• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran president: 'Not feasible' for Israel to live

Why do you keep mentioning the points we do not disagree on here?
I never said they directly register with the party..

But if they want to stand for a party, then certainly they cannot do that with a platform which opposes that party, nor can they stand for the republicans if they oppose all republican party stands. I have a hard time believing that..

I never said I was right, I am doubtful at best, but pretty sure what I am saying is right. You are the one who is so damn sure, and keep getting trying to bang me down for believing the most logical. Its up to you to prove you claim, because you were the one who said it was definite and a fact. I said "I believe", "I am pretty damn sure", "it seems incredibly likely" and so on. I also asked for a clarification, not further claims that its the way you say.

You seem to misunderstand what is going on. You are NOW talking about standing for the party. You keep moving the goalposts.

To run on behalf of your party, you have to win the primary first. Access to the primary is open and not restricted by the party leadership. If you want to represent the party in the general election, you have to win the primary which, while the laws differ from state to state, is determined by the rank and file voters of the party and NOT by the leadership of the party.
 
You seem to misunderstand what is going on. You are NOW talking about standing for the party. You keep moving the goalposts.

Thats what I have been talking about all along. To stand as presidential candidate for the parties, since its impossible to be elected in any other ways.

To run on behalf of your party, you have to win the primary first. Access to the primary is open and not restricted by the party leadership. If you want to represent the party in the general election, you have to win the primary which, while the laws differ from state to state, is determined by the rank and file voters of the party and NOT by the leadership of the party.

Nah, really, is the primary totally open? So that anyone with any form of platform(even opposing values and platform of the party) can stand for the republican party and just say a bunch of things that will have him elected in the primaries, and then become their presidential candidate if he wins?

So in theory, Obama can just as well be a republican hiding in this democrat party and work his magic republican party policies as soon as he is sworn in.
 
Thats what I have been talking about all along. To stand as presidential candidate for the parties, since its impossible to be elected in any other ways.

But it is the rank and file members of the party who decide who represents the party, NOT the party heirarchy and certainly not an unelected, unrepresentative body like Iran's Guardian Council. Your attempt to compare the two is disingenuous and insulting.

Nah, really, is the primary totally open? So that anyone with any form of platform(even opposing values and platform of the party) can stand for the republican party and just say a bunch of things that will have him elected in the primaries, and then become their presidential candidate if he wins?

Yes!

So in theory, Obama can just as well be a republican hiding in this democrat party and work his magic republican party policies as soon as he is sworn in.

Sure. There is nothing to stop this other than the actual voters. It is a far more democratic process than exists in Iran or apparently exists in your mind.
 
But it is the rank and file members of the party who decide who represents the party, NOT the party heirarchy and certainly not an unelected, unrepresentative body like Iran's Guardian Council. Your attempt to compare the two is disingenuous and insulting.



Yes!



Sure. There is nothing to stop this other than the actual voters. It is a far more democratic process than exists in Iran or apparently exists in your mind.

You are saying contradicting things in this post.. First you say the rank and file members of a party decide who represents the party, then you say anyone can represent the party as presidential candidate.

Besides I am not just going to take your word on all this, please provide the source or some proof of this. That the party in no way can weed out presidential candidates, who wants to stand for their party, ahead of the primary.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't think it is feasible to do business or send aid of any kind to Iran while Ahmoudenitard is still breathing.
It runs deeper than the moron installed as figurehead odf the state.

They should be isolated until the nuts are taken out of action.

Of course Hussein Obama will rush in there without preconditions and add to the great Iranian works of the anti-Semite Jimmy Carter. As Hussein said, you don't punish them by not talking to them.

It will be an interesting four years with the Diaper Patrol and Clinton Retreads having the reigns.
 
It is the topic. You've just already come to the conclusion that he hates Israel because they're Jews. If all you want is a confirmation of your pre-drawn conclusion perhaps you shouldn't be posting in the Breaking News section.

Reverand Hellhound...WELCOME good sir...this very fine pre-dawn.
 
Last edited:
Reverand Hellhound...WELCOME good sir...this very fine pre-dawn.




:lol: what is it 9:30 In TN? that would be like noon for me. :mrgreen:



that said, no one has answered:


what if Isreal stated it was "not feasible" for Iran to live?
 
Last edited:
that said, no one has answered:


what if Isreal stated it was "not feasible" for Iran to live?

So did you find a direct quote about this mess, or are you just believing the OP for no reason?
 
How do you suggest solving the problem of retards launching rockets at your people? Play paddy-cakes with them?
Boy you're becoming very astute about liberals, you got them pegged. Obama's probably having the paddy-cake briefing assembled as we speak. :mrgreen:
 
It runs deeper than the moron installed as figurehead odf the state.

They should be isolated until the nuts are taken out of action.

Of course Hussein Obama will rush in there without preconditions and add to the great Iranian works of the anti-Semite Jimmy Carter. As Hussein said, you don't punish them by not talking to them.

