UN involvement in US elections?

[FatFreddie]

While I can see the Democrats cause for worry, simply put, it isn't any of the UN's business. It's our country and we'll have our elections thank you.
F

[Happy Monkey]

Ain't nothing an inspector could do about a lot of the things Diebold could do.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Ain't nothing an inspector could do about a lot of the things Diebold could do.

I keep seeing articles about Diebold in particular as well as the electronic system in general. I've know way of knowing if these writers are all chicken littles, but the scenarios they say are possible, worry me. Maybe it's because I have a feeling politicians (more so the Karl Roves) are not the most honorable people.

[wolf]

Since I've already gone on record as saying we ought to cancel the UN's lease, get them the hell out of NY and have no further dealings with them, I suspect you know what my opinion of having that particular batch of one worlders having ANY involvement with this country's governmental processes might be.

Just in case anyone's forgotten ...

sovereign

SYLLABICATION: sov·er·eign

NOUN: 1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as: a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch. b. A national governing council or committee. 2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders. 3. A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. 2. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince. 3. Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion. 4a. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy. b. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English soverain, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *supernus, from Latin super, above. See uper in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: sover·eign·ly —ADVERB

[Cyber Wolf]

I think that maybe for this 2004 election, it'd be a great idea to have an unbiased third party monitor the elections and make sure we don't have party-affiliated cronies working in poll locations or being anywhere NEAR the ballots/ballot machines and have a third party tally the results. Thing is, I don't think the UN is the one to do it. Maybe we could get some folks on loan from a country that's not royally pissed of with us right now for some reason, like...Canada maybe? Better yet, they're local!

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

an unbiased third

and who pray tell would that be. Kerry has already let us know that other world leaders would prefer him to win.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

and who pray tell would that be. Kerry has already let us know that other world leaders would prefer him to win.

I think we could have figured that out for ourselves. Having a man like GWB in charge of the world's largest nuc-u-leer arsenal has to make everyone nervous.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well gee Rich, it's better to have Bush in control than some power hungry idiot that goes around saber rattling and attacking soveri......uh,......nevermind

[Undertoad]

In most polling locations around here there aren't enough interested people to even run the elections properly, and these are paid positions. In most jurisdictions it's easy to get to sit in and oversee the count at the end of the day. If the people are truly concerned about the accuracy of their election results they should take more of an interest in the process to begin with.

[Radar]

To borrow a phrase from the Republicans, "If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear."

I can't stand the UN and I think we should withdraw immediately and tell them to move the HQ somewhere else. But I would not object to representatives of the UN monitoring the elections to ensure fairness and equity.

[Catwoman]

You can't stand the UN in principle or you can't stand the way it is run?

[DanaC]

"But I would not object to representatives of the UN monitoring the elections to ensure fairness and equity"

I will admit that surprised me some

[lookout123]

that one surprised me to. i don't want them meeting within our borders let alone supervising any of our functions. allowing them to do that would only strengthen the resolve of kofi anan and other individuals that see the UN as a governing power with the ability to determine the US's political course.

[DanaC]

*chuckles* I really dont think anybody in the UN or without are labouring under any illusions on that score

[Radar]

I object to the UN's objectives, and to the fact that they consider themselves above the soveriegnty of nations. I object to the fact that they want to become a one world government. I object to the fact that they want to disarm nations including America. I object to the U.N. having a "security force". I object to having a "world court". I object to the socialist agenda of the U.N. I object to the UN being anything other than an international forum for peace talks, discussion, etc.

And I didn't say I'd want the UN to supervise the elections, just that I wouldn't object to UN representatives observing the elections. That's they least they owe us for all the money we've given them.

As I said, I'd be willing for the U.S. to totally and completely withdraw from the U.N. and to tell them to take their Headquarters elsewhere and to encourage our allies to do the same.