• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN to be at American Polls?

Absolutely yes. Plus, maybe even more importantly, those sheeply 3rd world public opinions that the US is somehow super fair in politics will then get a bite of reality.

Actually it shows a bit of humility on one front, and that the US is protecting its democratic traditions. You cant go and demand monitors for elections in 3rd world countries.. which the US does all the time (and Europeans), and then turn around and say "HELL no, we dont need that, we are perfect". I applaud the US for doing this, it is a positive move and shock and horror, it might actually expose a few flaws (which it has) with your election system that you might want to fix.

I seem to remember that the UN also had issues with voting machines security and the open political leanings of the manufactures.
 
And, the final nail in the coffin to this thread (from the story):

"By agreement, OSCE member states allow election observers from other member states to observe and report on their elections. So, OSCE observers were on the ground in Georgia last month and helped assure the international community that this contentious race was conducted fairly. OSCE observers also routinely observe elections in the Balkans (where there are still plenty of American troops).

This kind of reciprocal election monitoring-on-demand helps American national interest much, much more than having some 50 international observers on American soil undermines American interest in any meaningful way. The USA lets OSCE observers monitor and report on its elections to serve as an example to countries with a less robust history of free and fair elections. It is much easier to convince, say, Albania to permit election monitors when the standard bearer of electoral democracy does so as well."
 
Well the more you dig in to this, the more you will find out that the reason Albanians, Georgians, and other OSCE members are in the United States for this election is to A.) learn how an election ought to be run and B.) learn how to monitor their own elections and also C.) give pretext for the USA and other OSCE members to monitor elections where that monitoring is needed (Georgia, Albania, etc)

Yes it is the OSCE.. not the UN, but it is always the OSCE that does election monitoring for the UN.. /shrug.
 
Well the more you dig in to this, the more you will find out that the reason Albanians, Georgians, and other OSCE members are in the United States for this election is to A.) learn how an election ought to be run and B.) learn how to monitor their own elections and also C.) give pretext for the USA and other OSCE members to monitor elections where that monitoring is needed (Georgia, Albania, etc)

Yea and? Never stated that it was not used for this also... in fact I did not comment on it.
 
You Heard It Here Folks, Tigger Admitting He Has Little Use For Democracy And Even Less For Freedom!!
That shouldn't surprise anyone.
If you persist this admission always surfaces even by the tyrants in the corporate regime and their puppet government clowns.
They are Macevalian fascists at heart.
Referring to democracy and freedom as noble goals to pursue is simply part of their propaganda tool kit which they parrot out in public.
 
The only real manner of conflict resolution between nations comes at the business end of a weapon. I believe it's Napoleon who once referred to artillery as "The Final Arguement of Kings."


.
I see. So you prefer the wisdom of insecure short men.
We all know what happened to Napolean in the end don't we?

Please Don't tell me that you claim to be a Christian? What would little baby Jesus tell you to do?

You seem to detest democracy and embrace violence death greed and fascist ideologies

All small insecure men seem to hide behind this fake curtain of masculinity. Why is that?
 
I see. So you prefer the wisdom of insecure short men. We all know what happened to Napolean in the end don't we?

I see Wisdom where Wisdom exists. It's just that simple.

Please Don't tell me that you claim to be a Christian? What would little baby Jesus tell you to do?

Nope. I wasted almost three decades on that mistake before moving past it more than a decade ago.

You seem to detest democracy and embrace violence death greed and fascist ideologies.

I detest the idea of the unworthy being granted the same value as the worthy. I embrace what really happens and works in society.
 
Europeans prefer a weak United States, so that their own influence is relatively stronger. This is the reason Europeans love Obama.

Oh really... it couldn't be that they rely on our military bases stationed in just about every one of their countries, for military security... or that they rely on our economy for their own stability... No.. it must be because Obama makes us weaker.. even though you have absolutely no ****ing basis for that argument...
 
Aside from the fact that I've lived half my life in Europe, what would I know?

