If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   Third-world nation with thriving drug manufacturing trade and long history of political corruption strongly objects to presence of UN observers during elections. Wait, did we say "third-world nation"? Sorry, we meant Tennessee   (upi.com) divider line 172
    More: Obvious, UN observers, corruption, third world  
•       •       •

4435 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:38 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-12 11:40:26 AM  

Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?


Answered below in response to another of your posts ITT. Pretty sure you're not really interested, though; just trolling for an argument.

I've said my piece for those who will listen. You'll have to look elsewhere for your fight.
 
2014-04-12 11:41:48 AM  

letrole: slowly now, the un is a farking joke


Election monitoring is a learned behaviour.
 
2014-04-12 11:41:57 AM  
It's the kind of bullshiat-- peerage, rule of the landed gentry sort of crap-- this country was founded in opposition to.

Except you couldn't vote in most places w/o owning land until Andrew Jackson.
 
2014-04-12 11:46:21 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.


The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.
 
2014-04-12 11:46:39 AM  

Trocadero: Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?

But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.


While I can't speak for every state, here in Texas it is 100% free to people who need one. Link
 
2014-04-12 11:48:16 AM  
I thought republicans would be against state issued identity required for transactions, since revelations says that's the mark of the beast and such as.
 
2014-04-12 11:49:22 AM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: Yes, the Security Council veto a good reason to consider the UN a joke.  Totally agree.  I wonder what country has, over the last 40 years, used their veto power the most?


Which proves what, exactly? That the actions of the UN are subject to political maneuvering apart from adherence to some sort of spurious international law? That even in your reply, you chose to allude to the fact that, somebody, wonder who that could be, has used the veto...


STOP MAKING MY POINTS FOR ME.


DEBATE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.


ABTL, look at his Fark handle and let this argument go. I have yet to see a serious discussion from letrole in any Fark thread. He just enjoys farking with people.
 
2014-04-12 11:49:55 AM  

MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.


If everything is above board, it shouldn't be a problem to have identification to vote. It sounds like democrats have something to hide.
 
2014-04-12 11:51:43 AM  

Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.


Many people railing about illegal aliens frequently do so because they're seeing people of color. So they want to "protect"the voting process by preventing these people from voting, and I'm being generous towards them by phrasing their motivations that way.

Having lived in large cities, I've not experienced much overt racism, but a couple of times, I've been yelled at to go back to where I came from in the place I came from.
 
2014-04-12 11:53:33 AM  

MyRandomName: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Are you aware of the 35k votes found voting in two different states, illegally?

Still shocks me how liberals claim there is no voter fraud when they take away every tool to detect voter fraud.

A shows up and votes as B
B shows up, cant vote, A is long gone and no way to identify them
No conviction based on no arrest.
Liberals "see no conviction, ergo no voter fraud!"


Citation? And FoxNoise does not count. Find me a recognized, independent, non-partisan study and we'll talk.

Until then, go back to watching Bill O'Wrongly and Nancy Graceless.
 
2014-04-12 11:58:34 AM  

Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.


Because, based on the rarity of the crime and the KNOWN impact on minority voter turnout, it's closet Jim Crow and anyone with a shred of honesty knows it.

If there was a shred of evidence that double-voting or non-citizen or felon voting was actually something other than vanishingly rare, I would be on your side.  But these voter ID laws are far more caustic to democracy than they are helpful to it.  If the cure is worse than the disease, you have prescribed the wrong cure.

Go ahead, look into voter fraud.  Lots of people have, especially people who wanted to find it to justify these laws.  Know what they have found?  It certainly happens.... but not by the hundreds or even dozens, we're talking single digits per 600,000 person district per cycle.  But that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.
 
2014-04-12 11:58:59 AM  
Where the hell were these guy's during the Florida mess?
 
2014-04-12 12:00:19 PM  

brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.

The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.


