Fraudulent Elections in Iran

That said, I want to commend my fellow Dopers for their stern resistance to the temptation of cheap wordplay, there is no instance of the phrase “clerical error” in reference to the mullahs.

Good show, that! Pip, pip!

I agree, and that’s what I meant by:

The reality of the situation is that if Iraq’s democracy works then it will be a result of its instigation. But also if it works it will work because the people of Iraq make it work, Bush has nothing to do with it now.

Well yes, I think that’s extrapolating too much. We’re not talking about 200 years later here. But George III is a poor example because George III didn’t found the colonies, they were founded before he came to be King. Bush in this instance is one of the founders of Iraqi Democracy as distasteful as that notion might be.

Right, but what is doing more? It seems like anyone who disapproves of our actions in Iraq wants us to do less.

It’s sort of like a Father and his credit for the success of his child. He may have been a no good rotten son of a bitch, but if it weren’t for him knocking the Mother up, that child never would have existed to go on and be successful.

Well, if you really want to get banned, you certainly seem to understand how to do it.

And yet, you nattered on for post after post making some obscure objections just as though you had not understood the point. Repeating that you understood the point and then arguing as though you hads missed it is not particularly persuasive. Even in size seven font you appear to fail to understand the matter, as though a reference to George III was somehow invalid when referring “directly” to a comment on George W. Bush. If the point is so clearly understood by you, why do you even have to mention it (over and over and over. . . )?

If you want others to recognize what you do and do not understand, then it would behoove you to go practice your writing skills to the point where your comments are always clear.

As to the terrible troubles you have with my moderating, you should probably note that you bring on most of your own troubles. You have already stated, openly, that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. You constantly take positions that you claim you hold only as a devil’s advocate, yet you invest your posts with the sort of personal language and snide comments that one expects from a true believer rather than a person trying to simply argue a position for a third party with whom you might not even agree.
I’ve never let my kids use the “he hit me back first” defense and I am not going to start letting purportedly adult posters employ it, here. The one direct personal insult hurled was by sailor who was admonished for that act. Following that, I noted that a bunch of you were each participating in a hijack for personal gratification and I told you all to quit it. I then noted that your persistentce regarding the point that you claim to understand while arguinfg as though you failed to understand it was not helping the situation and suggested a remedy.

This discussion is done in this thread. Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

Mullah bullah, oh mullah bullah!

:rolleyes: What a load of dishonest bullshit. You shouldn’t continue a hijack in your moderation.

You might not take the ‘he hit me back first’ defense, but you clearly use the, ‘Johnny, Nathan knock it off, I don’t care who started it, it doesn’t matter who’s right, but obviously I favor Nathan.’ approach.

You are such a fucking hypocrite.

Notice how you can never help getting into these without saying some snarky comment to me? You cannot moderate and just let it be. I can accept it, but when someone is calling me an idiot for something I didn’t say and hten you single ME out like you do EVERY FUCKING TIME I am getting piled on, well, it just shows that your goal isn’t to stop the argument.

I don’t know why you haven’t banned me a long time ago if you hate me so much, because now you’ve given me every incentive to ignore you and your moderation by taking sides in a debate you didn’t need to take sides in.

Take a time out. (One day.)

[ /Moderating ]

Who peed in your Cheerios, dude? :confused:

OOPS! We are both also participating in a thread in the Pit and I got the wrong thread. My apologies to mswas and to the board.

Although not a **majority **of both counted and uncounted votes, it was still a clear and commanding lead over the competition. When the results were first announced, Ahmedinejad (we are told) had roughly 66% of the vote counted and roughly 44% of the *total *vote (counted + uncounted). It would have been considered a remarkable anomaly had Mousavi gone on to win the votes left to be counted, and thus caught up with the incumbent.

30 days, or four weeks. And the polls are hardly worthless, they provide the best indication available as to the political preferences of the population. The Wikipedia article I linked to earlier discusses some of the problems with many of the polls, and mentions very clearly that many of them are unreliable. Of interest is this part which cites a poll generally considered reliable:

(My bolding)

It is bizarre but not that outrageous. This particular point was discussed in at least two of the sources cited in this thread. Here is a relevant analysis:

Bottom line: Ahmadinejad may be a dick, but history clearly shows that being a dick does not prevent candidates from winning elections. In order to verify the allegations of election fraud more concrete support is needed than we thinking that this or that result is (or isn’t) ridiculous.

Game, set, match: In 50 cities, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of eligible voters. That’s from Iran’s Guardian Council, although they say it did not make a difference in the result. Other articles note this isn’t the first time that kind of thing has happened in Iran, so this wouldn’t be the first election with significant fraud. Nonetheless I’d say that makes it very plain there was fraud this time, too.

This is definitely the most damning factor I have seen in this story and does suggest fraud. Which I do think happened, by the way, I just think there should be conclusive proof of it. I had a look for more information and came up with this (amusingly titled) explanation from the spokesman for the Council of Guardians:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Here we have an official attempting (pretending?) to show some transparency and communicate about the problem. I do not think either activity is ordinary behaviour for the Iranian government.

At the moment, they’re saying ‘Forget about it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.’ I’m sure this is not the first time this kind of fraud happened; CNN said that in 2001, ballots cast exceeded registration by about 13 percent. But even if the Iranian people knew about this before and didn’t care, it’s different now. The protestors are not going to be satisfied that the government has admitted what they already knew.

Interesting video here. I don’t have the permalink but if you go to instapundit.com and scroll down to 8:57 AM today you’ll see it.

BTW, there are many more links at instapundit for those who wish to follow this on an hourly basis.