The Q at Parkside

(for those for whom the Parkside Q is their hometrain)

News and Nonsense from the Brooklyn neighborhood of Lefferts and environs, or more specifically a neighborhood once known as Melrose Park. Sometimes called Lefferts Gardens. Or Prospect-Lefferts Gardens. Or PLG. Or North Flatbush. Or Caledonia (west of Ocean). Or West Pigtown. Across From Park Slope. Under Crown Heights. Near Drummer's Grove. The Side of the Park With the McDonalds. Jackie Robinson Town. Home of Lefferts Manor. West Wingate. Near Kings County Hospital. Or if you're coming from the airport in taxi, maybe just Flatbush is best.

Monday, September 11, 2017

It's Simple. Vote for Brian Cunningham.

Good man, good beard, good heart, terrific listener, lifelong resident, worked in the council, knows the issues, gets how government and politics work. Is he perfect? Is anyone? I say give him a shot - he's the Q's favorite candidate for Council and I don't think he'll let us down. As for the incumbent, if the vote splits and we get him back for another 4, kiss leadership and representation goodbye til Bill de Blasé is off to serve as Sanders' Housing Secretary. (If his health holds out...Bill's, not Bernie's, who'll be here til they remove his brain and put it in a young, hunky cadaver, sometime in the mid 1920s. There'll be a constitutional crises over whether Bernie is technically in his 80's or 20's, since you need to be old enough to be President, but Justice Barack Obama will cast the deciding vote in favor of splitting the age difference. Justice Hannity will write the dissenting opinion.)

Sure Brian will be on the Reform line in November, so he'll get a second chance. But it's hard to knock off a Democrat in this town. Unless, like Jesse Hamilton, you run as one then change parties. But that's another story...

Need more reason to vote for him? Check this out:


Need more? Check this one out with his fierce wife Stephanie wearing a fetching optical illusion.


Just vote for crying out loud. Oh, and I like Eric G. for D.A. - met him, seems sincere, and he was really into Ken Thompson's reforms - plus Ken didn't fire him when he took over from Hynes - a good sign I think. 

In the other races just choose the women and people of color. You'll feel better about yourself, as if you're somehow striking back at the Bread Basket and Deep South and Big Sky Country and Rust Belt and everywhere else that prep-school redneck (orange-neck?) won the popular vote. Oh yeah, and the Republics of Texas and Northern Arizona. Geez that's a lot of places - and some of them are even in the U.S.A. God surely hasn't been blessing us much lately has she?

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brian Cunningham appears to be a decent guy. But he has chosen a strategy that is guaranteed to fail. If were serious about winning, he would have joined the Republican Party and run as a Republican. Then he would have a shot at beating Eugene, knucklehead.

Clearly Cunningham does not understand that politics is a dirty business. He projects an image of believing his integrity will carry the day. It won't. It seems he doesn't realize he must buy votes. Dopey as Eugene is, he knows how to buy support on voting day. So, due to his naivete, Eugene will hang on to his city council office, making him a little like Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier.

Bloomberg, a Democrat in his heart, ran as a Republican to win the election for mayor.

Clarkson FlatBed said...

I disagree. No one has any recollection of the "Reform Party" despite the bozos who created it. They know very well what the Republican Party is. An endorsement from them is the kiss of death in Central Brooklyn. You should know that, Anon.

I think he does understand that politics is ugly, and he's been pretty scathing in his critique of Eugene without getting personal. That's my job!

Because there is little media coverage of council people, it's tough to get traction. That's why the endorsements count for so much. Brian has them - at least the ones that were up for grabs.

If he loses BOTH elections, it's our fault. And the fact that the field is too big, but you can't stop someone from running if they think they're qualified.

Anonymous said...

I disagree. No one has any recollection of the "Reform Party" despite the bozos who created it. They know very well what the Republican Party is. An endorsement from them is the kiss of death in Central Brooklyn. You should know that, Anon.

Okay. Disagree all you want. The poor guy is going to lose.



I think he does understand that politics is ugly, and he's been pretty scathing in his critique of Eugene without getting personal. That's my job!

There's zero evidence he's playing hardball. And, sorry, but your critiques of Eugene the knucklehead haven't had any impact anywhere.


