|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
People have set up a false dichotomy on this. It's not, either he did good things or he did no good things (or we ignore his good things because of the bad he did). No one even approached arguing that.
What I tried to make clear is
1. Jackson was unusually racist, even for his time (when being racist was pretty mainstream).
2. The Trail of Tears was also abnormally cruel, even in it's time.
3. It wasn't all practical and patriotic motivation that encouraged him to kill/drive out the native inhabitants.
So, specifically, the arguments of "but it was a different time" don't actually take into consideration what that time was actually like. Even by those measures, it was plenty horrific and unusual.
As for rewriting history, it's important to note that it's not so much rewriting, but adding parts of the story that were redacted out by the "winners". History and anthropology are both constantly correcting their Euro-centric forebearers biased accounts. I think that pattern is accelerating not stopping.
|
On April 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
People have set up a false dichotomy on this. It's not, either he did good things or he did no good things (or we ignore his good things because of the bad he did). No one even approached arguing that.
What I tried to make clear is
1. Jackson was unusually racist, even for his time (when being racist was pretty mainstream).
2. The Trail of Tears was also abnormally cruel, even in it's time.
3. It wasn't all practical and patriotic motivation that encouraged him to kill/drive out the native inhabitants.
So, specifically, the arguments of "but it was a different time" don't actually take into consideration what that time was actually like. Even by those measures, it was plenty horrific and unusual.
As for rewriting history, it's important to note that it's not so much rewriting, but adding parts of the story that were redacted out by the "winners". History and anthropology are both constantly correcting their Euro-centric forebearers biased accounts. I think that pattern is accelerating not stopping.
No one is disagreeing with you. But right now, you are projecting a moralist stance that is a bit incongruous with the realities of that time.
For example: Communication was less prevalent in that time, which means most people would not really have known anything about what had happened, or how it was going. So the trail of tears being now understood as being something awful is a hindsight matter, not a foresight matter. There's a reason, for example, that he drove them off as opposed to just slaughtering every single one of them in their sleep. it could have been seen just as much as a side effect of migration that those people died as it could have been because it was cruel. Now, based on hindsight observations, documentations, and hindsight analysis--we can see that there was a higher level of cruelty than the norm. But that's not something the people back then would have seen or expected as a forefront when presented the option of segregation.
Yes, there are euro-centric views that stain our impression of history. But there are also moralizing biases that people in the present project into the past--and it is just as important not to treat the past as this world filled with ignorant savages just going about being cruel for the sake of being cruel.
|
It's now officially a contested GOP convention. Unless Trump reaches the magic number by winning every state. Cruz won't overtake him by delegates as it's mathematically impossible. Kasich is just hoping for a contested convention hail Mary or simply a VP spot.
Also Ted Cruz lost to Ben Carson in a district of NY.
|
On April 22 2016 06:53 travis wrote:
Well, most of the world could be conquered by the U.S. right now. Are you advocating that? Why haven't I seen you advocate for more wars in general? There's conquerable land out there!
That's not true. The US can not just conquer a bunch of land because it would not be able to afford it, other countries would ally against the US and the economic damage from sanctions and a million other things would totally prevent it. There's no way. However, Crimea is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Crimea, Ukraine more broadly, did not have proper safety. Diplomatically/economically/whatever/alliances were not able to prevent Crimea from being annexed. Russia took what was undefended. Russia suffered some, but it was ultimately "profitable". Russia is not trying to take over Poland. Russia is not trying to take over Mongolia. It isn't able to because the governments in place have managed to secure the safety of their citizens through all the means I listed previously. At the end of the day, they were able to achieve safety.
There is a massive difference between being militarily "capable" and being "actually capable". At the end of the day, would the conquest be profitable? If not, it won't happen. It was worthwhile for Russia to take Crimea, so they did.
On April 22 2016 06:53 travis wrote:What does this even mean?