It will be an interesting four years with the Diaper Patrol and Clinton Retreads having the reigns.

The amount of facts in this post supporting your argument is simply staggering...
 
This is utter madness, I don't know why everyone is feeding Maximus. This Euro troll has moved the posts.

Firstly, Maximus you are talking about private organisations known as political parties. Granted they can weed out or select candiates, but this is not the equivalent of a Grand Ayatolla approving of candidates regardless of their political party or beliefs.

Secondly even if the United States Supreme Court can be compared to the Grand Ayatolla, in the sense that they are both unelected positions their actual powers and procedures are very different. For example the Grand Ayatolla has absolute power to back or veto candidates. In contrast the United Supreme Court only has the power to veto the President elect if he or she does not meet the requirements or candidacy is invalid due to the requirements of the constitution.....

Thus, the US Supreme Court must follow procedure and cannot veto a Presidential candiate, or President elect merely because the Court rejects the political stance of that person. But this is a mute point, as there is a separation of powers in the US, that is not found in Iran.

Lastly your argument that Iran is just as democratic as the US, due to America's dominate two party system is the worst form of consequentialist analysis. Granted the GOP and the Democrats rule the political roost in America, in most Americans vote for either party, but last I checked America has a wide range of independents and minor parties. Granted, Americans may not vote for these parties out of a cynical view that voting for such parties is a wasted vote, but this is cultural issue. If the majority of Americans changed their culture in relation to voting I am very sure that more independents and minors could enter into the political arena.

Now if we contrast this with Iran, there is not a culture per se, that prevents liberal or independents from becoming a viable political option, but rather, there is a real physical power known as the Grand Ayatolla that prevents such an opportunity from occurring.

Lastly Maximus, your efforts to defend that claim that Iran is just as democratic as America is laughable. You deliberately ignored the 'free' component of the definition of democracy, and when you were shown up, you moved the goal posts; by questioning the democratic process of the political parties themselves, which I would like to remind you are private organizations which have their own internal rules...... In fact can you tell me about the internal party rules or political parties that are part of the European Parliament or the Parliament of Norway?

Thus if we look at the public sphere, as opposed to the internal workings of private organizations that take part in elections, we can see that the actual public election of Presidential candidates as opposed to a party selecting their candidate, we see that the United States is definitely more free and open in relation to its elections.

Lastly, Maxmius why don't you share with us the European Union Commission on Human Rights' or Amnesty International or the UN's Human Rights Organizations view of Iranian elections as opposed to US elections? In fact why don't you make it really interesting and post other NGO's views of Iranian Elections as I am just dying to see their defenses of Iran's FREE and OPEN Presidential and Parliamentary elections......

Right Maximus....

Firstly you are engaging in intellectual honesty. You introduced the point about the freedom of selection and opinion within the US party system as method of analogy to compare the US democracy to Iran. Don't try to squirm out of that one.


Secondly, the US constitution provides a (for the most part) secular frame work which limits and controls the operations of government. That is the US constitution and the Supreme Court are the means (in part) in achieving the end which is a free republic, that is designed to protect man from government. Thus the constitution and Supreme Court serve a procedural purpose.

Now getting back to the difference between the Supreme Court and the Ayatollah. The US supreme court may reject Presidential candidates or the Presidential Elect due to procedural aspects, designed to protect fair and open elections and protect the constitution. This is a rational theory, not a theological reason as in Iran.

Secondly, the US Supreme Court does not prevent candidates from competing in elections, merely because the Supreme Court does not like a candidates stance on abortion, drugs, taxes, or religion. The Supreme Courts' ruling's are procedural.

Now in Iran the Ayatollah filters candiate's before the election not on the basis of legalistic or procedural criteria, but rather on the basis of whether or not the candidate is theologically sound. Thus the the restrictions are not merely secular-legalistic grounds, but rather the restrictions are pro-active and take root in theocratic grounds. Thus Iranian elections are not free..... In essence the Iranian electorate, can chose any colour they like as long it is black. How can that be free?

Next point, if the Ayatollah can make rules in regards to the President and Parliament, then he is a sovereign or ruler. The United States Supreme Court is part of the seperate branch of Government. By virtue as a Court it cannot create rules or laws, but only apply pre-existing rules or interpret the Constitution. Thus if someone wants to change the rules in America, they cannot merely do it by their own will, but rather the change in the constitution must be made a referendum put to the people. Interesting how democratic that system can be compared to the Iranian system.

Next point you never directly claimed that Iran is just as democratic as the UK or Europe or the US, but you might as well have. First you claimed that Iran is a democracy, but then you moved the goal posts when other posters picked up on the 'free' part. Then you tried to analyze the internal workings of US political parties as a way demonstrating the lack of freedom within the US system of democracy. In doing so you are trying to make the US system look less free and thus less democratic. This is a negative approach, but the net effect is to equate Iran's democracy to the US's. Nice try.