Here's what I'm referring to:  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia take precedence over, say, North Dakota law.  Same story with our signing of the UN Charter.  It's not a ceding of sovereignty - we can pull out of the UN whenever we feel like it.
 
2014-04-12 12:01:29 PM  
Felons can get elected to congress, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to vote
 
2014-04-12 12:03:22 PM  

MyRandomName: re you aware of the 35k votes found voting in two different states, illegally?


[ citation needed ]

And from a verifiable source, not a random blog or WND/Breitbart/InfoWars.
 
2014-04-12 12:04:16 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Trocadero: Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?

But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.

While I can't speak for every state, here in Texas it is 100% free to people who need one. Link


By mail? Or do they need to show up somewhere? Will the state send someone to help the illiterate or those needing translations? Will the state furnish transportation to those in rural areas to the regional ID facilities? Does the state advertise any of this information in places where you'd the poor and minorities who are most likely to not know about such information?

It's all well and good to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Republicans should be able to appreciate that metaphor.
 
2014-04-12 12:05:21 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia take precedence over, ...


And here's the relevant SCOTUS case:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_v._Hylton
 
2014-04-12 12:05:50 PM  

Thelyphthoric: I thought republicans would be against state issued identity required for transactions, since revelations says that's the mark of the beast and such as.


They're more than willing to deal with the devil when it leads to them being in charge and rich. Shows they're the Elect, you know.
 
2014-04-12 12:07:05 PM  

jaybeezey: MNguy: If everything is above-board, who the fark cares who is watching the elections?  Sounds as if TN has something to hide.

If everything is above board, it shouldn't be a problem to have identification to vote. It sounds like democrats have something to hide.


Communist.
 
2014-04-12 12:07:32 PM  
The U.N. isn't there to prevent election fraud, they want to accumulate data as to how requiring IDs discriminates against certain classes of voters.

So a.) this is nothing like monitoring elections where ballot box tampering, election fraud, and corruption are suspected and b.) it's virtually guaranteed that th U.N. team has already decided that they know what the problem is, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll generate a report designed to support the conclusion they've already reached about voter I.D. laws. No objective scrutiny whatsoever.
 
2014-04-12 12:08:12 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.


That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.
 
2014-04-12 12:10:21 PM  

Animatronik: The U.N. isn't there to prevent election fraud, they want to accumulate data as to how requiring IDs discriminates against certain classes of voters.

So a.) this is nothing like monitoring elections where ballot box tampering, election fraud, and corruption are suspected and b.) it's virtually guaranteed that th U.N. team has already decided that they know what the problem is, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll generate a report designed to support the conclusion they've already reached about voter I.D. laws. No objective scrutiny whatsoever.


Um.... passing laws to make it harder for certain classes of people or residents of certain locations to vote is a form of fraud.  You don't have to directly stuff the ballot boxes if you just control who shows up to vote.
 
2014-04-12 12:11:35 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: So where exactly do we disagree?  Or maybe I should say WHERE EXACTLY DO WE DISAGREE?


I think the disagreement comes from you seeming to consider the OSCE to be acting as an independent entity. It's operating under the umbrella of the UN. It does this as a matter of course. There is is full tactical cooperation between the UN and OSCE. I'm not sure why you're making this distinction here. There will be UN representatives working with OSCE representatives.


Tennessee is right to maintain sovereignty, and by excluding the UN specifically, it excludes all the fellow travelers that operate as agents of the UN, and that includes OSCE. It seems that OSCE was fine to present itself as an organ of the UN elsewhere, as well as in Tennessee, until it became inconvenient in this instance to share billing. However, the OSCE has no chance of monitoring election in Tennessee without the backing of the UN, so that tack has failed.


Now, we can go round and round and round with semantics and org charts, or we can use a bit of common sense. Stop the UN, and you stop OSCE. Again, the simplest thing is to throw the letter away.
 
2014-04-12 12:12:08 PM  

TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.

That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.


I love a conceited twat who thinks of himself that way.