A civilization that was unable to defend its citizens was overtaken by a power that was able to profitably take land. The society/government/whatever you want to call the unique system the natives developed was unable to protect its people from foreign aggressors. These foreign aggressors were able to conclude the cost:benefit made a ton of sense for just slaughtering everyone and stealing all their shit. This is no different than Crimea, just a totally different scale.
If a society is able to have a net benefit from an act of aggression, it will always end up doing it. The reason Crimea doesn't happen as often as it did 300 years ago is the fact that we've become an entirely global culture and people. I think people really underestimate just how economically/militarily/EVERYTHING connected our planet has become. It's nearly impossible to just take over a country without it indirectly pissing someone off who can defend that country.
And so that brings up another point: These countries are the countries that currently exist because the leadership of these countries, however it happened, were able to establish ties with other countries which granted them safety. They only exist now because of that. There were many different borders 300 years ago. These borders changed over time to match the power dynamics in a somewhat natural way.
Simply put, when a country is unable to protect its citizens against a foreign power, it is inferior in its ability to protect. If we go back far enough, you need to consider the original reasons for establishing societies at all. In the beginning, it was essentially paying a group of guards. By having protection of these soldiers, you agree to pay a tax or fee or give crops or whatever. The fundamental motivation for banding together is to be stronger and more secure. When that purpose is not served, the citizens are not served. The structure unable to protect these people falls apart, either militarily or otherwise.
On April 22 2016 06:53 travis wrote:
What you are describing is theft. When you go in and take something that belongs to someone else, that is theft. If I get a gun and I take your shit, its not because you are weak - it's because I was an asshole and I took your shit with my gun because I wanted it.
That's true. However, you would only get a gun and take my shit if you decided the cost:benefit was favorable. You are unlikely to do that because there are a lot of aspects of our society which protect me. You are not likely to try to rob me *precisely* because the state I am a part of is functioning well. If I lived in Somalia, I would be vulnerable to you.
|
On April 22 2016 09:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
People have set up a false dichotomy on this. It's not, either he did good things or he did no good things (or we ignore his good things because of the bad he did). No one even approached arguing that.
What I tried to make clear is
1. Jackson was unusually racist, even for his time (when being racist was pretty mainstream).
2. The Trail of Tears was also abnormally cruel, even in it's time.
3. It wasn't all practical and patriotic motivation that encouraged him to kill/drive out the native inhabitants.
So, specifically, the arguments of "but it was a different time" don't actually take into consideration what that time was actually like. Even by those measures, it was plenty horrific and unusual.
As for rewriting history, it's important to note that it's not so much rewriting, but adding parts of the story that were redacted out by the "winners". History and anthropology are both constantly correcting their Euro-centric forebearers biased accounts. I think that pattern is accelerating not stopping. No one is disagreeing with you. But right now, you are projecting a moralist stance that is a bit incongruous with the realities of that time. For example: Communication was less prevalent in that time, which means most people would not really have known anything about what had happened, or how it was going. So the trail of tears being now understood as being something awful is a hindsight matter, not a foresight matter. There's a reason, for example, that he drove them off as opposed to just slaughtering every single one of them in their sleep. it could have been seen just as much as a side effect of migration that those people died as it could have been because it was cruel. Now, based on hindsight observations, documentations, and hindsight analysis--we can see that there was a higher level of cruelty than the norm. But that's not something the people back then would have seen or expected as a forefront when presented the option of segregation. Yes, there are euro-centric views that stain our impression of history. But there are also moralizing biases that people in the present project into the past--and it is just as important not to treat the past as this world filled with ignorant savages just going about being cruel for the sake of being cruel.
