free and fair elections?

mark mywords

Active member
a couple of weeks back it was claimed that the referenda in Ukraine wasnt free and fair because of the presence of armed men at the voting stations.

In Arizona (at least) there are armed vigilantes "guarding" the voter drop boxes they say to prevent fraudulent voting,
I think that the real purpose is to dissuade certain types of people from voting

1667260610269.jpeg

nothing to see here just a couple of patriotic Americans ensuring the fairness of the election

These activities have been branded legal by a federal judge
 
nothing to see here just a couple of patriotic Americans ensuring the fairness of the election

These activities have been branded legal by a federal judge
I'm sure you said the same thing when black vigilantes turned up outside of polling stations when Obama was the candidate.
 
a couple of weeks back it was claimed that the referenda in Ukraine wasnt free and fair because of the presence of armed men at the voting stations.
Not sure, that may have been me.
If I didn't before I'll outline some basics on the democratic process.

- I suspect most legitimate national elections are not deemed not valid by international authorities such as the U.N.
- Many if not most political elections are in accordance with substantially uncontested law, and usually consistent with the region's constitution.
- Russia's claim to the territory and the validity of the impromptu elections in Ukraine are not considered legitimate by prevailing international standards or authorities.

No sense in tip-toeing on egg shells. Russia's sham elections in Ukraine was a naïve attempt by an authoritarian barbarian that evidently knows so little about electoral legitimacy Putin may have believed he'd fool someone with his preposterous electoral ruse in Russia occupied Ukraine.

None of that legitimizes what bz #2 acknowledges.
I'm sure you said the same thing when black vigilantes turned up outside of polling stations when Obama was the candidate.
I'd need more information. I can easily conjure examples in either category.

And while I don't mean to be dismissive of process standards, there's something far deeper and far more sinister at work here.

Candidate / President Trump has transformed the Republican party from stalwart conservatism to a replacement I don't know the name of. Flagrantly implausible lying?

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

In decades past the Republicans and Democrats made attempt to allow the electoral success of their candidates to be determined on merit to significant if not substantial degree. No longer.

"I will build a great, great wall on our Southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall, mark my words." Republican primary presidential candidate Donald J. Trump 15/06/16 www.DonaldJTrump.com

“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” President Trump 2018, after his poorly prepared summit w/ NK/KJU

This does not mean bz #2 is wrong. Instead the GOP has expanded its repertoire to include outright lying.

The topic is:

free and fair elections?​

Wisely expressed as a question.
But how can any political election in a nation of 300+ million if one of the two essentially binary choices has substantially lied?

Doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't have substantial electoral issues. Unfortunately, as severe as they are, they may be overshadowed by even more fundamental threat to our Constitutional republic.
 
Back
Top