Texas Threatens Jail for International Election Observers

[JakeStarkey]

Then let the observers do their job and shut the fuck up; quit acting so stupidly here.

 

[Ernie S.]

Totalitarianism is a another name for you, son.

What have you against a neutral, open voting system?

You have something to hide.

What's Texasss hiding?

Betcha we know which other states won't want anyone looking over their shoulders.

I remember the good old days when the United States was actually PROUD of our democratic voting system.

Luddly likes Totalitarianism? Go figure...

Why do you want foreign observers with a socialist agenda fucking with a system that has worked pretty damned well for 230 years?

 

[Ernie S.]

Then let the observers do their job and shut the fuck up; quit acting so stupidly here.

It's not their job! Jeez, Fake. Foreign observers are against Texas law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can see how that the 'Conservatives' would have a problem with anybody from a foreign nation observing our voting. Xenophobia is a big part of the 'Conservative' mindset. Fear of what is new, differant, or not understood concerns these people far more than the legalities or the ethics of any situation. Fear of foriegners, even from scandanavia or germany, observing our elections is natural for them. Fear of energy from something other than fossil fuels or nuclear is natural for them. And fear of what scientists study is natural for them, for one of the hallmarks of the 'Conservative' is intellectual laziness.

Ethics?

That's the whole point of this thread and the issue conservatives have with liberals calling in liberal "non-partisan" /smirk "observers" to sway the process. If Obama gets his ass kicked on November 6th, will he then use the reports from these "non-partisan" /smirk "observers" to force recount after recount after recount ala Al Gore and Al Franken until he gets his wish? I think that is a very good possibility.

Liberals have tried and succeeded before with Al Franken to force as many recounts as it takes until they get their wish and Gore attempted it. I have a feeling that is the plan being put in place.

Ethics? In politics? Are you so old, Oldrocks, that you are losing you mind?

Immie

Actually it was incumbent republican Senator Norm Coleman who initiated the court battle as to who would claim the contested Senate seat:

On January 3, 2009, the Secretary of State’s Office opened and counted the 933 ballots identified during this process. On January 5, 2009, the State Canvassing Board certified the results of the election as 1,212,431 votes for Franken and 1,212,206 votes for Coleman, a margin of 225 votes in Franken’s favor.

On January 6, 2009, appellants Coleman and Sheehan (hereinafter “Coleman”) filed a notice of election contest in Ramsey County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 209.021 (2008), contesting the election results certified by the State Canvassing Board and seeking a declaration that Coleman was entitled to the certificate of election as United States Senator.

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0906/OPA090697-0630.pdf

The recount was undertaken per state law, not at the behest of Franken; and it was the republican who contested the will of the voters in the courts.

Thus your position that ‘liberals’ alone attempt to “force as many recounts as it takes until they get their wish’ is clearly false.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then why were they allowed to do it in 2008 in San Antonio.

It's now against the law; only against what the Texas AG thinks is not good. Why,I have no idea.

Then let the observers do their job and shut the fuck up; quit acting so stupidly here.

It's not their job! Jeez, Fake. Foreign observers are against Texas law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmm . . . did all this raise any upset with the right when the organization observed in San Antonio in 2008?

It still hasn't raised any outrage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And since it is not against Texas law in 2012, despite what the Texas AG thinks, there should be no outrage.

 

[Ernie S.]

Then why were they allowed to do it in 2008 in San Antonio.

It's now against the law; only against what the Texas AG thinks is not good. Why,I have no idea.

Then let the observers do their job and shut the fuck up; quit acting so stupidly here.

It's not their job! Jeez, Fake. Foreign observers are against Texas law.

Damned if I know why it was allowed. I only know that at this time, it is against the law, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[Ernie S.]

And since it is not against Texas law in 2012, despite what the Texas AG thinks, there should be no outrage.

The law was quoted earlier in the thread. Why do you deny that is against Texas law?

 

[Ernie S.]

And since it is not against Texas law in 2012, despite what the Texas AG thinks, there should be no outrage.

Prove that statement!

 

[JakeStarkey]

AG Abbott thinks so: in a letter to Sec of State Clinton, he wrote, "As you know, Texas election laws govern anyone who participates in Texas elections. The fact that representatives of the United States joined the U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia, Romania, and other OSCE member-nations in signing a document at a 1989 conference in Copenhagen has absolutely no bearing on the administration of elections or laws governing elections in the State of Texas. . . . “In closing, I have a simple request: Please work with the OSCE to ensure they agree to comply with Texas law. If they refuse to do so, OSCE’s representatives may be subject to legal consequences associated with any violations of state law.”