Because there is little media coverage of council people, it's tough to get traction.

That's right. That's why candidates can cheat with impunity.

That's why the endorsements count for so much. Brian has them - at least the ones that were up for grabs.

Endorsements? Mean something? Really? How about some proof?

Endorsements matter when they connect to the bread and butter of the voter. In other words, when the politician can pay off his supporters with favors he can personally dispense. Like busy-work jobs, like allocating funding for some dopey project that gets built by cronies.

If he loses BOTH elections, it's our fault. And the fact that the field is too big, but you can't stop someone from running if they think they're qualified.

Nope. It's his fault for failing to play hardball.

The name of the game is illegal immigration. When you can open the doors to illegal immigrants, you can easily buy elections. And guess who can do that? Who do you think all those immigration lawyers on Flatbush support? Eugene is their godfather.

As I've said, anyone can register to vote in NY and California. No one vets the registration forms. And despite what it says on the form, there's no penalty for lying.

Anonymous said...

I voted for Cunningham today, and hope he runs a spirited campaign for the general even if he loses the primary.

Any idea when/if the Working Families party might make an endorsement? Their webpage lists endorsements in other districts, but not the 40th.

JMB said...

Working Families has a history of endorsing Dr. Eugene in previous elections, which for me destroyed any shred of credibility I once held for them.

The contest for Civil Court Judge has a lot more to consider than blindly voting for gender/ethnicity as the Q suggests doing above. This article lays out the situation at hand, and actually reports on who these people are and what they stand for. We don't often get that level of info in a judicial election:

https://citylimits.org/2017/09/07/in-brooklyn-a-rare-contest-for-civil-court-judge/

Anonymous said...

Everyone who claims illegal immigrants are voting in massive numbers should be required to provide proof. The existence of immigration lawyers is not proof.

Or do we just ignore the troll?

Clarkson FlatBed said...

He's a troll, but he's MY troll. Actually, he's not a troll. He's just a rational racist, the worst kind. Maybe Trump's electoral commission is going to unearth 3 million illegal voters, then. Boy won't that be something! The preppy orange redneck will be proven right for a change! Not bloody likely. Immigrants facing a possibility of deportation don't vote - that would be crazy, and remember they came to the U.S. for a better life. They're neither crazy nor foolish.

There are really simple ways for states to determine proper voter registration that don't make it hard for people to vote. They simply don't want to - it doesn't conform to the old ways of doing business. You shouldn't need a license - but every voter registration should be linked to a person's citizenship/ss#, and a fully digital system could ensure no double-voting. Think about what Google is able to accomplish, or effing Equifax. Yet we're voting like a Banana Republic. It's ridiculous that the Orange One should even be able to make that claim! The problem is there's no REAL way to disprove it. That's outrageous.

Personally I think that Democrats do themselves a disservice when they resist efforts to verify registrations in a fair manner. Every new registration can easily go through SS. And doubles are super easy when linked to that data. Worried about privacy? Forget it. Nothing is private, and really it never was.

JMB: if you're really able to determine who makes the better judge from that article, hats off. I think it's still pretty much luck of the draw. The "independent" line judges seem to have only THAT going for them. Are they fair? Guess you'll find out if they get picked when you head to court!

Anonymous said...

Happy to say I voted for Brian. He is the most progressive of the 4 candidates and has the best plans to target important issues. Eugene sucks. Pia has not govt experience and Jen while she is strong in tenants rights issues should not have bothered running.

Anonymous said...

Immigrants facing a possibility of deportation don't vote - that would be crazy, and remember they came to the U.S. for a better life. They're neither crazy nor foolish.

You don't get it. The phony registration process doesn't put the illegal voter at risk.

Here's the voter registration form.

You don't need an SS or a driver's license. And nobody -- nobody asks you for ID at the polling place.

Soooo, if I fill out the form and say my name is Mattieu Eugene and I don't have an SS or a driver's license and I'm suspected of voter fraud, who comes by to investigate? Nobody. But, if someone were to come by to investigate and I say nobody by that name lives here, what then?

The answer is that no one vets the forms. The only people who run into trouble are people who stupidly vote in two districts -- they leave a paper trail.

