Now IOWA warns Evil Mad Scientist type International election observers

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Gee, let's see what we've had going on with the elections this year...

-The passage of "Voter Identification Laws" in several states on the East Coast which have pockets of Democrat voters in key districts, which a Republican is quoted as saying "will win Pennsylvania for Governor Romney" as they will impact demographics key to Democrats more than they will impact Republicans.
*Supposition. If you don't have an ID we have no proof you are who you say you are. Its also passed SCOTUS muster.

-Governor Romney's former company, Bain Capital, and its board donating primarily to Romney's campaign acquired one company which is responsible for a large number of voting machines in key states.
*Its all about the Banjamins. To be in any way illegal it would have to be a felony conspiracy by a whole lot of people.

-Governor Romney's son acquired another company which is responsible for a large number of voting machines in key states.
*See above.

Even if there's nothing underhanded going on with the last two, there is no justifiable reason at all for people with demonstrable ties to an individual running for public office to own any part of companies which are responsible for voting machines in key states.
*Greed is good.

If Obama had done such a thing, Fox News would be raising such a stink about it we would never hear the end of it from Frazzled and Friends here on Dakka.
*We have no idea what Democrats own.

**Kanluwen**

There's no "supposition" about the voter ID law.

Here is a link to the "best" video I could find of Mike Turzai's comment.
I even have it set so it will start right as soon as he begins talking about it for you.

And really, the issue in and of itself is the restrictive nature of the "Voter ID laws" which are purposely being done in such a way that it runs contrary to logic.
Having a voter registration card isn't enough to vote?
Having a Selective Service Card isn't enough to vote?
Having a photo ID issued by a state institution such as a college isn't enough to vote?

Yet, there was talk of NRA cards being "enough to vote"?

Tell me with a straight face that is not targeted at minorities and young adults.

Oh no, it doesn't have to be "illegal" or a "conspiracy" of any kind. Machines malfunction all the time, don't they? *wink wink nudge nudge*

It could very well be innocent and aimed at nothing but profit. But the timing and the simple fact that they did not stop and think "Hrmh. This might look suspicious..." is concerning in and of itself.

I would love to find you something about what Obama or Biden own, but Google is littered with crap from Fox about "Obama won't own up to his words" or "Obama won't help his own brother", etc.

**Seaward**

The "your side plays dirty, mine is angelic and spotless!" BS doesn't get old after a while? Really?

**Kanluwen**

I'd love to see some examples of Democrats playing dirty which are on the same level as voter disenfranchisement from the Republicans this election.

Go on. I'll wait.

Oh, bonus points if you can find something not related to the "hundreds of companies that have gone under"(hint: it's not anywhere near that number) which got grants from the Obama administration.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
The "your side plays dirty, mine is angelic and spotless!" BS doesn't get old after a while? Really?

Thats why I try to limit myself to not posting on those threads now and didn't vote for either of their candidates. Its stupid. Both sides do the same gak.

**Seaward**

Kanluwen wrote:
I'd love to see some examples of Democrats playing dirty which are on the same level as voter disenfranchisement from the Republicans this election.

Go on. I'll wait.

Oh, bonus points if you can find something not related to the "hundreds of companies that have gone under"(hint: it's not anywhere near that number) which got grants from the Obama administration.

Alright. You need to tell me what my target is here, though.

How many voters are being disenfranchised by those dastardly Republicans, exactly?

**AustonT**

Kanluwen wrote:

Oh no, it doesn't have to be "illegal" or a "conspiracy" of any kind. Machines malfunction all the time, don't they? *wink wink nudge nudge*

http://www.americanclarion.com/13652/2012/10/25/nc-vote-machines-automatically-vote-democrat/
http://minutemennews.com/2012/10/absurd-nevada-voting-machine-auto-selecting-obama/

Your concerns have been noted.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I'd love to see some examples of Democrats playing dirty which are on the same level as voter disenfranchisement from the Republicans this election.

Go on. I'll wait.

Oh, bonus points if you can find something not related to the "hundreds of companies that have gone under"(hint: it's not anywhere near that number) which got grants from the Obama administration.

Alright. You need to tell me what my target is here, though.

How many voters are being disenfranchised by those dastardly Republicans, exactly?

