little flat considering the fact that Slay's own Richard Callow is a Tishaura Jones advisor and booster. There have been plenty of Slay/Krewson hires and retentions that likely reflect his influence. (This, by the way, is not an attack on Tishaura per se. I'm just stating that the Slay/Krewson sphere has a defined overlap with Jones).
I couldn't care less who worked for Slay, lots of people worked for Slay. The clown was there for 16 years.
My point is that Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.
1) Choosing to vote for Slay was under a different time period with some different priorities and more importantly totally different options to vote for other than Slay.
2) Voting for Cara Spencer doesn’t mean you necessarily think Jones is a bad Mayor. It means you think Cara is the better option moving forward.
There is no metaphor to draw between Slay’s elections 12-25 years ago and the current decision between Cara Spencer and Tishaura Jones. It makes no sense.
The options were 1) A horrible mayor or 2) Someone other than the horrible mayor.
2) The prevailing opinion of Spencer supporters on this forum is that Jones has been a bad mayor, and the primary results also suggest this as well with how low Jones' approval was. So yes, it's not inherent, but it is the prevailing view.
- 977
I don’t disagree with your first point, but you’re moving the goalposts. You originally said:Auggie wrote:1) Many of our modern issues are quite literally directly related to how horribly the city was run under Slay. This would be like saying George Bush's and Obama's policies and legacies don't matter today. Where we are today is inherently tied to the mayoral administration that reigned over the city for 16 years.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025This Slay thing continues to make no sense.Auggie wrote: There are also Slay appointees inside Jones' cabinet because they are good at their job.
I couldn't care less who worked for Slay, lots of people worked for Slay. The clown was there for 16 years.
My point is that Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.
1) Choosing to vote for Slay was under a different time period with some different priorities and more importantly totally different options to vote for other than Slay.
2) Voting for Cara Spencer doesn’t mean you necessarily think Jones is a bad Mayor. It means you think Cara is the better option moving forward.
There is no metaphor to draw between Slay’s elections 12-25 years ago and the current decision between Cara Spencer and Tishaura Jones. It makes no sense.
The options were 1) A horrible mayor or 2) Someone other than the horrible mayor.
2) The prevailing opinion of Spencer supporters on this forum is that Jones has been a bad mayor, and the primary results also suggest this as well with how low Jones' approval was. So yes, it's not inherent, but it is the prevailing view.
“Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.”
This doesn’t make any sense. How Jones’ record stacks up to Slay’s has no effect on deciding whether Jones or Spencer is the best candidate moving forward. Stop worrying about who voted for Slay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Richard Callow was, by nearly all accounts, a heavy handed player in setting the Slay agenda. His involvement in elevating Tishaura can't be readily ignored by those seeking to demonize Slay's reign and promote Tishaura's.
It absolutely matters when Spencer's core base of support is the same as Slay's. Lots of people who think Slay was a good mayor and happily voted for him over and over again are also saying Jones is a bad mayor and will be voting for Spencer.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I don’t disagree with your first point, but you’re moving the goalposts. You originally said:Auggie wrote:1) Many of our modern issues are quite literally directly related to how horribly the city was run under Slay. This would be like saying George Bush's and Obama's policies and legacies don't matter today. Where we are today is inherently tied to the mayoral administration that reigned over the city for 16 years.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025This Slay thing continues to make no sense.
1) Choosing to vote for Slay was under a different time period with some different priorities and more importantly totally different options to vote for other than Slay.
2) Voting for Cara Spencer doesn’t mean you necessarily think Jones is a bad Mayor. It means you think Cara is the better option moving forward.
There is no metaphor to draw between Slay’s elections 12-25 years ago and the current decision between Cara Spencer and Tishaura Jones. It makes no sense.
The options were 1) A horrible mayor or 2) Someone other than the horrible mayor.
2) The prevailing opinion of Spencer supporters on this forum is that Jones has been a bad mayor, and the primary results also suggest this as well with how low Jones' approval was. So yes, it's not inherent, but it is the prevailing view.
“Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.”
This doesn’t make any sense. How Jones’ record stacks up to Slay’s has no effect on deciding whether Jones or Spencer is the best candidate moving forward. Stop worrying about who voted for Slay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's incoherent.
- 977
You can’t at all know the intentions behind people who voted for Slay and will vote for Spencer. Many people could have seen Slay as the best worst option amongst what I think is a pretty weak field of opponents during his tenure.Auggie wrote:It absolutely matters when Spencer's core base of support is the same as Slay's. Lots of people who think Slay was a good mayor and happily voted for him over and over again are also saying Jones is a bad mayor and will be voting for Spencer.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I don’t disagree with your first point, but you’re moving the goalposts. You originally said:Auggie wrote: 1) Many of our modern issues are quite literally directly related to how horribly the city was run under Slay. This would be like saying George Bush's and Obama's policies and legacies don't matter today. Where we are today is inherently tied to the mayoral administration that reigned over the city for 16 years.
The options were 1) A horrible mayor or 2) Someone other than the horrible mayor.
2) The prevailing opinion of Spencer supporters on this forum is that Jones has been a bad mayor, and the primary results also suggest this as well with how low Jones' approval was. So yes, it's not inherent, but it is the prevailing view.
“Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.”
This doesn’t make any sense. How Jones’ record stacks up to Slay’s has no effect on deciding whether Jones or Spencer is the best candidate moving forward. Stop worrying about who voted for Slay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's incoherent.
Some Spencer voters don’t view Jones as a bad Mayor either.
The reason Jones is going to lose is because of a lot of non Slay voters pulling their support anyway.
Pot calling the kettle blackAuggie wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2025It absolutely matters when Spencer's core base of support is the same as Slay's. Lots of people who think Slay was a good mayor and happily voted for him over and over again are also saying Jones is a bad mayor and will be voting for Spencer.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2025I don’t disagree with your first point, but you’re moving the goalposts. You originally said:Auggie wrote:
1) Many of our modern issues are quite literally directly related to how horribly the city was run under Slay. This would be like saying George Bush's and Obama's policies and legacies don't matter today. Where we are today is inherently tied to the mayoral administration that reigned over the city for 16 years.
The options were 1) A horrible mayor or 2) Someone other than the horrible mayor.
2) The prevailing opinion of Spencer supporters on this forum is that Jones has been a bad mayor, and the primary results also suggest this as well with how low Jones' approval was. So yes, it's not inherent, but it is the prevailing view.
“Slay ran the city into the ground yet was elected 3 additional times. Now, Jones is going to lose despite having a significantly better record than Slay ever had. You can't have voted for Slay and then say Jones has been a bad mayor. You'd be incoherent to hold that Slay was good but Jones is bad.”
This doesn’t make any sense. How Jones’ record stacks up to Slay’s has no effect on deciding whether Jones or Spencer is the best candidate moving forward. Stop worrying about who voted for Slay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's incoherent.