View Full Version : As a member of the rest of the world....
vampireuk
11-03-04, 11:45 AM
I would like to inform the US voters that the entire world is not laughing at you and congrats on a speedy and problem free election :D
intercede007
11-03-04, 11:47 AM
I would like to inform the US voters that the entire world is not laughing at you and congrats on a speedy and problem free election :D
The United Nations....who need's 'um? :D
Next election, hopefully they will realize we don't need them "monitoring" our elections.
Drumphil
11-03-04, 06:46 PM
Next election, hopefully they will realize we don't need them "monitoring" our elections.
I have no problem with any independent election monitoring. how can it be a bad thing to have another set of eyes watching things. what are the negatives of this monitoring?
Ninjaman09
11-03-04, 06:48 PM
I know they aren't, vampireuk, and it's nice to hear that from people like you every once in a while. You ought to write a letter to the Guardian and let them know how you feel.
I have no problem with any independent election monitoring. how can it be a bad thing to have another set of eyes watching things. what are the negatives of this monitoring?
We don't need nobody else watching us make our decisions. (double negative intended)
Phyre
Saint Lucifer
11-03-04, 07:16 PM
I have no problem with any independent election monitoring. how can it be a bad thing to have another set of eyes watching things. what are the negatives of this monitoring?On one hand, it can lend a sense of credibility to the election... on the other, it can seem as though we are unable to handle our own elections and give the impression that we need baby sitters.
oldsk00l
11-03-04, 07:29 PM
I have no problem with any independent election monitoring. how can it be a bad thing to have another set of eyes watching things. what are the negatives of this monitoring?
Because it's an avenue for foreigners to have ANY KIND of opinion or influence - WHATSOEVER - on OUR elections.
keyword OUR, as in NOT YOUR F'ING BUSINESS who American's vote for, for President.
I have no problem with any independent election monitoring. how can it be a bad thing to have another set of eyes watching things. what are the negatives of this monitoring?
The negatives only come when you realize the anyone who wants to monitor OUR elections has an ulterior motive to do so and they're not impartial.
Yonkers
11-03-04, 08:38 PM
On one hand, it can lend a sense of credibility to the election... on the other, it can seem as though we are unable to handle our own elections and give the impression that we need baby sitters.
So if a observer from France, Russian or even the peace loving Country of Ruwanda watched us fill in ballots it would give us more credit?
Of course, nothing that you do (the US, the apparently most powerful country in the world at the moment) can affect anyone else outside of the country. You have your world, we have ours. We don't share one at all. I think that it's a pretty important thing to realise that if you **** THINGS UP BADLY, the world will feel it. Note that I am not saying that you *are* ****ing things up badly, but showing you the sort of thinking that can make people from the other parts of the world (yes, we do exist and we do care about what happens on our world) watch carefully what you do.
Saint Lucifer
11-03-04, 09:04 PM
So if a observer from France, Russian or even the peace loving Country of Ruwanda watched us fill in ballots it would give us more credit?Someone could get that impression. Depends on their mindset... he asked for examples of pros and cons, and I gave him an example.
Drumphil
11-03-04, 09:30 PM
Because it's an avenue for foreigners to have ANY KIND of opinion or influence - WHATSOEVER - on OUR elections.
keyword OUR, as in NOT YOUR F'ING BUSINESS who American's vote for, for President.
I say you are letting your pride get in the way of a benign process that has no other ovbious negatives. I wouldn't care if we had UN monitoring of votes in Australia. It would just give me another source of information that I could compare with everything else I see. People seem so worried that letting the UN in is some sort of admission that the US can't do the election right by itself. I say this is just pride getting in the way of logic.
<--- takes cover.
Riptide
11-03-04, 09:51 PM
We know our country is often thought of unfavorably abroad. It is natural then that we would be suspicious about this sort of thing (foreign monitoring). Perhaps we don't really trust the UN and that's the crux.
saturnotaku
11-03-04, 09:54 PM
Perhaps we don't really trust the UN
That's putting it mildly.