Only 'unauthorized observers' are banned unders state law, which if it conflicts with US treaty obligations, is null and void.

Hope Abbott cooperates with Clinton.

Texas AG Abbott demands Hillary Clinton make observers comply with voting law - San Antonio Headlines | Examiner.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

AG Abbott thinks so: in a letter to Sec of State Clinton, he wrote, "As you know, Texas election laws govern anyone who participates in Texas elections. The fact that representatives of the United States joined the U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia, Romania, and other OSCE member-nations in signing a document at a 1989 conference in Copenhagen has absolutely no bearing on the administration of elections or laws governing elections in the State of Texas. . . . “In closing, I have a simple request: Please work with the OSCE to ensure they agree to comply with Texas law. If they refuse to do so, OSCE’s representatives may be subject to legal consequences associated with any violations of state law.”

Only 'unauthorized observers' are banned unders state law, which if it conflicts with US treaty obligations, is null and void.

Hope Abbott cooperates with Clinton.

Texas AG Abbott demands Hillary Clinton make observers comply with voting law - San Antonio Headlines | Examiner.com

Strange, the OCSE says they have no problem staying 100' away from the polls as required by Texas law, yet you insist they don't have to obey the law.

That makes one of us really stupid, and it isn't the guy with a q in his name.

 

[Ernie S.]

AG Abbott thinks so: in a letter to Sec of State Clinton, he wrote, "As you know, Texas election laws govern anyone who participates in Texas elections. The fact that representatives of the United States joined the U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia, Romania, and other OSCE member-nations in signing a document at a 1989 conference in Copenhagen has absolutely no bearing on the administration of elections or laws governing elections in the State of Texas. . . . “In closing, I have a simple request: Please work with the OSCE to ensure they agree to comply with Texas law. If they refuse to do so, OSCE’s representatives may be subject to legal consequences associated with any violations of state law.”

Only 'unauthorized observers' are banned unders state law, which if it conflicts with US treaty obligations, is null and void.

Hope Abbott cooperates with Clinton.

demands-hillary-clinton-make-observers-comply-with-voting-law]Texas[/B] AG Abbott demands Hillary Clinton make observers comply with voting law - San Antonio Headlines | Examiner.com

Texas law states observers must be registered voters and appointed by a candidate or party. If the UN recruits a bunch of Texans that are registered to vote in the municipalities they want to cover, I suppose if the Democrat Party wants to appoint them, I would be OK with that. From what I read, the Texas AG would be as well.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I can see how that the 'Conservatives' would have a problem with anybody from a foreign nation observing our voting. Xenophobia is a big part of the 'Conservative' mindset. Fear of what is new, differant, or not understood concerns these people far more than the legalities or the ethics of any situation. Fear of foriegners, even from scandanavia or germany, observing our elections is natural for them. Fear of energy from something other than fossil fuels or nuclear is natural for them. And fear of what scientists study is natural for them, for one of the hallmarks of the 'Conservative' is intellectual laziness.

Wrong again, fucktard. I not only lived overseas many years, I was married to a foreign national. It has nothing to do with xenophobia, but rather the fact that the UN does not have our best interests at heart. Germans and Scandinavians are as cowed by the overwhelming majority of third-world shit-hole dictators and terrorist threats as we are.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well, I'll tell ya's what - why don't we have federal marshalls monitor some of the elections? Surely Texas would welcome federal marshalls at the polling stations.

Lordy, couldn't do that! Having Marshals there really would intimidate all the illegals who will be attempting to vote for their pandering king of amnesty.

Shucks, Hoss, if you could read, you'd know illegals can't vote.

But village idiots like you still get that right... if your bus stops near a poling place.

I know illegals should not be voting, so do you. Only one of us is interested in stopping them.

 

[percysunshine]

And since it is not against Texas law in 2012, despite what the Texas AG thinks, there should be no outrage.

Lying comes so easy. Probably easier than breathing.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I agree, voting is a great freedom. But tell me, how would international observers restrict anyone's vote?

Never said they would restrict. I oppose the UN being involved in any fashion in our state run elections.

They're not involved in your state's election process; they're merely observing. What's the problem?