Yes you are disagreeing. You are stating something that isn't true. It's not hindsight (from the modern perspective), and this should be the last time this has to be said. Here's what was written in 1836:
On the broaching of this question, a general expression of despondency, of disbelief that any good will accrue from a remonstrance on an act of fraud and robbery, appeared in those men to whom we naturally turn for aid and counsel. Will the American government steal? Will it lie? Will it kill? – We ask triumphantly. Our counselors and old statesmen here say that ten years ago they would have staked their lives on the affirmation that the proposed Indian measures could not be executed; that the unanimous country would put them down. And now the steps of this crime follow each other so fast, at such fatally quick time, that the millions of virtuous citizens, whose agents the government are, have no place to interpose, and must shut their eyes until the last howl and wailing of these tormented villages and tribes shall afflict the ear of the world.
Link
I suppose they don't mention his strong and principled opposition to the Indian Removal Act in most tales of Davy Crockett either.
The idea that "it was a different time" comes close to being an accurate interpretation, is just flat out wrong.
That's true. However, you would only get a gun and take my shit if you decided the cost:benefit was favorable. You are unlikely to do that because there are a lot of aspects of our society which protect me. You are not likely to try to rob me *precisely* because the state I am a part of is functioning well. If I lived in Somalia, I would be vulnerable to you
That's only true if your government gives a crap about you. There are tons of people getting robbed/killed/etc... every year with little or no government protection/help. Many of them actually end up being harassed and threatened by the very government that is supposed to protect them. The mistake is not that we didn't notice it happen, it's that we refuse to notice it's never stopped. The entirety of the existence of the US, it has used racism to protect some folks while tormenting others, in order to ensure folks like you feel safe, while you ignore/dismiss the people who aren't, even when under attack from the same government that protects you.
|
On April 22 2016 09:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It's now officially a contested GOP convention. Unless Trump reaches the magic number by winning every state. Cruz won't overtake him by delegates as it's mathematically impossible. Kasich is just hoping for a contested convention hail Mary or simply a VP spot.
Also Ted Cruz lost to Ben Carson in a district of NY.
It's not officially a contested convention... The only thing that's official is that Trump's the only person who could potentially win on the first ballot.
|
On April 22 2016 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's only true if your government gives a crap about you. There are tons of people getting robbed/killed/etc... every year with little or no government protection/help. Many of them actually end up being harassed and threatened by the very government that is supposed to protect them. The mistake is not that we didn't notice it happen, it's that we refuse to notice it's never stopped. The entirety of the existence of the US, it has used racism to protect some folks while tormenting others, in order to ensure folks like you feel safe, while you ignore/dismiss the people who aren't, even when under attack from the same government that protects you.
You are addressing an ending of a larger point. Not addressing my overarching reasoning for all of this being the case is silly. Give your thoughts on the rest of my argument and I'd be happy to have that discussion.
|
On April 22 2016 10:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's only true if your government gives a crap about you. There are tons of people getting robbed/killed/etc... every year with little or no government protection/help. Many of them actually end up being harassed and threatened by the very government that is supposed to protect them. The mistake is not that we didn't notice it happen, it's that we refuse to notice it's never stopped. The entirety of the existence of the US, it has used racism to protect some folks while tormenting others, in order to ensure folks like you feel safe, while you ignore/dismiss the people who aren't, even when under attack from the same government that protects you.
You are addressing an ending of a larger point. Not addressing my overarching reasoning for all of this being the case is silly. Give your thoughts on the rest of my argument and I'd be happy to have that discussion.
I already have, in that even in it's time, it was looked at as an unusual and cruel measure.
|
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process), vote suppression against Sanders in Arizona and NY. Votes were actually thrown out, machines tampered with, polling locations changed, Clintons AT the voting sites which is illegal(again), corporate media biases, party affiliation changed, voting denied for a ton of people.
Last time I checked, voting is a right, not a privilege.
This shit is so anti-democratic and rigged. I've lost all hope in US government and will live abroad anyway. Disgusting. If Sanders just can't come back from this, I'm voting Trump just to throw a wrench into the establishment. Also rather vote for a lunatic than a corrupt liar and her establishment biased lackeys.
|
On April 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
People have set up a false dichotomy on this. It's not, either he did good things or he did no good things (or we ignore his good things because of the bad he did). No one even approached arguing that.
