Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Swish: Political parties are allowed to have observers within the polling places to ensure that procedures are followed properly. They have to wear a sticker that says it and are not allowed to talk to anyone unless they notice something's up. They cannot campaign - they are there to ensure impartiality in the polling place and are prohibited from looking at ballots unless a person specifically asks them if it looks sketchy. They are allowed because of the Voting Rights Act in 1960s to make sure no African-Americans were troubled when they wanted to vote.
I had two in my polling place; one Libertarian and one Democrat. They were there presumably so that the voter ID thing, which was vetoed in N.C., was not being followed.
That's how it's supposed to work at least. I don't know about other places and how their election observers are.
edited 24th Oct '12 8:12:57 PM by Completion
It's a reoccurring problem that they've been struggling with for years. It's why they can't change their voting laws without DOJ confirmation. Here's one from the last election
where poll watchers got in voters faces. This isn't something new. It's an ongoing problem in Texas.
edited 24th Oct '12 8:10:59 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
North Korea doesn't have extremists, because the "extremists" technically cannot be called such because they are the government. Of course, you are being pedantic right now, so I should say instead: The US harbors extremists with an almost complete outline of their ideologies, objectives, and 'membership' and are at the least belligerent to the majority of citizens within the country, which could lead to full violence when certain parameters are met. They also see themselves as being better than the rest of the people in the country, and sees the government as the enemy, i.e. they are the Taliban without being Muslims, although they almost certainly have the firearms I guess, and they both speak English in an almost unintelligible way.
edited 24th Oct '12 8:30:05 PM by entropy13
@Braeburn: we have voter intimidation. Crazed jingoistic campaigns to convince us all that massive voter fraud is subverting democracy so that people can pass laws that actually DO subvert democracy. Gerrymandering. If anything, we probably DO need UN observers to make sure our elections are fair just like a third world country.
![]()
I mean that doesn't answer my question.
If the best reason for the US being a Third World Country you can give is 'The US harbors extremists with an almost complete outline of their ideologies, objectives, and 'membership' and are at the least belligerent to the majority of citizens within the country, which could lead to full violence when certain parameters are met.' then the UK is a Third World Nation for allowing the British National Party
edited 24th Oct '12 8:35:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Does the British National Party see government as the enemy though, i.e. "WE WANT LESS GOV'T!!!", "STOP MEDDLING ON ANYTHING, GOV'T!!!"? Are the BNP also extreme in their religious beliefs and extreme in imposing them on everyone, and is 101% sure that they are always correct in such matters (the 1% is because they are true believers of God)? If they are actually atheists, do the BNP impose atheism on everyone? Are the BNP armed?
And being "allowed" or not is irrelevant, because if you're an extremist group, you don't care if you're "allowed" or not, and therefore CANNOT be a parameter to being an extremist group in the first place.
edited 24th Oct '12 8:44:58 PM by entropy13
![]()
From Wikipedaia
The BNP rejects ID cards as an undesirable representation of the surveillance society.
The BNP will oppose the intrusion of non-British and alien cultural influences which undermine our traditional value systems.
The BNP will enact legislation to ensure that pensions are eligible only to Britons and those who have fully paid into the system.
BNP's Founder John Tyndall has proclaimed: The "Mein Kampf is my bible"
The BNP will abolish political correctness from the police service in favour of real crime fighting.
The BNP will introduce formal bank holidays for all of our nations’ patron saints
The BNP will ensure that the National Health Service is used to serve British people and not used as an International Health Service.
The BNP will repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The BNP will ensure that appropriate areas of public life, including school assemblies, are based on a commitment to the values of traditional Western Christianity, as a benchmark for a decent and civilised society.
A BNP government would tackle the national debt problem by cutting expenditure on all projects which they think do not serve British interests.
If that's not extremist I don't know what is.
edited 24th Oct '12 9:00:35 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Ok, when did first/second/third world status stop being about economic development?
The BNP is a load of awful, right-wing nationalist crap, just like the Republican party. I don't see the point of comparing the two. Neither party is related to their statuses as highly developed first world countries, anyways.
I also don't really get how our prosperity has anything to do with whether or not oversight from the U.N. in our elections is needed. Or, for that matter, why the reactions of some conspiracy theorists would be more important than the question of whether or not this is a necessary measure to combat voter intimidation.
edited 24th Oct '12 9:10:07 PM by HilarityEnsues
Seriously, guys. Don't make up for the lack of stupid conservatives around here by indulging in some stupid liberalism. The U.S. is a first world nation. Look up the term, do some reading, and if you honestly still think this argument is worth pursuing then we can have it in another thread.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Hilarity: It's never been about economic development. 1st world was a signifier of the US and its allies, 2nd world for the USSR and its allies, and 3rd world for everyone else. It's just become one over time.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Regardless, America is a first world nation.
A UN intervention is going to stir up a lot of animosity. I think its best that the UN not get involved.
Plus what's the justification for this intervention again?
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016