It’s Come to This: UN to Monitor US Election Process

[BostonPirate]

If it saves us from Bush v Gore repeat- I'm all for it- it just goes to show that the rest of the world knows something is going on here that's terribly wrong- and since we pretty much set the world agenda- they have a right to be concerned!!! Part of me is hoping Romney wins the popular vote and Obama the electoral- after Gore /Bush split it that way- Repubs across the country we're telling Dmes to shut up and accept it....$10,000 says Repubs won't accept it and sue for 8 years.

this... thanks aagold.

The UN seems to agree that voter supression is occurring because of the state and supreme court rulings, and they want to be able to verify to the world body that the election is valid if either side rejects the outcome.

I am sure the Bush V Gore thing and the global repercussions have much to do with it as well. Having international monitors will help both sides, since all parties can agree that they feel the other side is tampering in some way. The only ones who would want to stop the monitors are the people that fear their people will get caught.

Still waiting on the clear up from benvolio and chance on the accusation of lie and the glee over it.

Say what you mean in the thread you mean it in. I have no interest in personal vendettas. If you have a problem with being incorrect you need to learn how to be gracious and admit it when it happens. Grown ups don't need to be right all the time. If I am wrong I want to know. If I am not, then the accusation was specious and uncalled for.

So....

All the bluster wont cover up the lack of real grown up debate on the topic at hand. Either withdraw the accusation, prove that you are right, and most importantly, don't carry a grudge from thread to thread.

It's boring.

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm still confused. There has been so many threads started by liberals saying that the claim of voter fraud is fake ---- and now this thread.

There's is word that describes this.

I look forward to showing my state driver's license when I vote. However, I will cringe when I have to allow someone with a utility bill vote and worse yet -- someone who just states who he is and yet allow him to vote.

I do hope that the UN people come to the precinct where I will be working. I think they will be amazed at how easy it is to vote. Heck -- I hope they try to vote that day also -- which they could in many states with poor voting laws.

You are playing word games, and you're getting better and better at it...HA!

Well I hope they show up at my precinct as well. I am sure they are not going to be voting there, though. International observers, 44 for 4 states, and no one knows where they are going to be. I welcome it as well.

And BtW... You know the difference between voter suppression and voter fraud. IF you don't google it.

Thanks for posting in the thread, buddy, and thanks for being civil.

 

[Kulindahr]

The court might not allow any UN people to give their opinion if such challenges occur, especially if they demonstrate the bias you and a few others in this thread have said they would. There's also the issue that foreign election monitors are barred from several states, which would only add further questions to any conclusions they draw. (not to mention the fact that the UN and OSCE have the ability to do exactly nothing with regards to our elections)

Oh, and since they haven't done it yet, here are some cites. In 2004 the UN didn't monitor the elections, but a European group did. This is the same group that will monitor the elections this year. They ARE NOT part of the UN though. (the title should be changed to reflect that)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/6/20040806-115723-1192r/?page=all

I couldn't find anything about 2008 that wasn't linked to a grossly biased website, but there were indications that this same group was also here in a small capacity in 2008. I also wouldn't be surprised if they were here in 2000 as well.

I find the most interesting part there is that the GOP passed a bill forbidding the spending of federal funds to request the UN to observe. Since a UN observation request has to come through official channels from the administration, that's equivalent to declaring that elections when a Republican in the White House will never be monitored by the UN. In other words, it's an indication that the Republicans don't want any light shined on elections when they're in charge.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe

As for whether the courts are interested in the views of the UN, especially the supreme court? That's a rather insular view of the world and it shows that you are ignoring the global economy and it's realities. It worked out so well during the Bush years to thumb our noses at the world... I can't wait to see what would happen if they found tampering by the winner, and the courts did not take action against them.

The title of the thread is just fine. Still waiting for someone to point to a lie.

The UN doesn't observe elections itself unless the member state makes a direct request -- in this case, that would mean Obama would have to instruct Susan Rice to formally ask for UN supervision of our elections.

When requests come from high levels but not "the member state" administration/executive, chartered organizations step up to do the work. In this case, it's an organization of which the U.S. is part -- and because of that, they ought to have standing to address the court on an issue where they have testimony to offer.

Scalia would probably want to ignore them, but it seems he'd be (again) setting aside law to have his way.

 

[HenryReardon]

I'm a registered Blue Dog Democrat....the party that perfected the art of funny business is the Democratic Party. Machine politics is their forte. Voter fraud can only exist these days according to the luminaries on the left here coming from Republican sources... now they are giddily swooning over the UN coming here,just to keep an eye out for GOP intimidation. Fucking ridiculous.