What I tried to make clear is
1. Jackson was unusually racist, even for his time (when being racist was pretty mainstream).
2. The Trail of Tears was also abnormally cruel, even in it's time.
3. It wasn't all practical and patriotic motivation that encouraged him to kill/drive out the native inhabitants.
So, specifically, the arguments of "but it was a different time" don't actually take into consideration what that time was actually like. Even by those measures, it was plenty horrific and unusual.
As for rewriting history, it's important to note that it's not so much rewriting, but adding parts of the story that were redacted out by the "winners". History and anthropology are both constantly correcting their Euro-centric forebearers biased accounts. I think that pattern is accelerating not stopping.
Well, I used terms like "good" and "bad" for a lack of the expansive vocabulary I'd have in a language I master better than I do English. But nonetheless, to me, what's important is to bring it back to the symbols and what it means today. I have no interest in discussing Andrew Jackson and his place in history in a vacuum. The moralist discourse is not useless when taking today's reality into consideration.
|
If america wanted land it could take it wherever it wanted. America controls the seas and therefore the world economy. The world simply don't have a solution for an American carrier battlegroup sitting in every ocean in the world. Nations will simply surrender or starve.
Also Jackson isn't getting kicked off the 20 dollar bill completely hes simply going to be on the back of it while tubman is on the front. Which I think is fabulous symbolism.
Also the Picture that they're using for Tubman is absolutely on point. She looks more presidential in it then most presidents in their pictures and this is just photo shops on the internet right now.
![[image loading]](http://howafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Harriet-Tubman-20-dollar-bill.png)
|
On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process)
How so?
|
On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so?
It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one.
|
On April 22 2016 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so? It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one.
No it doesn't. Anyone can register as a member of the party whose nominee they want to select. It's free. Why would it be undemocratic for a party to decide that its nominee will be chosen by its members?
|
On April 22 2016 13:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so? It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one. No it doesn't. Anyone can register as a member of the party whose nominee they want to select. It's free. Why would it be undemocratic for a party to choose that its nominee will be decided by its members?
Well they aren't when they are same day registration, but iirc they were talking about in reference to New York so I doubt they were counting those. Though you could argue since we only practically have 2 nominees that people shouldn't have to claim allegiance to influence one or the other outcomes.
Really we should just modernize ballot access and our voting system from the local to the national level. It's fine to ask for and critique other options but we have to all recognize the way we do things now is atrocious.
|
On April 22 2016 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 13:40 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so? It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one. No it doesn't. Anyone can register as a member of the party whose nominee they want to select. It's free. Why would it be undemocratic for a party to choose that its nominee will be decided by its members? Well they aren't when they are same day registration, but iirc they were talking about in reference to New York so I doubt they were counting those. Though you could argue since we only practically have 2 nominees that people shouldn't have to claim allegiance to influence one or the other outcomes. Really we should just modernize ballot access and our voting system from the local to the national level. It's fine to ask for and critique other options but we have to all recognize the way we do things now is atrocious.
You're branching into different arguments. People can vote for whomever they want in the general election. They can also participate in the nomination process of whatever party they want. They just need to register as a member of that party (sometimes they don't, obviously, depending on what the state party has decided).
Discussing until when one should be allowed to register as a member of that party is a different argument. The point is that there is nothing undemocratic in itself to restrict the nomination process of a given party to the members of that party only.
|
On April 22 2016 13:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:40 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so? It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one. No it doesn't. Anyone can register as a member of the party whose nominee they want to select. It's free. Why would it be undemocratic for a party to choose that its nominee will be decided by its members? Well they aren't when they are same day registration, but iirc they were talking about in reference to New York so I doubt they were counting those. Though you could argue since we only practically have 2 nominees that people shouldn't have to claim allegiance to influence one or the other outcomes. Really we should just modernize ballot access and our voting system from the local to the national level. It's fine to ask for and critique other options but we have to all recognize the way we do things now is atrocious. You're branching into different arguments. People can vote for whomever they want in the general election. They can also participate in the nomination process of whatever party they want. They just need to register as a member of that party (sometimes they don't, obviously, depending on what the state party has decided). Discussing until when one should be allowed to register as a member of that party is a different argument. The point is that there is nothing undemocratic in itself to restrict the nomination process of a given party to the members of that party only.
