HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » markpkessinger » Journal
Page: 1

markpkessinger

Profile Information

Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 03:48 PM
Number of posts: 7,574

Journal Archives

Infuriating update on my voter registration drama...

The NYC Board of Elections is an incompetent mess. So, the other day I checked my voter registration status online, only to find I was listed as being "inactive." I called the Board of Elections, and was told that I should go to their office downtown, and would be permitted to vote there by absentee ballot, and that this would make my status active again. So today, I went down there to do just that, and was told that no, I would have to vote by affidavit at the polling place on Tuesday. When I tried to protest that I had been told to come to the office to vote, I was rudely cut-off as the clerk yelled, "Next!" By the time I had ridden the subway back home -- it's a half-hour trip each way -- I was fuming, so I again called the BoE office to find out why I was being given conflicting information. This time, after I presented the entire story, the person on the phone told me I would have to RE-REGISTER. WTF???? At that point, I demanded to speak to a supervisor. She was nice and accommodating, but could provide no satisfactory answer as to why I had been given THREE DIFFERENT stories as to what I needed to do to vote. So she asked me to come back tomorrow -- and to ask for her -- a Ms. Walker. But this entire episode has been infuriating!
Posted by markpkessinger | Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:55 PM (12 replies)

SO I CHECKED MY NY VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS

I checked mine online yesterday, not anticipating a problem, but just to be on the safe side. Lo and behold, I was listed as "inactive." According to the NYC Board of Elections website, inactive status can occur when either (1) a person fails to vote in two consecutive federal elections; or (2) mail is sent to a voter and is returned as undeliverable. Neither of those two should have applied to me (although my mail delivery has been a bit funky on occasion). Anyway, I called the Board of Elections, and was told I will still be able to vote, but I have to go to their office downtown to do so. The good news is I can do so during business hours anytime between now and Tuesday, and they are open on Saturday and Sunday as well.

But New York voters, BE WARNED! Check your registration status so you don't get a nasty surprise on Tuesday!
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Apr 14, 2016, 04:17 PM (128 replies)

NEW YORK VOTERS: CHECK YOUR REGISTRATION STATUS!

I checked mine online yesterday, not anticipating a problem, but just to be on the safe side. Lo and behold, I was listed as "inactive." According to the NYC Board of Elections website, inactive status can occur when either (1) a person fails to vote in two consecutive federal elections; or (2) mail is sent to a voter and is returned as undeliverable. Neither of those two should have applied to me (although my mail delivery has been a bit funky on occasion). Anyway, I called the Board of Elections, and was told I will still be able to vote, but I have to go to their office downtown to do so. The good news is I can do so during business hours anytime between now and Tuesday, and they are open on Saturday and Sunday as well.

But New York voters, BE WARNED! Check your registration status so you don't get a nasty surprise on Tuesday!
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Apr 14, 2016, 04:16 PM (16 replies)

"The One Piece of Writing Every Hillary Supporter Should Read"

This is one of the most well-written, well-reasoned articulations of the progressive case against Hillary I have seen to date. It is long -- the four paragraphs excerpted below represent less than 1/8th of the article's length -- but well worth the read.

[font size=5]The One Piece of Writing Every Hillary Supporter Should Read[/font]
by Memo Salazar

You keep hearing the same refrain from several of your friends: Bernie Sanders is Americaís savior. The Facebook posts are everywhere, the tweets, the memes. Youíve heard his impassioned speeches, and, yes, they are definitely fiery and exciting. The young liberal inside you applauds when you hear him speak out for justice, and if you were twenty years old right now, perhaps youíd even be convinced. But youíre not twenty years old anymore, and youíve seen enough in this world to know that the idealism of youth falls short when dealing with the messy reality of human beings- especially in the world of American Politics.

And so, even though Hillary isnít as exciting as Bernie, you begin to realize her message is much more sober: slow change for the better, much in the manner of Barack Obama. It may not be as flashy, but itís definitely more certain, and in 4 or 8 years, moving forward a little will be better than moving nowhere fast. As the weeks go by and the Bernie supporters get louder, your faith in Hillaryís no-nonsense speeches grows stronger; your tolerance for drinking that Bernie kool-aid gets weaker. A revolution? Really? Besides, what could be more revolutionary than finally having a woman in the White House? Isnít that, in itself, about as revolutionary as it gets?

If you identify with some, or all, of this point of view, youíre not alone. In an election that is bringing out some very ugly sides of humanity, Hillary Clinton is probably our best bet for sanity right now. This is no time for experimenting with Democracy; if ever we need to keep things on an even keel, itís now.

All of the above would be true, except for the fact that it is very, very, very much untrue. But, wait- before you turn away from these words in frustration, thinking the last thing you need to read is another anti-Hillary rant, allow yourself to play devilís advocate for just a couple of minutes longer. After all, if Hillary is the wiser choice, then nothing you can read below will change that irrevocable fact. But if the facts reflect a much different truth- if, in fact, they completely contradict the above argument- donít you owe it to yourself to at least consider them? If only to better understand your opposition? Is the election simply about picking a team and rooting for them loudly until the season ends, or is actually about finding the best method to improve your country? If itís the latter, read on. These are just words on paper, after all- you can choose to disagree with them and never have to worry about anyoneís opinion of you, nor damage a friendship because of political differences. Theyíre just words.

< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:39 PM (6 replies)

Panama Papers: Obama, Clinton Pushed Trade Deal Amid Warnings It Would Make Tax Evasion Worse

[font size=6]Panama Papers: Obama, Clinton Pushed Trade Deal Amid Warnings It Would Make Money Laundering, Tax Evasion Worse[/font]

Years before more than a hundred media outlets around the world released stories Sunday exposing a massive network of global tax evasion detailed in the so-called Panama Papers, U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for a Bush administration-negotiated free trade agreement that watchdogs warned would only make the situation worse.

Soon after taking office in 2009, Obama and his secretary of state ó who is currently the Democratic presidential front-runner ó began pushing for the passage of stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that opponents said would make it more difficult to crack down on Panamaís very low income tax rate, banking secrecy laws and history of noncooperation with foreign partners.

Even while Obama championed his commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy, he pursued and eventually signed the Panama agreement in 2011. Upon Congress ratifying the pact, Clinton issued a statement lauding the agreement, saying it and other deals with Colombia and South Korea "will make it easier for American companies to sell their products." She added: "The Obama administration is constantly working to deepen our economic engagement throughout the world, and these agreements are an example of that commitment."

Critics, however, said the pact would make it easier for rich Americans and corporations to set up offshore corporations and bank accounts and avoid paying many taxes altogether.

< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:33 PM (37 replies)
Go to Page: 1