Europeans learn in their history books and from their grandparents about how Europe used to be the center of the world. The nations of Europe had great empires, they were influential economically, culturally, and militarily.

Today, a large number of Europeans are envious of American success. Due to their past, they feel entitled to be the kings of the world, and they view the United States with envy and fascination because of our current position.

Whenever America projects power in the world, Europeans don't like it. Even when it benefits them. Take Ronald Reagan, for instance. Europeans hated Reagan, even though he helped end communism and unify Germany.

Bush was the worst. First, he was a cowboy - the least European type of man. They couldn't relate to him. Second, he flaunted America's global power and took us to war.

Obama, on the other hand, is liked in Europe. He is understated about America's might, and he wants to draw down our military. Europeans like this.

It makes them feel like we're all on an even playing field.

Oh really... it couldn't be that they rely on our military bases stationed in just about every one of their countries, for military security... or that they rely on our economy for their own stability... No.. it must be because Obama makes us weaker.. even though you have absolutely no ****ing basis for that argument...
 
Last edited:
Aside from the fact that I've lived half my life in Europe, what would I know?

Europeans learn in their history books and from their grandparents about how Europe used to be the center of the world. The nations of Europe had great empires, they were influential economically, culturally, and militarily.

Today, a large number of Europeans are envious of American success. Due to their past, they feel entitled to be the kings of the world, and they view the United States with envy and fascination because of our current position.

Whenever America projects power in the world, Europeans don't like it. Even when it benefits them. Take Ronald Reagan, for instance. Europeans hated Reagan, even though he helped end communism and unify Germany.

Bush was the worst. First, he was a cowboy - the least European type of man. They couldn't relate to him. Second, he flaunted America's global power and took us to war.

Obama, on the other hand, is liked in Europe. He is understated about America's might, and he wants to draw down our military. Europeans like this.

It makes them feel like we're all on an even playing field.

Europe and their perception of us is quite different from Obama actually making us weaker. You must make that distinction.
 
Weaker militarily.

True or not, the perception is that Obama has cut the size of our military, and that he is more likely to solve international issues through the UN than directly flaunting America's might.


Europe and their perception of us is quite different from Obama actually making us weaker. You must make that distinction.
 
Aside from the fact that I've lived half my life in Europe, what would I know?

I bet nothing!

Europeans learn in their history books and from their grandparents about how Europe used to be the center of the world. The nations of Europe had great empires, they were influential economically, culturally, and militarily.

Yes and that is factual.... and by the way it is the same stuff pretty much that American's learn...... its called history.

Today, a large number of Europeans are envious of American success. Due to their past, they feel entitled to be the kings of the world, and they view the United States with envy and fascination because of our current position.

Only the right wing in Europe. The British Conservatives live in the past...Most of Europe have long accepted that their "Empire" is gone.. something that can not be said about Americans, who many deny they even have an Empire with colonies..

Whenever America projects power in the world, Europeans don't like it. Even when it benefits them. Take Ronald Reagan, for instance. Europeans hated Reagan, even though he helped end communism and unify Germany.

LOL generalising much? The problem is not that America projects power in the world, it is where and the double standards they project as well. Iraq... enough said.

Also Ronald Reagan was a right winger during a time of left wing politics in Europe.. is it a shocker they had issues with him? But hated.. hardly.

Bush was the worst. First, he was a cowboy - the least European type of man. They couldn't relate to him. Second, he flaunted America's global power and took us to war.

Bush was the worst, not because he was a cowboy, but because he was never elected.. yes I did that.. fact is Europeans are use to the person with most votes wins and that elections are near perfect.. the 2000 elections shattered that illusion about the US.... and then he went into Iraq pissing away all the goodwill he got from 9/11. And the add the arrogance of the Bush administration towards others... we had flashbacks to the bad old days of Empire..

Obama, on the other hand, is liked in Europe. He is understated about America's might, and he wants to draw down our military. Europeans like this.