These voter ID laws are a product of, by and for the Republican party to keep "darkies" and poor people from voting.
 
2014-04-12 12:15:41 PM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: And the UN Security Council would have declared it invalid if not for Russia's veto.

oh wait, did you just present the best reason to throw the letter away? the first rule of debate is "don't fark up and make your opponent's point for him"


slowly now, the un is a farking joke


Trolling is a Learned Behavior. The instinct for tolling involves posting and copypasting and threadshiatting and so forth. If you get trolly at the sight of an Obama thread, or if you get trolly at the sight of an gunfap thread, it is only because you have been taught to make that association.
 
2014-04-12 12:16:58 PM  

Man On A Mission: MyRandomName: re you aware of the 35k votes found voting in two different states, illegally?

[ citation needed ]

And from a verifiable source, not a random blog or WND/Breitbart/InfoWars.


Still waiting for a response from  MyRandomName.

But I'm not holding my breath.
 
2014-04-12 12:22:00 PM  
Carousel Beast:
Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

As a Leftie, I'll answer:  no.
The fact is, voter identification laws operate, in practice, to suppress minority (read: Democrat) votes.  Therefore, Republicans favor them and Dems do not.  It doesn't really have anything to do with principles; those arguments are a masquerade.
 
2014-04-12 12:22:43 PM  

jso2897: Trolling is a Learned Behavior


Well dear, you have a very odd definition of trolling, but you seem to have belligerent stalking down to an art.
 
2014-04-12 12:24:26 PM  

XveryYpettyZ: TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.

That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.


I love a conceited twat who thinks of himself that way.


So, Republicans always have proper I.D.?


These voter ID laws are a product of, by and for the Republican party to keep "darkies" and poor people from voting.


You have a markedly low opinion of minorities and the poor.
 
2014-04-12 12:25:51 PM  
letrole: AliceBToklasLives: So where exactly do we disagree?  Or maybe I should say WHERE EXACTLY DO WE DISAGREE?

I think the disagreement comes from you seeming to consider the OSCE to be acting as an independent entity. It's operating under the umbrella of the UN. It does this as a matter of course. There is is full tactical cooperation between the UN and OSCE. I'm not sure why you're making this distinction here. There will be UN representatives working with OSCE representatives.


Sure international organizations work together all the time.  That doesn't make them identical.

Tennessee is right to maintain sovereignty, and by excluding the UN specifically, it excludes all the fellow travelers that operate as agents of the UN, and that includes OSCE. It seems that OSCE was fine to present itself as an organ of the UN elsewhere, as well as in Tennessee, until it became inconvenient in this instance to share billing. However, the OSCE has no chance of monitoring election in Tennessee without the backing of the UN, so that tack has failed.

See my SCOTUS citation above regarding this claim.  The US Senate has the authority to pull of out treaties.  The Tennessee legislature does not.

Now, we can go round and round and round with semantics and org charts, or we can use a bit of common sense. Stop the UN, and you stop OSCE. Again, the simplest thing is to throw the letter away.

Probably true, since I doubt the Senate will actually defend the treaty.  There's the law and there's "common sense"; they need not meet.
 
2014-04-12 12:34:03 PM  
The real question is ... do these voter suppression laws actually work? That was the purpose of the observers, right?
 
2014-04-12 12:34:12 PM  

Animatronik: The U.N. isn't there to prevent election fraud, they want to accumulate data as to how requiring IDs discriminates against certain classes of voters.

So a.) this is nothing like monitoring elections where ballot box tampering, election fraud, and corruption are suspected and b.) it's virtually guaranteed that th U.N. team has already decided that they know what the problem is, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll generate a report designed to support the conclusion they've already reached about voter I.D. laws. No objective scrutiny whatsoever.


Dumbest. Argument. ITT.

That's like saying a liquor store installs cameras because they expect to find theft so of course they're going to record evidence of theft.

