15 Jun 09
3 edits
All indications are that the elections in Iran were rigged, so what does the US have to say about that? What can they say about that? After all, Obama did not win the popular majority vote in his own party yet won the nomination and McCain won the nomination in the Republican party long before many in the party had a chance to even vote for or against him.
Are there really any democracies out there or is it just all smoke and mirrors?
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou just figuring that out now?! 🙂
All indications are that the elections in Iran were rigged, so what does the US have to say about that? What can they say about that? After all, Obama did not win the popular majority vote in his own party yet won the nomination and McCain won the nomination in the Republican party long before many in the party had a chance to even vote for or against him.
Are there really any democracies out there or is it just all smoke and mirrors?
15 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonActually I've known it for a long time now, but I was just thought Obama's repsonse to it was a little curious. He said something to the effect that he respected their ability to govern their own affairs, but was a little disappointed they then turned around and murdered protestors.
You just figuring that out now?! 🙂
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeySo now you are questioning the validity of Obama's election victory over McCain?
Obama did not win the popular majority vote in his own party yet won the nomination and McCain won the nomination in the Republican party long before many in the party had a chance to even vote for or against him.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyNo democracy exists. I'm glad you've seen the light.
All indications are that the elections in Iran were rigged, so what does the US have to say about that? What can they say about that? After all, Obama did not win the popular majority vote in his own party yet won the nomination and McCain won the nomination in the Republican party long before many in the party had a chance to even vote for or against him.
Are there really any democracies out there or is it just all smoke and mirrors?
Iran's about as close as you can get though.
16 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe primaries aren't required to be part of the democratic process. They are run by the parties, which are private entities. They don't even have to have primaries if they don't want to. In the old days, only some states had primaries and the nominees were decided at the convention.
All indications are that the elections in Iran were rigged, so what does the US have to say about that? What can they say about that? After all, Obama did not win the popular majority vote in his own party yet won the nomination and McCain won the nomination in the Republican party long before many in the party had a chance to even vote for or against him.
Are there really any democracies out there or is it just all smoke and mirrors?
If the parties have rules for how to choose a nominee, then those are the applicable rules. Whether Hillary got more votes is irrelevant. Obama won the nomination based on the rules as they existed at the time. He won it fair and square. Same is true for McCain.
If Hillary would have liked, she could have run for President on a different party line. That would have given everyone a chance to vote for her if they so chose. The fact that she chose not to do so because she wouldn't win (and for other political reasons) is not anti-Democratic, any more than it's anti-Democratic that we couldn't vote for Gore because he chose not to run.
The primaries are what they are. They're fun and exciting and maybe not perfectly fair. But you have the general election to vote for whomever you like.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Agreed. The two party monopoly system has circumvented the "democratic" process. So is that suppose to make me feel any better? Sure you can vote for Joe Blow who is not from one of the two parties, that is, if you want to vote for a loser.
The primaries aren't required to be part of the democratic process. They are run by the parties, which are private entities. They don't even have to have primaries if they don't want to. In the old days, only some states had primaries and the nominees were decided at the convention.
If the parties have rules for how to choose a nominee, then those are the ap ...[text shortened]... aybe not perfectly fair. But you have the general election to vote for whomever you like.
16 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by scherzoHow do you figure Iran is any better? I don't recall Obama murdering any McCain supporters or Hillary supporters for that matter. He didn't come after me for saying Hillary won the popular vote in his own party.
No democracy exists. I'm glad you've seen the light.
Iran's about as close as you can get though.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyIf McCain supporters had rioted in the street and there was no such thing as a lame-duck period, then I'm sure Obama would have cracked down. And it would have been justified.
How do you figure Iran is any better? I don't recall Obama murdering any McCain supporters or Hillary supporters for that matter. He didn't come after me for saying Hillary won the popular vote in his own party.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou should vote for the best candidate in your view no matter what their chance at winning.
Agreed. The two party monopoly system has circumvented the "democratic" process. So is that suppose to make me feel any better? Sure you can vote for Joe Blow who is not from one of the two parties, that is, if you want to vote for a loser.
If you refuse to vote for the person you want because they will probably lose then you're just supporting the two party system that you hate so much.
If a third party starts to garner enough votes then they will start to gain respectability and momentum through the next election.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoDo you really think Obama would have put protesters and McCain himself in jail?
If McCain supporters had rioted in the street and there was no such thing as a lame-duck period, then I'm sure Obama would have cracked down. And it would have been justified.
That would be a good way to lose votes.
It really depends on your definition of "cracked down". He would be right to do something to stop violence, but he'd be wrong and not justified to imprison people for criticizing the election or challenging it peacefully.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnExcept what's going on in Iran isn't peaceful.
Do you really think Obama would have put protesters and McCain himself in jail?
That would be a good way to lose votes.
It really depends on your definition of "cracked down". He would be right to do something to stop violence, but he'd be wrong and not justified to imprison people for criticizing the election or challenging it peacefully.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoSome of it isn't, but the stories of guards shooting into crowds doesn't really help - there are better ways.
Except what's going on in Iran isn't peaceful.
Like I said, it depends on what you mean by "crack down". Putting the leader of the opposition into house arrest is ridiculous and definitely a bad sign.