All of the ones who would vote for Obama
/stamps foot
Can't you see its a conspiracy!
/Cries

**Kovnik Obama**

Regardless of which side your voting, the exemples you're providing, AustonT, kinda goes to show that having a 3rd party present is simply playing it safe.

**sebster**

WORLD - "Hey, we just thought we'd send some people over to check on your elections, they're tough to get exactly fair and we've got some expertise in improving the electoral process in other countries. We can just watch, and give you some possible recommendations afterwards."

US - "You stop right there these are our elections and we won't have you taking them over will your filthy UN hands."

WORLD - "The what now?"

**whembly**

Yup... we're territorial over our own crap....

(I'm not bothered by it...)

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:Yup... we're territorial over our own crap....

(I'm not bothered by it...)

You should be: that's how dictators come to power.

**gregor_xenos**

Yeah.... Because the world is apparently so good at stopping dictators from coming to power....

**Peregrine**

AustonT wrote:
http://www.americanclarion.com/13652/2012/10/25/nc-vote-machines-automatically-vote-democrat/
http://minutemennews.com/2012/10/absurd-nevada-voting-machine-auto-selecting-obama/

Your concerns have been noted.

So, do you have any sources for these claims that aren't right-wing tinfoil hat sites? Or is what would be a case of indisputable fraud magically being ignored by the entire mainstream media even though it would be one of the most significant events in recent history?

**sebster**

gregor_xenos wrote:
Yeah.... Because the world is apparently so good at stopping dictators from coming to power....

The what?

Seriously nothing you people are saying makes any sense. The role of the UN is not to stop dictators coming to power. It certainly isn't the role of election observers.

**Seaward**

We don't listen to the rest of the world with regard to any other decisions we make, I'm not sure why we'd do so with regard to election protocol.

That said, acting like the polls in Iowa and Texas won't be monitored because the UN may not get in is just silly. I'd rather have the swarms of Democrat and Republican operatives - who hate each others' guts - doing the observing than a couple dudes from Moldova.

**AustonT**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Regardless of which side your voting, the exemples you're providing, AustonT, kinda goes to show that having a 3rd party present is simply playing it safe.

I mean I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever mentioned having a problem with this. Here's why:

Since 2002, the organization’s poll watchers have observed six U.S. elections, without incident,

But I also don't have a problem with our states reminding them about thier laws. That is thier right.
And yes the examples I provided are FOR not against poll observers. Overt voter intimidation and malfunctioning voting machines should be observed and recorded.

**Scott**

Seaward wrote:
We don't listen to the rest of the world with regard to any other decisions we make, I'm not sure why we'd do so with regard to election protocol.

That may be true in your mind, but in reality we have allies we want to keep that way.

**Seaward**

Scott wrote:
That may be true in your mind, but in reality we have allies we want to keep that way.

It's true in reality as well, fortunately. We bow to the whims of the UN rarely, if at all, yet somehow NATO endures.

**Easy E**

It is clear that the UN can't even be in this country because they want to take ove rhte US and take away all of our guns.

I thought everyone knew that?

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/07/07/the-un-is-coming-to-take-your-guns-america-and-obama-leads-the-un-gun-grabber-pack-by-j-d-longstreet/

THE UN IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, AMERICA AND OBAMA LEADS THE UN GUN-GRABBER PACK!… By J.D.Longstreet.
By Fred Brownbill on July 7, 2012 in Constitution Legal Watch

Back in October of 2009, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, publicly announced that the US WOULD support UN negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking. The Bush administration, you may remember, and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, opposed negotiations of this treaty for years.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has said: “Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms. The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.”

The US then joined a vote, which was almost unanimous; to adopt a resolution, which would set a schedule, a timetable, on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. Within that resolution was a proposal to finalize the accord in the year 2012.

Gun Owners in the US are gravely concerned over this move by the UN – and — more importantly, by the Obama Regime, to support it. To many gun enthusiasts it is a dangerous submission of America’s Constitution to “Global Governance” — and there is a growing belief that it is an attempt by the Obama Regime to create private gun control laws it knows it cannot get through the US Congress. It doesn’t take any imagination, at all, to quickly understand that this treaty would effectively cancel rights granted US citizens by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. Our right to “keep and bear arms” would no longer exist.