I say you are letting your pride get in the way of a benign process that has no other ovbious negatives. I wouldn't care if we had UN monitoring of votes in Australia. It would just give me another source of information that I could compare with everything else I see. People seem so worried that letting the UN in is some sort of admission that the US can't do the election right by itself. I say this is just pride getting in the way of logic.
<--- takes cover.
Gun crimes out of control, relenquishing power to another (not higher) authority. Big brother swoops in and you freely give away your rights.
That is what we are defending against.
Phyre
Drumphil
11-03-04, 10:20 PM
delete me, unco posting alert.. this intarweb thingy is too tricky. maybee Al Gore could help me out.
Drumphil
11-03-04, 10:21 PM
Gun crimes out of control, relenquishing power to another (not higher) authority. Big brother swoops in and you freely give away your rights.
That is what we are defending against.
er, could you explain the relevance to election monitoring? these people aren't running the election are they? don't they just put out a report at the end that can be taken or left as the government sees fit? What relenquishing of power or authority goes on when you let the UN monitor the election process? Did they just want to be able to monitor things, or were they actively trying to directly influence the election process from within.
We can monitor our own elections and do not need the opinions/judgements of 'others' who did not have anything to do with our right to do so. Those who have gone on before us have given us these priviledges/freedoms. It is our responsibility to protect these rights and to gladly defend them.
I do not intend for anyone to tell me, or any citizen of these United States, how to vote nor monitor my voting. For foreigners to observe is one thing, to be critical of our selection process just shows ignorance.
saturnotaku
11-03-04, 10:49 PM
For foreigners to observe is one thing, to be critical of our selection process just shows ignorance.
Exactly. You can watch all 'ya want, just keep your lips fastened.
oldsk00l
11-03-04, 11:07 PM
I say you are letting your pride get in the way of a benign process that has no other ovbious negatives. I wouldn't care if we had UN monitoring of votes in Australia. It would just give me another source of information that I could compare with everything else I see. People seem so worried that letting the UN in is some sort of admission that the US can't do the election right by itself. I say this is just pride getting in the way of logic.
<--- takes cover.
The UN is the most discredited institution in history next to the Nazi work party that took over Germany.
Plus, you have yet to make a valid point that rebutts my statement. I stated that it's because of giving an avenue to foreigners to have a say in something I want them to have no say in, plain and simple.
This is also how most (if not ALL) Americans feel, we don't weigh influence on YOUR elections, leave ours the hell alone.
vampireuk
11-04-04, 01:29 AM
Perhaps the UN should watch over the North Korean election instead of wasting time watching free people cast their ballot freely.
Drumphil
11-04-04, 05:19 AM
I stated that it's because of giving an avenue to foreigners to have a say in something I want them to have no say in, plain and simple.
ok, you're allowed your opinion, but what is it that I failed to rebutt?
Daneel Olivaw
11-04-04, 07:20 AM
The same way the US looks abroad for threats and pressures according to the US' needs, the same way others will look at the US and pressure for their needs.
Either that, or lets all close our countries up. Let's not forget that the US is quite interventionist in its external policies (South America, Taiwan, Israel...) I am not passing any judgment in this post. I just want to show why other countries are quite interested by who the US leader is and what his views and intentions are.
About the UN monitoring, I am not well informed so I did not know that, but it looks quite innocent from my angle.
Kerry would -not- have been a very good leader (in respect to the current desires of americans), so the US chose Bush. Now much of the rest of the world hopes to see Al Gore back for the dems in 4 years or Hilary Clinton.
saturnotaku
11-04-04, 07:23 AM
Hilary Clinton.
I would love to see this because that would be the biggest landslide for a Republican in presidential history. Conservatives could nominate a pile of dog crap and it would easily get 400 electoral votes over that socialist.
Daneel Olivaw
11-04-04, 07:27 AM
(in reference to Hilary)
Like one of my friends said, Oprah would just have to say "you go girl!" irt Hilary and she'd get all the women' votes. :) So that's about 50%. Add a couple of blacks (I respect), hispanics(I respect), students(I respect), and pro-Clinton(I respect), and you got yourself one big honkin' contender for the gov'ment!
(I respect) everyone. :)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.