But if someone shows up at the polling place and signs the book with the name he supplied on the voter registration form -- and he only votes once, well, no problem.

Happens every election. And, because Democrats control much of Brooklyn, well, most of the city, do you think there will be any vetting a someone who registers to join the party?

Try this experiment. Ask a candidate about how the voters rolls are vetted. They'll blink a few times, contort their faces a little, and say, "I really don't know."

Anonymous said...

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/voting/voteform.pdf

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a scary voter fraud hypothetical. Except for the part where you don' t give any evidence this actually happens. /eyeroll

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a scary voter fraud hypothetical. Except for the part where you don' t give any evidence this actually happens. /eyeroll

Yeah, that's the same smug skeptical attitude shared by all the people who handed loads of money to Bernie Madoff. For years they believed they were receiving above-average returns due to Bernie's investment skill. And then they were rudely surprised.

A little while ago I ran into a member of one candidate's team. He was holding a sign for his candidate and asking passersby if they voted.

He seemed like the right person to ask about voter fraud.

Me: "How are voter registration forms vetted?"

Him: "Well, theoretically..."

Me: "Whoa...not theory. Reality."

Him, looking around, blinking. "Well, if you move here from somewhere else, the..."

Me: "No. Say I'm a new voter and I'm 18."

Him: "Well, you fill out the form and mail it in."

Me: "Yeah, but let's say I lie about everything? My name, for example. Who checks it"

Him: "Umm. I don't know."

Me: "What if I'm an illegal alien?"

Him: "That wouldn't happen. They're too scared of being deported. They don't vote."

Me: "Really. Why would they be scared? Who's coming after them?"

Him: "They just are."

Me: "How many votes does it take to win a city council election? And what do candidates in central Brooklyn promise more than anything else?

Him: "Lots of things."

Me: "They promise money and jobs for "immigrants. So tell me again how illegal immigrant voters, helped by immigration lawyers and local politicians, will get caught."

Him: "Ummm. I don't know."

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody knows nuttin'. Because nobody vets the voter registration rolls.

Anonymous said...

^ above story contains no evidence of voter fraud

Anonymous said...

^ above story contains no evidence of voter fraud

Okay. Perhaps you can tell me how voter registrations are vetted?

Tell me why Democrats in NY City would want to vet the voter registration rolls?

Can you give me a reason the people who handle voter registrations would kick someone off the rolls?

It is illegal to ask a person for an ID at a polling place.

These days, you get a nifty little card, the size of a credit card, that you flash at the table of people situated nearest the entrance to the voting hall. It lists your name and address, and your election district and your assembly district. Got a swell bar-code in the upper left corner.

The voting system is so easy to cheat that it's impossible to believe it isn't exploited on a wide-spread basis. Easier to cheat than the mortgage business that allowed people with no jobs, no credit and no down-payment all the cash they wanted to buy homes.

Did any borrower ever go to jail for lying on his mortgage application? No.


Just as illegal immigrants can easily obtain loads of social welfare benefits, so too, can they vote -- to ensure a continuing supply of benefits provided by Democrat politicians who funnel money and jobs into the immigrant communities in Brooklyn.

Anonymous said...

^ above story (still) contains no evidence of voter fraud.

JMB said...

JMB: if you're really able to determine who makes the better judge from that article, hats off. I think it's still pretty much luck of the draw.

This was the first time I've had *any* information at all about a judge before I've been asked to cast a ballot, so yeah, it's still pretty much luck of the draw, but it was the most informed I've ever been, so that's progress. I think with no one holding them accountable the machine is probably pretty corrupt and the challengers (I voted for some, but not all of them) at the very least brought a little attention to how the sausage is made.

Anonymous said...

^ above story (still) contains no evidence of voter fraud.

Ahhh, you didn't describe the voter registration vetting process. You didn't lay out the process because there is no vetting process.

Anyway, Eugene the knucklehead won. And he'll win again in November because he's got the illegal immigrant voters in his pocket.

Anonymous said...

^ if you're making the allegation of voter fraud, it's your responsibility to prove it's happening. Not to anyone else to prove it isn't.

Anonymous said...

^ if you're making the allegation of voter fraud, it's your responsibility to prove it's happening. Not to anyone else to prove it isn't.