There are claims of election fraud on one side, claims of disenfranchisement on the other. Both sides claim proof. The UN has a natural role examining elections.

Basically you and Tennessee are embarrassed and butt-hurt at being looked at by an agency we usually more associate with really backwards nation-states.

Tough titties.
 
2014-04-12 12:35:54 PM  
As a resident of TN i am deeply concerned about the UN sending a peacekeeping force to terk my jerbs
 
2014-04-12 12:36:03 PM  
I'm sure Tenn won't try anything shady. Just like they stayed out of the union election at the VW plant.
 
2014-04-12 12:40:37 PM  

Farking Canuck: The real question is ... do these voter suppression laws actually work?



The GOP sure thinks they do. They've spent a lot of money and effort to enact and litigate them.
and by "work" I mean "work in the GOP's favor"
 
2014-04-12 12:40:49 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: The US Senate has the authority to pull of out treaties.  The Tennessee legislature does not.



AliceBToklasLives: Probably true, since I doubt the Senate will actually defend the treaty.



The real effect will probably be the UN / OSCE backing down from the request just to keep the issue from escalating. Tennessee won't actually win, in that the UN will still have the power to conduct monitoring under the treaty. Breaking treaties is a big deal, because it makes future treaties harder to reach.
 
2014-04-12 12:44:21 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.

The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.

Here's what I'm referring to:  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia take precedence over, say, North Dakota law.  Same story with our signing of the UN Charter.  It's not a ceding of sovereignty - we can pull out of the UN whenever we feel like it.


So I talked to a friend who worked for the UN and understands the basics of international law. It turns out that, essentially, we're both wrong lol. And both right in a way.

You're right that, constitutionally, international treaties we've signed trump state law. That is, the terms of that specific treaty and the agreements therein cannot be contravene by states.

BUT. Treaties can only be made between nation-states, not between the US and an organization. The US does not have a *treaty* with the UN. It is a member of the UN. Thus, your argument, based as it is on the constitutional "treaty" clause, collapses.

If we are a part of a treaty made *through* the UN then you can reintroduce the treaty argument, but the UN merely played a facilitator role; the treaty is still between nations. Frankly, I'm not aware of any treaty requiring that the US permit election observers, and neither is my friend.
 
2014-04-12 12:44:45 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties


If this is true then how come the Federal government has never honored a single treaty signed with Indian tribes?
Based on that past precedent the Feds or the states can choose to ignore any treaty they feel like.
 
2014-04-12 12:48:58 PM  

Trocadero: Carousel Beast: brimed03: ReapTheChaos: Yogimus: Carousel Beast: FTFA: 44 observers from Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation were sent to the United States in 2012 to determine if photo identification requirements, including those in Tennessee, affected voter turnout.

Can any of Fark's lefties give me a valid reason why ensuring only people actually allowed to vote do vote is a bad thing? Seriously, voting is the cornerstone of our entire society; yet every time someone mentions we might want to look into vote fraud, you guys scream like suck pigs. WTF?

Doesn't mater is it's dead people voting in Chicago or Diebold supposedly tampering with machines, our voting should be something we strive to be perfect on.

Even the most exaggerated claims of voter fraud are only a miniscule percentage of folks that have no means of identification.

The percentage of registered voters who have no valid ID are just as minuscule.

*sigh* Because, of course, in certain Republistan states you can't *be* a "registered voter" without valid ID.

You knew that, of course. You just hope to hook someone who didn't catch it.

Again, why is that wrong? So long as the State is providing free, validated identification, why do you object to ensuring the identity of the people forming the government?

But they don't. That costs money, that costs labor to staff the DMV/whatever to issue it, and w/ the extra security measures added after 9/11, it costs more money than before. And if Republicans have proven anything, it's that they love spending tax money on programs to help poor minorities vote more often.


Yet you're no doubt OK with requiring a license fee, a background check fee, and other fees for people to exercise their second amendment rights.
 