US gun rights supporters are up in arms – and with good reason. John Bolton, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, fought the proposed treaty for quite a while. He has seen it up close and personally. Bolton, in remarks he made recently to Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Associations’ NRA News and host of the NRA’s Daily News program, said the following: “The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” Bolton continued: “There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.” Bolton went on to say: “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” he said. “The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

It turns out there are some seven countries pushing the UN Arms Treaty, Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, and Kenya.

Interestingly, Great Britain has had a virtual explosion of violent crime since they all but banned guns back in 1997. Just a few months ago, the British Mailonline reported that England and Wales now have the highest violent crime in the European Union – a rate which, in fact, exceeds that of the United States and even hyper-violent South Africa. Mailonline went on to say: “In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.”

It seems that Great Britain, with their near ban of gun ownership by private citizens, has a violent crime victimization rate of 2,034 per 100,000 residents. While here, in the, oh, so violent, USA, with our far less restrictive gun laws, we have a violence rate of only 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Even South Africa’s rate is lower, at 1,677 violent crimes per 100,000. You can read an exceptional article on this subject HERE.

In the land “down under,” Australia, the Aussies are suffering an escalation in violent crimes as well. The Australia Institute of Criminology reports that assault alone occurs at a rate of 840 per 100,000 – a rate that increased dramatically since the Port Arthur ban.

You might find it interesting what the Aussies have to put up with now that firearms are nearly banned in their fair land. It is, indeed, a warning for their cousins, the Americans. “The Manly Daily” reported, back in October of 2009, that pursuant to the Australian Firearms Act of 1996: “Northern Beaches Police will be turning up on the doorstep of every licensed gun owner in the area over the next four years to check their firearms are stored correctly.

Operation Aston follows the gun amnesty that ended on May 31 and will target guns stored incorrectly and the security of gun safes, Northern Beaches Commander Doreen Cruickshank said.

“Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their weapon is safely stored at all times when not in use,” Supt Cruickshank said.

“Licensing police will be attending the home of every licensed firearm owner in the northern beaches over the next four years to inspect every weapon and check the gun safe.

“Officers will be examining all gun safes to ensure they comply with the legislative requirements, particularly in relation to the standard and security of safes.”

Supt Cruickshank reminded all legitimate owners that under the Firearms Act they must take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safekeeping of their firearms.

“It’s especially important that weapons are stored in such a way as to limit the possibility of loss or theft, so they don’t come into the possession of a person who isn’t authorized to hold them,” she said.

The maximum penalty for incorrect storage of a weapon is two years in jail. You may read the article HERE.

THIS is where America is headed if the “gun-grabbers” get their “reasonable gun control” laws. They know they cannot get those laws passed through Congress but they have an excellent chance to get them through the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

**whembly**

I don't believe one moment that this would happen...

But, in the off chance that UN would come take our gunz... I guarantee you it won't end well...

**DutchKillsRambo**

I'm still trying to figure out how our freedom and democracy is good enough to be bombed into people but a simple demonstration of said freedom and democracy is too much to ask?

**whembly**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how our freedom and democracy is good enough to be bombed into people but a simple demonstration of said freedom and democracy is too much to ask?

er... what?

We're a stable country dude... it's a lil' different than a recently "liberated" oppressed state.

We take care of our own gak... or, we try to.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Yeah I get that. But we also play world policeman killing people saying that were delivering their freedom.

Iraq for example. We invaded, killed how many thousand civilians, and all for what? To teach them democracy. Well here's perfect chance to teach the world democracy. Let us show them how we do it.

But that's too much to ask? Teach freedom by a gun not by example? Makes perfect sense.

This isn't just inane posturing "keepin foriners away from Merica!"

**whembly**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Yeah I get that. But we also play world policeman killing people saying that were delivering their freedom.

Iraq for example. We invaded, killed how many thousand civilians, and all for what? To teach them democracy. Well here's perfect chance to teach the world democracy. Let us show them how we do it.

But that's too much to ask? Teach freedom by a gun not by example? Makes perfect sense.

This isn't just inane posturing "keepin foriners away from Merica!"

So... what are the election observers wanting to do?

To observer and report?

We do that ourselves... usually with 2 (R) and 2 (D) at each polling place in the hotly contested areas. So... what's the point of the outside observers? Interestingly, in Chicago, they refused those outside observers as well... (looking for that linky, if I find it, I'll post it).