The tradition of Democrat vote fraud really came to the forefront when Kennedy was declared the winner in Cook County, Ill.
Nothing was ever proven, but someone at the time famously said, "when a Chicago election is rigged, it stays rigged."

 

[BostonPirate]

Nothing ever proven.

care to repeat that? How many investigations yeilded no proof of wrong doing?

All we have is a bunch of GOppers with a gut feeling and little proof. On the other hand, we have multiple state supreme courts and SCOTUS saying that the GOP actions suppress the vote.

 

[White Eagle]

I see they're gonna come to Texas. Great! I hope they will come here.
I feel like getting arrested for causing a disturbance at the voting booth if they try to suppress me.
Also, I can see my voting location from my front door.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Yeah, just think --- no Kennedy assassination, no Watergate.

 

[MassRuss]

^^^^^Huh? JFK's assassination had nothing to do with voting. Watergate was the workings of a paranoid president & his group of yes (con) men. Totally unnecessary, since McGovern had no chance of ever winning. Nixon BTW would be waaay too liberal & progressive for the bunch of loonies with whom you keep company.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think Jack just owned the Kennedy assasination for the GOP

HA

Jack, you probably ought to clarify

 

[chance1]

what inspires more confidence in fair elections than representatives from Kazakhstan?

LOL

taken from The Blaze

 

[Jack Springer]

I think Jack just owned the Kennedy assasination for the GOP

HA

Jack, you probably ought to clarify

Kennedy's father and the Chicago machine stole the 1960 election. Nixon was actually elected.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^^^Huh? JFK's assassination had nothing to do with voting. Watergate was the workings of a paranoid president & his group of yes (con) men. Totally unnecessary, since McGovern had no chance of ever winning. Nixon BTW would be waaay too liberal & progressive for the bunch of loonies with whom you keep company.

Did you pay attention in history class? Kennedy won because of voting fraud.

 

[White Eagle]

Well, I looked for that thread about the billboards with no luck. This looks good enough for it as the subject should be over since they took the billboards down.
This link is to a petition, but the petition already worked. Duh.

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/

Victory! Clear Channel pulled the billboards

UPDATE: We won! After 57,000 members of the SumOfUs.org community joined tens of thousands of others in calling for Clear Channel to pull down ads that are likely to have the effect of intimidating poor Black and Latino voters, the ads have now come down in Cleveland and Columbus, to be replaced with messages encouraging voting.

 

[MassRuss]

Did you pay attention in history class? Kennedy won because of voting fraud.

And then what? Nixon had him killed? J Edgar Hoover & his inamorata Clyde Tolson? CIA under George H W Bush? I'm sure that aside from Nixon, these are possible, but not probable. I was in high school @ the time, & we weren't "taught" anything about the assassination.

Oh, BTW where do they teach that JFK was killed because of voter fraud? Tea Party High? Rush Limpballs Comprehensive? Reich Wing Latin?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, I looked for that thread about the billboards with no luck. This looks good enough for it as the subject should be over since they took the billboards down.
This link is to a petition, but the petition already worked. Duh.

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/

It's worth its own thread.

 

[Jack Springer]

And then what? Nixon had him killed? J Edgar Hoover & his inamorata Clyde Tolson? CIA under George H W Bush? I'm sure that aside from Nixon, these are possible, but not probable. I was in high school @ the time, & we weren't "taught" anything about the assassination.

Oh, BTW where do they teach that JFK was killed because of voter fraud? Tea Party High? Rush Limpballs Comprehensive? Reich Wing Latin?

Slow down your anger. Think. If Nixon would have been President in 1963, Kennedy would not have been assassinated in 1963. Maybe Watergate would never have happened -- who knows maybe Nixon would not have escalated the Vietnam war like Kennedy and Johnson did.

It's a matter of timing -- not ideology.

 

[maxpowr9]

Let's leave subjunctive history out of this topic please.

 

[Kulindahr]

Slow down your anger. Think. If Nixon would have been President in 1963, Kennedy would not have been assassinated in 1963. Maybe Watergate would never have happened -- who knows maybe Nixon would not have escalated the Vietnam war like Kennedy and Johnson did.

It's a matter of timing -- not ideology.

Alternate history, then.

Interesting speculation. I can see a case that stolen elections have resulted in damage to the US, considering that the JFK and Bush wins were results of stealing the election.

 

[Kulindahr]

if Richard of Normandy hadn't had an affair with the tanner's daughter- William the Conqueror would never have been born and the Normans would have never invaded England, thus Henry II wouldn't have created English Common Law (never born), Edward I wouldn't have conquered Wales (never born, either), the War of the Roses wouldn't have taken place, the Tudors and Stuarts never would have existed and died out leaving the throne to the Hanoverians and the Revolutionary War may never have taken place......

Hey! How did you get hold of background material for my next story??!!