A Fair Comparison?

[JackLuis]

We've all heard about Iran's election and the repression of the will of the people(?).

I saw this and wondered the same kind of things.

Is the Government confined to the rule of law? If so since the Assembly of Experts found evidence of fraudulent voting and many of the 50 samples they audited, then some one is guilty of election fraud. The Surpeme Leader should investigate and determine who corrupted his perfect Arrangement, or so you'd think?

America seemes to also fudge the law, after all we let Bush &Co. get away with a lot, even the rape of the treasury.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We've all heard about Iran's election and the repression of the will of the people(?).

I saw this and wondered the same kind of things.

Is the Government confined to the rule of law? If so since the Assembly of Experts found evidence of fraudulent voting and many of the 50 samples they audited, then some one is guilty of election fraud. The Surpeme Leader should investigate and determine who corrupted his perfect Arrangement, or so you'd think?

America seemes to also fudge the law, after all we let Bush &Co. get away with a lot, even the rape of the treasury.

In the US, the two major parties are both made up of crooks. In major elections, the winning party is frequently the one who is the most successful in stealing votes and double-voting and other chicanery. Personally, I think the dems are more crooked, because they control the big city machines, but it is onlhy a matter of degree.

As for the 2000 election: The final tally from Florida, moot when it was announced, showed Bush winning by a tiny margin, thereby carrying the state and its electoral votes. This meant that the vote by the electoral college reflected the wills of the voters in all the states, even though the Florida Supreme Court tried to stop the state's electors from voting, which would have given the election to Gore.

Maybe he should have won anyhow, because he received a plurality of the popular votes, but that's not what the rules say.

 

[JackLuis]

I thought Obama's stance on Iran was flawed. He should have said that this is where we see the resiliency of the Islamic Republic.

We had contested elections and solved them by our courts. If there was evidence of fraud it should be prosecuted and the ones responsible held accountable for subverting the peoples will. That is Democracy.

But no he waffled then got all mad at them, which didn't help. And the GOP whining and saying we should invade them to "Bring Freedom to the oppressed people of Iran," didn't help.

and I thought BO had it together.

 

[TE999]

I thought Obama's stance on Iran was flawed. He should have said that this is where we see the resiliency of the Islamic Republic.

We had contested elections and solved them by our courts. If there was evidence of fraud it should be prosecuted and the ones responsible held accountable for subverting the peoples will. That is Democracy.

But no he waffled then got all mad at them, which didn't help. And the GOP whining and saying we should invade them to "Bring Freedom to the oppressed people of Iran," didn't help.

and I thought BO had it together.

To be fair, BHO didn't come up with his stances all by himself. Those were prolly supplied by the bureaucrats in the State Department and/or his immediate advisors. The former are experts on obfuscation and appeasement...the latter are more concerned about BHO's image vis a vis what the mood of the country is today. The Repub response was just stupid.

The Iranians wouldn't know Democracy if it slapped them in the face.