Frankly, I don't care, as long as the go to the same "poll watcher" spot as with the others... but, I can see why 'Murricans would be apprehensive about it. This is OUR election... OUR future. Outsiders? Feth off! (at least, thats what I see). If we just came out of a civil war or Major disaster (ie, Yellowstone blows up)... then, yeah, we may need help. We ain't perfect... but, we take care of our own gak. Sure, we can make mistakes, but we'll own it.

**DutchKillsRambo**

So still not answering my question.

Why is it ok for America to spout freedom at other countries when we're currently bombing them but not ok for them to observe how we vote?

This isn't about other countries helping us, its about us helping other countries. Clearly America is trying to be a beacon of freedom and democracy to the world. Have been for a long time. So what is the harm in showing the world how to have a clean election?

**whembly**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So still not answering my question.

Why is it ok for America to spout freedom at other countries when we're currently bombing them but not ok for them to observe how we vote?

This isn't about other countries helping us, its about us helping other countries. Clearly America is trying to be a beacon of freedom and democracy to the world. Have been for a long time. So what is the harm in showing the world how to have a clean election?

Ah... okay...

Um... like I said, I personally wouldn't care, as long as they observe the same rules as the other poll watchers abide by...

So, lemme ask you this again... what are the Election observers trying to do? Our election process is generally transparent... so, what do they want?

You also have to understand that our dalliances overseas (Iraq, Afganistan, etc...) are operated by our Federal Government... but, our election process? That's the local state's job. You've got 50 independent operators with nuanced rules to vote for the next President (and other positions).

So... some states (ie, TX and IA) don't want international observers... but, other states like CA and OR may be okay with that. And you know what... that's their right. *shrugs*

I get where you're coming from, but I either don't really see it as big of a deal... or simply don't care.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
We don't listen to the rest of the world with regard to any other decisions we make, I'm not sure why we'd do so with regard to election protocol.

That said, acting like the polls in Iowa and Texas won't be monitored because the UN may not get in is just silly. I'd rather have the swarms of Democrat and Republican operatives - who hate each others' guts - doing the observing than a couple dudes from Moldova.

Dude there are literally ten thousand lawyers on speed dial employed by each party. Thats how things are monitored here. Who cares about the some Euro bureaucrats? We have fething vampire armies, just waiting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

I don't believe one moment that this would happen...

But, in the off chance that UN would come take our gunz... I guarantee you it won't end well...

Red Dawn III: the Crappening?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So still not answering my question.

Why is it ok for America to spout freedom at other countries when we're currently bombing them but not ok for them to observe how we vote?

This isn't about other countries helping us, its about us helping other countries. Clearly America is trying to be a beacon of freedom and democracy to the world. Have been for a long time. So what is the harm in showing the world how to have a clean election?

Can we skip the freedom nonsense and just bomb them then? Operation Linebacker III is a go...

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
We don't listen to the rest of the world with regard to any other decisions we make, I'm not sure why we'd do so with regard to election protocol.

I love how it now appears to be a point of pride to be rejecting election advice to improve your process.

Seriously, other people in the world have functioning eyes and brains. It means they can just sometimes come up with ideas that even blessed America hasn't thought of. It isn't the worse thing imaginable to ask what they might have observed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
er... what?

We're a stable country dude... it's a lil' different than a recently "liberated" oppressed state.

We take care of our own gak... or, we try to.

You keep saying that you're stable, as if that were somehow proof that your democratic process is as fair as can be.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
er... what?

We're a stable country dude... it's a lil' different than a recently "liberated" oppressed state.

We take care of our own gak... or, we try to.

You keep saying that you're stable, as if that were somehow proof that your democratic process is as fair as can be.

Yes... we're stable...

Do you see us going to Civil Wars all the time?

Do you see us have coups all the time?

Do you see a Dyanasty/Monarchy here?

We have Elections... new politicians come and go all the time w/o blood shed.

So... yes, we're a stable country. Do we have issues? Of course! But, we try to address those as they occur.

Are we perfect? No...

So... is our voting process as fair as it can be? Yeah... probably. But I will say there's always room for improvement.

**Easy E**

whembly wrote:
So... is our voting process as fair as it can be? Yeah... probably. But I will say there's always room for improvement.

So, why ar ewe afraid of election observers from other countries then? I seem to have lost the point somewhere?