Obama is tolerated because he is not Bush or the GOP. Dont think for a second he is loved or even liked in Europe. Sure even the British conservatives support him, but that is because the GOP and Romney are a danger to the world.

And I was right, you know very little about Europe.
 
I bet nothing!



Yes and that is factual.... and by the way it is the same stuff pretty much that American's learn...... its called history.



Only the right wing in Europe. The British Conservatives live in the past...Most of Europe have long accepted that their "Empire" is gone.. something that can not be said about Americans, who many deny they even have an Empire with colonies..



LOL generalising much? The problem is not that America projects power in the world, it is where and the double standards they project as well. Iraq... enough said.

Also Ronald Reagan was a right winger during a time of left wing politics in Europe.. is it a shocker they had issues with him? But hated.. hardly.



Bush was the worst, not because he was a cowboy, but because he was never elected.. yes I did that.. fact is Europeans are use to the person with most votes wins and that elections are near perfect.. the 2000 elections shattered that illusion about the US.... and then he went into Iraq pissing away all the goodwill he got from 9/11. And the add the arrogance of the Bush administration towards others... we had flashbacks to the bad old days of Empire..



Obama is tolerated because he is not Bush or the GOP. Dont think for a second he is loved or even liked in Europe. Sure even the British conservatives support him, but that is because the GOP and Romney are a danger to the world.

And I was right, you know very little about Europe.

And you know little about America.
 
And as I continue to read: LOL at almost everyone in this thread. Wow. Just wow.

From not understanding the point of the UN and whining about it operating inside the US to complaining about American imperialism...just...great thread!
 
only liberals vote early?

Isn't it obvious to you what the tactic is? Allow early voting for a specific block who is demographically more conservative, but disallow it for the general population. You should be able to figure this out...
 
Why wouldn't members of the military get that exemption?

Military members should absolutely be allowed to participate in early voting.

But so should all other voters as well.
 
Military members should absolutely be allowed to participate in early voting.

But so should all other voters as well.

But if a state decided that in general they didn't want early voting, what's the problem with allowing the military to have it?
 
But if a state decided that in general they didn't want early voting, what's the problem with allowing the military to have it?

Because it disallows non-military voters from access to early voting, which is against the equal protection amendment of the Constitution.

Also, states don't want this - Republican politicians do.
 
Because it disallows non-military voters from access to early voting, which is against the equal protection amendment of the Constitution.

Also, states don't want this - Republican politicians do.

Non-military and military are recognized as being different by the government. Military personnel are often precluded from voting simply by virtue of their service to the government. You don't support that government allowing them to be able to vote? You realize that the vast majority of active duty military are registered in their home states, not in the state of the garrison they are assigned to, right?

So you'd effectively disenfranchise people specifically because they're working for the very government the voting is about? You don't think that's hinky?
 
Non-military and military are recognized as being different by the government. Military personnel are often precluded from voting simply by virtue of their service to the government. You don't support that government allowing them to be able to vote? You realize that the vast majority of active duty military are registered in their home states, not in the state of the garrison they are assigned to, right?

So you'd effectively disenfranchise people specifically because they're working for the very government the voting is about? You don't think that's hinky?

No, because thats not my podition at all.

I think early voting should be allowed by all people.
 
I voted when I was in and back then it was paper. I dont remember it being difficult at all. I have never heard of a govt employee of any type being precluded from voting.
Non-military and military are recognized as being different by the government. Military personnel are often precluded from voting simply by virtue of their service to the government. You don't support that government allowing them to be able to vote? You realize that the vast majority of active duty military are registered in their home states, not in the state of the garrison they are assigned to, right?

So you'd effectively disenfranchise people specifically because they're working for the very government the voting is about? You don't think that's hinky?
 
No, because thats not my podition at all.

I think early voting should be allowed by all people.

But what if a state says no to that. Why shouldn't the military be an exception?
 
Back
Top Bottom