Apparently you don't understand fraud. Perpetrators of fraud do what they do in plain sight, hoping no one notices. It's all about deception. And, fraud gets a big boost from useful idiots who claim it isn't happening.

Like I said, those who were bamboozled by Bernie Madoff didn't get it until it was too late. But there was one guy, an analyst -- Harry Markopolus -- who went to the SEC because it was obvious to him something was wrong. He deconstructed Madoff's scam for a couple of attorneys. They scratched their heads and decided, nah, Markopolus was confused. And they put his analysis in a file cabinet somewhere.

So here we go. Now a town has legalized voting by illegal immigrants. But people in central Brooklyn claim it doesn't happen.


College Park to allow non-US citizens the right to vote in local elections

By: Evan Lambert, fox5dc.com staff

Posted: Sep 12 2017 08:15PM EDT

Updated: Sep 13 2017 09:14AM EDT

COLLEGE PARK, Md. - The College Park City Council has voted in favor of a measure that would allow city residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local elections.

College Park joins six other towns in allowing legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants to vote in municipal elections.

The council's vote on this issue was supposed to happen back in August, but it was postponed due to threats made to council members over the proposal.

It was a very contentious debate inside College Park City Hall as almost two dozen people signed up to speak on the matter during Tuesday night’s meeting.

One man against the proposal came to the podium saying he was called a Nazi while waiting in line to voice his opinion.


“The reality is allowing all people to vote in municipal elections is going to make College Park more inclusive, and that has been the history of voting rights expansion in the United States and what has happened in our neighbors in Maryland who have expanded voting rights to non-U.S. citizens,” said Todd Larson, who is in favor of the proposal.

“Although you come up here and you say that there are hundreds of citizens and residents of College Park that are for this charter, I can tell you that there are thousands against it,” said Beth Debrosky, who is against non-citizen voting. “Voting is a right of the citizens. It's plain and clear. It's constitutional. It's also written at the state level and it also belongs at the local level.”

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, I was unable to reproduce the letter from the Secretary of State of North Dakota describing the ease with which voter fraud can be perpetrated. But he made the case. It's obviously a recurring problem, simply because there's no way to stop it, and lots of reasons driving people to commit this abuse of the voting system -- for obvious gains. To the victor go the spoils...as they say.

We Have No Idea if Voter Fraud Changed the Outcome of Some North Dakota Elections

Featured North Dakota

1 day ago | by Rob Port

When the voter ID issue is brought up by Republicans the response from Democrats is usually a lot of dismissive sneering.

Voter fraud isn’t really a problem, they tell us, pointing to the lack of criminal cases involving voter fraud.

But is it that there’s no fraud? Or that we aren’t really doing anything to detect and address it?

Secretary of State Al Jaeger, in responding earlier this month to questions sent by President Donald Trump’s election integrity commission, pointed out that in the most recent election there were thousands of ballots cast by way of self-certifying affidavits (as opposed to identification) which have not, even now, been verified.

Jaeger notes that fraud among these ballots could have impacted no fewer than eight close races across the state, five of which were won by Republicans and three of which were won by Democrats (see the full letter below):

Jaeger also noted that thousands of ballots cast with affidavits were from out of state, and that his office is still trying to verify whether those voters also cast ballots in their home states. He notes, depressingly, that even if fraud is found and prosecuted it cannot change the outcomes of the elections they influenced because those election results have already been certified:

What Jaeger is identifying here is the root of the voter ID debate. Again, Democrats tell us that we don’t need voter ID laws because instances of voter fraud are vanishingly rare.

The truth is that, under our current election laws, fraud could be happening and it could be impacting election outcomes, and not only can we not detect it in any sort of a timely fashion even if we did there’s little we could do to reverse already certified election results.

Remember, state lawmakers go into session just a couple of months after election day, casting all sorts of votes on legislation and other matters. How would we go about unwinding all of that if we found that fraud put someone in the Legislature who didn’t actually win their election?

We need to ensure that ballots cast in our election are valid when they’re cast. That means thorough and exacting voter ID laws.

To the extent that those laws are prohibitive to groups like the poor and the elderly, we should address that issue with outreach programs to get those people identification. Not lax laws which leave the ballot box vulnerable, which it clearly is today.