Ok if the point was that closed primaries in a vacuum don't "hinder the democratic process" that's a tougher argument to refute. But it's clear, that's what they've been used to do. Whether that's supposed to be part of the process is an esoteric/definitional/philosophical question.
So do they by their nature make it less democratic? I suppose in the same way that a loaded gun makes a home more dangerous. Depending on how it is maintained/perceived, it could be much more dangerous, much less, or no net effect. But I don't think there's a doubt that New York's primary for example is restrictive. As I pointed out, in general they have such terrible election laws they were used by Republicans in NC to say theirs were fine.
The same laws Democrats are pointing at when they speak of voter suppression. Those laws as bad as they are, aren't even as restrictive as the party rules of New York state Democratic party. They are having 3 separate primaries just to keep turnout down.
Again the important part is that we need to revamp our electoral process. The ~3 million people in NY who at least had a chance are only part of the problem. Because of the restrictive rules, 100k+ that were inexplicably removed from the rolls, had their vote silenced. Everyone should be able to point at the New York rules and see that they were ridiculous, that there's any dispute is concerning.
|
On April 22 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 13:53 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:40 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so? It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one. No it doesn't. Anyone can register as a member of the party whose nominee they want to select. It's free. Why would it be undemocratic for a party to choose that its nominee will be decided by its members? Well they aren't when they are same day registration, but iirc they were talking about in reference to New York so I doubt they were counting those. Though you could argue since we only practically have 2 nominees that people shouldn't have to claim allegiance to influence one or the other outcomes. Really we should just modernize ballot access and our voting system from the local to the national level. It's fine to ask for and critique other options but we have to all recognize the way we do things now is atrocious. You're branching into different arguments. People can vote for whomever they want in the general election. They can also participate in the nomination process of whatever party they want. They just need to register as a member of that party (sometimes they don't, obviously, depending on what the state party has decided). Discussing until when one should be allowed to register as a member of that party is a different argument. The point is that there is nothing undemocratic in itself to restrict the nomination process of a given party to the members of that party only. Ok if the point was that closed primaries in a vacuum don't "hinder the democratic process" that's a tougher argument to refute. But it's clear, that's what they've been used to do. Whether that's supposed to be part of the process is an esoteric/definitional/philosophical question. So do they by their nature make it less democratic? I suppose in the same way that a loaded gun makes a home more dangerous. Depending on how it is maintained/perceived, it could be much more dangerous, much less, or no net effect.