Case closed. Next thread.
 
You are saying contradicting things in this post.. First you say the rank and file members of a party decide who represents the party, then you say anyone can represent the party as presidential candidate.

How is that contradictory?

Besides I am not just going to take your word on all this, please provide the source or some proof of this. That the party in no way can weed out presidential candidates, who wants to stand for their party, ahead of the primary.

YOU are the one who made the claim that the party heiarchies screen primary candidates. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
 
so did you stop beating up black people and raping livestock yet?



(sorry for the colorful example of a "loaded question")

How is "did you find a direct quote yet" a loaded question? Just because we both know the answer doesn't mean it's loaded.
 
How is that contradictory?



YOU are the one who made the claim that the party heiarchies screen primary candidates. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

Ive already answered a thread of yours which was 99% alike to this one..

Again... I never said it was so, you are the one claiming that your statement is fact, not me, I am saying that I actually do not know for sure, but that probability and logic dictates that I am right about this. So the proof is up to you.. Ive asked you several times, so please, can you not just clarify this issue?

I claim that the party leaderhsip/a party committee/something party related(not electorate), decides if a candidate can nominate them self under the party and run in the primaries for their party.

You are saying that anyone can run for whatever party he wants, even with a completely different platform, without any approval of that party.
 
Ive already answered a thread of yours which was 99% alike to this one..

Again... I never said it was so, you are the one claiming that your statement is fact, not me, I am saying that I actually do not know for sure, but that probability and logic dictates that I am right about this. So the proof is up to you.. Ive asked you several times, so please, can you not just clarify this issue?

Actually, you are the one who made the intial claim that the party leadership has the right to deny someone the right to participate in the primary. Logic does NOT dictate you are right about this given that all you have to do to participate in the primary (at least in Georgia) is show up at the Board of Elections during the qualifying period, present your signatures or pay the nominal fee, and show that you are legally qualified for the office. That is all.

I claim that the party leaderhsip/a party committee/something party related(not electorate), decides if a candidate can nominate them self under the party and run in the primaries for their party.

You are mis-using the word "nominate". Anyone can run in the primary. The party voters then nominate the candidate of their choice for the general. Your statements show a basic lack of knowledge of the US electoral system.

You are saying that anyone can run for whatever party he wants, even with a completely different platform, without any approval of that party.

You can run in the PRIMARY, yes. I didn't say anything about the general. That is up to the primary voters.
 
This guy is an elected official after all. He is saying whatever he believes his electors want to hear. And that is the scary thing.
 
Actually, you are the one who made the intial claim that the party leadership has the right to deny someone the right to participate in the primary. Logic does NOT dictate you are right about this given that all you have to do to participate in the primary (at least in Georgia) is show up at the Board of Elections during the qualifying period, present your signatures or pay the nominal fee, and show that you are legally qualified for the office. That is all.

YES. FOR OFFICE. BUT NOT FOR A ****ING PARTY.. WHY DO YOU KEEP MIXING THESE UP TO SPIN THE REALITY?
And thats why I also said, its not possible to get elected president without being a candidate for either the Republican or democrat party.
How much spin and confusion do you want to put on this issue for it to suit your "American dream".. Yes, dream, not reality.


You are mis-using the word "nominate". Anyone can run in the primary. The party voters then nominate the candidate of their choice for the general. Your statements show a basic lack of knowledge of the US electoral system.

You can run in the PRIMARY, yes. I didn't say anything about the general. That is up to the primary voters.

I dont believe for a second you can run in the primary for the republicans or democrats without some form of approval by the party.. That just wouldn't make sense. Then an enemy of the republicans with a completely different platform who is against all republican policies can run under the republican party in their primary and just say whetever pleases the republican voters to get nominated to run as their candidate. Thats not how it works, the parties couldnt possibly allow that.. There is some kind of process within the parties to accept candidates who want to run for the party.

Anyone can nominate themselves ad independents, yes, but not under a party..


You are the one who is saying your version is definitive, I am just saying my version seems most logic and likely, I am saying I might be wrong, because I have not seen how this actually works, nor any papers saying how it works, or official explanation. You are the one who insist your version is fact, so you better prove it.
 
It sure looks suspicious if you won't even post the full dialogue or even the full quote.




You do realize that I know if you actually had something to prove me wrong, you would have posted it. Instead you are relying on this deflective nonsense. :2wave:
 
You do realize that I know if you actually had something to prove me wrong, you would have posted it. Instead you are relying on this deflective nonsense. :2wave:

Lets play your game.

At a news conference, Ahmadinejad said the fighting in Gaza has been "a great lesson for all," saying it shows "the absolute defeat and desperation of this (Israeli) regime."

He says that "even for the supporters of the occupying regime and its leaders, it has become clear that the continuation of the Zionist regime's life in the region is not feasible."

From this quote, do you think he wants to kill every Israeli and push them into the sea?
 
Back
Top Bottom