2014-04-12 12:51:24 PM  

brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: brimed03: AliceBToklasLives: "Any representative of the United Nations appearing without a treaty ratified by the United States Senate stating that the United Nations can monitor elections in this state, shall not monitor elections in this state."

They do realize that the United Nations is itself the result of a treaty ratified by the United States Senate, right?  According to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land, making the UN Charter the highest law of the land.

/that said, of the US Senate has failed to ratify many basic international treaties

-5/10.

That's not your trolling score; that's your intelligent joke score.

I'm dumb so explain it to be like I'm a five-year-old.  What's the joke?  That the UN is a result of a treaty?  That the Constitution considers treaties to be the highest law of the land?  That the US Senate has not ratified many treaties that are almost universally ratified (often putting us in company with places like Somalia and Best Korea)?

Seriously, I don't get the joke.

The US has treaties with Russia. By your logic, that makes Russian law the highest law in the American land.

/nowhere in the Charter or treaty did the US cede sovereignty to the UN. In fact, one of the main reasons Congress agreed to ratify the treaty is that this was explicitly spelled out.
//Go ahead. Find me the clause or statute that makes US law subordinate to UN decisions.

Here's what I'm referring to:  "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It doesn't mean Russian law is supreme over US law.  It means that our treaty agreements (when duly ratified by the Senate) with Russia ta ...


You are being intentionally obtuse or you and your "friend" are woefully ignorant. Seriously, it's a wonder you don't go through a keyboard a day from sheer drool output.
 
2014-04-12 12:51:29 PM  
MyRandomName - Are you aware of the 35k votes found voting in two different states, illegally? Still shocks me how liberals claim there is no voter fraud when they take away every tool to detect voter fraud.

And it still shocks me that conservatives want to have a hissy fit about 0.01% of the population engaging in voter fraud. But hey, if it gives you something other than starvation, inequity, and a total lack of hope for 35% of the population to be outraged about, then go right ahead. I am sure those other little pesky problems will fix themselves.

/I bet you are concerned with the 0.03% of welfare fraud as a massive drain on rich peo.... I mean the government as well. Gods forbid five people actually cheat the government in any given locale while corporations that made billions last year get tax dollar subsidies. Hell, some of them didn't even pay taxes last year. How can you complain about welfare when you do not fund it?
 
2014-04-12 12:52:57 PM  

Trocadero: It's the kind of bullshiat-- peerage, rule of the landed gentry sort of crap-- this country was founded in opposition to.

Except you couldn't vote in most places w/o owning land until Andrew Jackson.


I see. Something like seven paragraphs of explanation about Civil Rights and voter ID requirements, and this is your response.

You're right. I made a factual error. Feel better? That allow you to go on ignoring the systemic violation of constitutional rights and American democracy?

Good boy, the GOP will send you your membership card and doggy biscuit in the mail. Just don't try to get into the country club with it you dirty plebe.
 
2014-04-12 12:58:22 PM  

letrole: jso2897: Trolling is a Learned Behavior

Well dear, you have a very odd definition of trolling, but you seem to have belligerent stalking down to an art.


Actually that was more of Erudite Dismissal.

But we all feel for you and your butt-hurt.
 
2014-04-12 01:01:17 PM  
Concerning the voter ID thingy, asking for an ID for the right to vote is like a cop asking for ID before you have any right to remain silent.
 
2014-04-12 01:09:00 PM  
I simply don't get the whole "OMGZ!  Requiring an ID to vote is VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!!!  It's EEEEEVIL!!!"  Here where I live in Canada, the libbiest lib country that ever libbed, apparently, there is no such thing as voter registration.  You show your ID.  That's it.  (That's Alberta.  I have no idea what other provinces do.)  Even when I lived in the US, I didn't understand why requiring a state-issued ID to vote was a bad thing, or any different from requiring people to register.  All the arguments were pretty dumb, IMHO, and were basically, "BECAUSE WE SAID SO!  THE EEEVIL GUMMMINT IS REFUSING TO ISSUE ID!!!  WHARRRGARBLE!!11eleven"
 
2014-04-12 01:12:20 PM  

brimed03: By mail? Or do they need to show up somewhere? Will the state send someone to help the illiterate or those needing translations? Will the state furnish transportation to those in rural areas to the regional ID facilities? Does the state advertise any of this information in places where you'd the poor and minorities who are most likely to not know about such information?