Their presence is involvement. What is the purpose of "observing"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

there has been a contingent since what 2002?So this is not a big deal in and of itself, but I have to wonder what value this holds for a sponsored org. who has sitting on its Commission on Human Rights such esteemed members as; Zimbabwe, Sudan , Cuba....

I think it has more to do with the current marching orders for the so-called 'unbiased' observers to be on the lookout for conservative intimidation at the polls in certain states that have recently enacted policies to clean up their registration rolls and to verify that voters are who they claim to be.

 

[Immanuel]

I can see how that the 'Conservatives' would have a problem with anybody from a foreign nation observing our voting. Xenophobia is a big part of the 'Conservative' mindset. Fear of what is new, differant, or not understood concerns these people far more than the legalities or the ethics of any situation. Fear of foriegners, even from scandanavia or germany, observing our elections is natural for them. Fear of energy from something other than fossil fuels or nuclear is natural for them. And fear of what scientists study is natural for them, for one of the hallmarks of the 'Conservative' is intellectual laziness.

Ethics?

That's the whole point of this thread and the issue conservatives have with liberals calling in liberal "non-partisan" /smirk "observers" to sway the process. If Obama gets his ass kicked on November 6th, will he then use the reports from these "non-partisan" /smirk "observers" to force recount after recount after recount ala Al Gore and Al Franken until he gets his wish? I think that is a very good possibility.

Liberals have tried and succeeded before with Al Franken to force as many recounts as it takes until they get their wish and Gore attempted it. I have a feeling that is the plan being put in place.

Ethics? In politics? Are you so old, Oldrocks, that you are losing you mind?

Immie

Actually it was incumbent republican Senator Norm Coleman who initiated the court battle as to who would claim the contested Senate seat:

On January 3, 2009, the Secretary of State’s Office opened and counted the 933 ballots identified during this process. On January 5, 2009, the State Canvassing Board certified the results of the election as 1,212,431 votes for Franken and 1,212,206 votes for Coleman, a margin of 225 votes in Franken’s favor.

On January 6, 2009, appellants Coleman and Sheehan (hereinafter “Coleman&#8221 filed a notice of election contest in Ramsey County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 209.021 (2008), contesting the election results certified by the State Canvassing Board and seeking a declaration that Coleman was entitled to the certificate of election as United States Senator.

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0906/OPA090697-0630.pdf

The recount was undertaken per state law, not at the behest of Franken; and it was the republican who contested the will of the voters in the courts.

Thus your position that ‘liberals’ alone attempt to “force as many recounts as it takes until they get their wish’ is clearly false.

How convenient that you forgot to mention what happened between November 18th and January 5th. It wasn't the will of the voters that Coleman contested, it was the bullshit "votes" that suddenly appeared in Franken's favor after the election was over.

On November 18, 2008, the State Canvassing Board accepted the consolidated statewide canvassing report as showing that Coleman received 1,211,565 votes and that Franken received 1,211,359 votes for the office of United States Senator, a margin of 206 votes in Coleman‟s favor. Because the margin separating the two candidates was less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes counted for that office, the State Canvassing Board directed the Minnesota Secretary of State‟s Office to oversee a manual recount, as required by Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b)(1) (2008).
The statewide manual recount was conducted between November 19, 2008, and January 5, 2009, pursuant to instructions drafted by the Secretary of State‟s Office and approved by the State Canvassing Board after consultation with representatives of
4
Coleman and Franken. During the recount, local election officials and the candidates reviewed the absentee ballot return envelopes that had been rejected on or before election day and agreed that some of them had been improperly rejected.

It was Franken that whined like a five year old until he got the votes he needed that he claimed were improperly rejected. Coleman contested the findings after Franken whined like a pansy and got the will of the voters overturned. The fact that so many of the uncounted and so-called "improperly rejected" votes went Franken's way is dubious at best. Basically, as I said, he succeeded where Al Gore failed and I think Obama is planning to attempt to do the same thing this year with these so-called "non-partisan" /smirk "observers".

But then, what can anyone expect from dishonest liberal politicians?

Immie

 

[Dick Tuck]

Totalitarianism is a another name for you, son.

What have you against a neutral, open voting system?

You have something to hide.

Luddly likes Totalitarianism? Go figure...

Why do you want foreign observers with a socialist agenda fucking with a system that has worked pretty damned well for 230 years?

You are thick. How the hell does observing fuck with the system. As for it working pretty damn well, you ignorant dick, did you forget Jim Crow?