Yes, the point being discussed is whether or not a closed primary system is in itself undemocratic. As I said, anyone can join the party of their choice for free, and participate in that party's primary. There is nothing undemocratic about the system. That loaded gun analogy is completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
|
On April 22 2016 14:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2016 14:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:53 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:40 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On April 22 2016 11:28 parkufarku wrote:
Even if you like having closed primaries (which hinders the democratic process) How so? It excludes ~40% of the voting population (larger than either party) from participating in the nomination process for one. No it doesn't. Anyone can register as a member of the party whose nominee they want to select. It's free. Why would it be undemocratic for a party to choose that its nominee will be decided by its members? Well they aren't when they are same day registration, but iirc they were talking about in reference to New York so I doubt they were counting those. Though you could argue since we only practically have 2 nominees that people shouldn't have to claim allegiance to influence one or the other outcomes. Really we should just modernize ballot access and our voting system from the local to the national level. It's fine to ask for and critique other options but we have to all recognize the way we do things now is atrocious. You're branching into different arguments. People can vote for whomever they want in the general election. They can also participate in the nomination process of whatever party they want. They just need to register as a member of that party (sometimes they don't, obviously, depending on what the state party has decided). Discussing until when one should be allowed to register as a member of that party is a different argument. The point is that there is nothing undemocratic in itself to restrict the nomination process of a given party to the members of that party only. Ok if the point was that closed primaries in a vacuum don't "hinder the democratic process" that's a tougher argument to refute. But it's clear, that's what they've been used to do. Whether that's supposed to be part of the process is an esoteric/definitional/philosophical question. So do they by their nature make it less democratic? I suppose in the same way that a loaded gun makes a home more dangerous. Depending on how it is maintained/perceived, it could be much more dangerous, much less, or no net effect. Yes, the point being discussed is whether or not a closed primary system is in itself undemocratic. As I said, anyone can join the party of their choice for free, and participate in that party's primary. There is nothing undemocratic about the system. That loaded gun analogy is completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
The point was that it's debatable whether they are necessary at all. They are clearly being exploited to be undemocratic, so the concept is "does their existence undermine the process to begin with". That's ,as I said, is debatable, but it's pretty irrelevant to the point they seemed to be making. Which is closed primaries as they are used in many states are undemocratic. A more unsavory issue I imagine, considering one of the worst offenders is a Democrat run state/party.
|
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/election-official-ousted-error-purged-brooklyn-voters-article-1.2610369
The massive purge of over 100,000 Brooklyn voters from the rolls — which caused huge problems at polling sites this past Tuesday — was the result of an epic screw-up by a long-time official expected to be forced out over the debacle, sources said.
Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the Board of Election’s chief clerk, was suspended without pay on Thursday, two days after the city’s botched presidential primary prompted criticism from both the winners and losers on the Democratic side.
She was suspended “without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn,” the BOE said in a statement, hours after the Daily News broke the story online.
She’s in the process of being forced out over the voter roll mishaps, perhaps as early as the board’s next commissioner meeting next Tuesday, sources said.
The problems began when she was trying to clean up the voting books, which must be periodically purged to eliminate people who die, move or are ineligible for other reasons.
Sources said she skipped one of the steps that was built in to stop the system from purging eligible voters, which caused a chain reaction that led to people being improperly removed.
Brooklyn lost 102,717 — or 8% — of its active voters from Nov. 1, 2015, through April 1, 2016, according to state stats.
It’s the only county in the state that lost voters in that time period.
The high number of dropped voters — combined with other issues like long lines, late starts, and inadequate equipment — led to both the City Controller and the state Attorney General to launch investigations into the widespread irregularities.
“The administration of the voter rolls in Brooklyn is of major concern to our office and is a key focus of our investigation,” state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, whose office is also looking at other parts of the state that had voting problems.
His office received over 1,000 complaints on Election day about voting problems.
The BOE, in a statement, said it will “fully cooperate with the investigations currently being conducted by the Office of the New York State Attorney General and The Office of the New York City Comptroller.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who lost the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton, said he was “concerned about the conduct of the voting process in New York.”
And John Podesta, top Clinton campaign official, addressed the issue on Twitter, saying “Every eligible voter has the right to have their vote counted.”
Haslett-Rudiano, who has worked at BOE since 1999 and made $125,758 last year, has made headlines before.
In 2013, The News reported that she had let her 123 year old Upper West Side brownstone fall such disrepair it had more than 20 Department of Buildings violations slapped on it.
Neighbors said it was a magnet for vandals and rats, begging her to sell the unoccupied space. She said she had trouble selling the building — which she bought for $5,000 in 1976 — because it reminded her of her late husband.
“A lot of my husband’s dreams are wrapped up in that building,” she told The News in 2013.
She sold the fixer upper for $6.6 million in 2014.
"Skipped a step".
wat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