It's all well and good to put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Republicans should be able to appreciate that metaphor.


Good grief, you want them to come by and suck your cock while they're at it?

If they're so destitute they can't get transportation for a one time event, how did they ever register to vote in the first place? Better yet, how do they get to the polls on election day? If you're going to say that various organizations can come pick them up and drive them to the polls, then those same organizations can take them to get their voter ID. It's not rocket science. If this is the best argument you have then you're running on empty.
 
2014-04-12 01:14:06 PM  
The only input the UN wants from America is $$$. When they stop electing aboriginal nig-nogs as Grand Poobah and trying to convert the US to a 2nd world nation then they will earn the right to give input on how we run our country. Otherwise they can go back to eating bushmeat and performing female circumcision.
 
2014-04-12 01:18:01 PM  

letrole: AliceBToklasLives: The US Senate has the authority to pull of out treaties.  The Tennessee legislature does not.


AliceBToklasLives: Probably true, since I doubt the Senate will actually defend the treaty.


The real effect will probably be the UN / OSCE backing down from the request just to keep the issue from escalating. Tennessee won't actually win, in that the UN will still have the power to conduct monitoring under the treaty. Breaking treaties is a big deal, because it makes future treaties harder to reach.


As I just learned and posted, "treaties" can only be made between nations, not with an organization. So there is no UN treaty requirement about election monitoring.

Whether there's a multi-national treaty, brokered under UN auspices or otherwise, to which the US is a party regarding election monitoring I have no idea. But there's no such animal as breaking UN treaties.
 
2014-04-12 01:18:06 PM  
Nobody cares about voters per se. Nobody, and that includes everybody, gives a rat's arse about somebody not being able to participate fully in the democratic process by going to the polls and...

that shiat makes me want retch, what bollocks, every poster here is a farking liar if they say otherwise, it's all about your candidate winning

The issue is about getting the right votes and winning and power. The best way to stack the odds in your favour is to make certain people more likely to vote, and other people less likely to vote. Pragmatism works.

Now, if you must look deeper at the motivations of politicians and parties, at least look at who they see as friend and foe at the polls. Just guess how each demographic below would vote:

Felons, property owners, illegal aliens, gun owners, welfare recipients, elderly, manual labourers, teenagers, those with no fixed abode, blacks, military, drug addicts, professionals, mothers, etc etc

Some of those are bad, some good, some neither. Do you really want to elect those who would court the bad ones and make it easier for them to vote? Again, get all that mushy-minded civics lesson boolshiat out of the way.

No campaign poster ever read "Voe for Joe. His party supports voting rights for felons, because they tend to vote for guys like Joe"

This is also why progressive types seem to miss-out on retirement homes when they get the civic urge to register as many voters as possible, even though the elderly in full-time care have much lower voting registration compared to the same age voters still living in their own homes.
 
2014-04-12 01:19:52 PM  

TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: TomD9938: XveryYpettyZ: that's not the reason for the push for voter ID.  It's to suppress the vote of people who don't vote for Republicans.

That assumes that people who vote Republican are inherently responsible citizens.

I love a conceited twat who thinks of himself that way.


So, Republicans always have proper I.D.?


These voter ID laws are a product of, by and for the Republican party to keep "darkies" and poor people from voting.


You have a markedly low opinion of minorities and the poor.


Am I misreading this or are y'all? I think you two are on the same side in this argument. Go back and read the original posts. I know I've made that mistake before.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report