• 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

Zeebra, I don't believe lud is fully correct. Parties can choose and reject their candidates in any way they see fit.

THe rank and file, yes. The leadership, no. When I ran for commission, it was in direct opposition to the desires of the party leadership who had thier own handpicked candidate. There was nothing they could do to prevent me from going to the Board of Elections and file for the primary, which I won.
 
Or, it doesn't have to be about how many votes you have. You can just lose a few and then have your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court appoint you into the position. The minimum requirements to run is a lot of money. To win, it helps to have the right bank support you. We're a Corporocracy controlled by corporations. :mrgreen:

Some lefties can never accept that Bush won FLorida, won the 2000 election, and there was sound constitutional principles to the decision on the Supreme Court. BTW, his father only appointed two of those members.
 
Yes you can, and YES it has happened where people are nominated on a platform opposed to the party. David Duke ran for governor of LA a couple of decades back on a platform partly against the party and against the express wishes of the party leadership. He finished in second in the open primary and was the Republican representative in the general election!

I still want to see an official source that this is correct.. PLease provide it, or I simply will not believe it.

I am very doubtful as to the reality of this.. Not saying you are right or that I am wrong. But none have provided any credible evidence that what you say is right and what I say is wrong..
 
Hard to tell, but I doubt that he was really elected; I cannot see free and fair elections in any Islamic state..

MaxZee, I suspect that you agree with this Iranian nutcase.

Why do you suspect that? Just because I do not blindly follow a one sided perspective on Iran?

I actually do not support Iran at all, I strongly dislike their leader, but in all fairness he was democratically elected.
 
A man, I forget who it was, once said that the Western democracies were a lousy form of government.
And until someone comes up with a better one, we will have to use it and tolerate its shortcomings....

I am fed up with the further decline of western democracies we are experiencing now, related to the age of media and such.. Its just a bunch of clowning and trying to look good in front of the people. Lack of taking hard decisions and think in the long term and progressive.

It makes me sick to think that this is our political reality in 2009..

Ever seen the movie idiocracy? We are slowly getting there.
 
Last edited:
Funny about Iran and their relationship with Russia. I was just reading an end times prophecy that was suppose to be based on the Bible, who claimed that Gog and Magog were to be Russia and Iran, and they would destroy Israel.

Why in the world would Russia destroy Israel? They support Israel.. Many Jews in Israel are former Russians and Russia have a large Jewish population as well if I am not mistaken.
 
Zeebra, I don't believe lud is fully correct. Parties can choose and reject their candidates in any way they see fit. However, anyone can run for office if they meet some minimal requirements. As previously stated some states require that presidential candidates gain so many citizen signatures before they will be typed on a ballot, otherwise the list would be pages long and impractical. However, any candidate can be written-in in the provided blank spot. That means I could vote for myself and others could too if I met the requirements.

Thats what I actually thought.. And the reality is that no one running outside the Republican or Democrat party have any chance of winning..
I never actually said Iran was a better democracy than the US or even close, I am just saying the leader was democratically elected, which he was, and I put the situation on edge because the people here are so unwilling to look at things in realistic perspectives. They rather have an unhealthy singular way of looking at things, where they protect the US democracy as something fantastic, even though its not, and they refuse any notion that Iran in any way is democratic, even if it is in some ways democratic.

It would still be interesting to see an official source for how people go from nominating themselves to standing under the republican or democrat political platform, and what the procedures are for this. So I am still not saying that you or me are definetely right, I just want some clarification on that issue, because its very unclear at best.

The difference between Iran and the US is that there is no subjectivity to the US election process. The people vote and whoever has the most electoral votes wins, period.

Yes, but in this day and age that is closely tied with those delegates being represented by the voting in their state. Its very unlikely that any delegates will go against this tradition and just vote for whatever candidate they please, against the peoples vote.. Although in theory it can be so.

I am not critical towards this process at all, I am critical of the two party system in US politics, and the way elections are conducted in this day and age(with increased media influence)..

Our country has a two party system, not because its mandated but because the majority of americans agree the most with one or the other party.

Thats where I think you are wrong.. I think people are voting for the party they agree most with out of fear that the other party which they disagree with will be elected if they do not. Which is also a reason a third party will never be viable, because people know that the party they oppose will win if they switch their vote from the party which oppose it to a third party. Something drastic have to change for more than two parties in the US to ever happen, but if that happens, I believe it will be very unlikely that the US will ever go back to a two party system.
So in the end I think perhaps only say 50% of the total of people who vote for the democrats or the republicans actually strongly or mostly agree with their policies. And that the remaining just choose the best of the two out of fear that the one they hate most will get elected if they do not.

Overnight this could change and we could have 0, 1 or any number of viable parties. It all depends on how the people choose. No one is forced to vote for a particular party. Just because it happens that a two party system has evolved doesn't somehow mean its no longer a democracy.

This is where we disagree. I think it will NEVER change, and the US will always be a two party system, unless politics in the US is completely reformed or some kind of unlikely revolution happens..

Jesse Ventura, a former US wrestler has some incredibly valid and interesting points on the US two party system(and US politics in general), I suggest you take a look at it if you don't know what I am talking about, that guy is actually very smart.

Iran is not a democracy. The people vote but their vote is worthless because nothing gurantees that the elected person will get in. Moreover, elected officials are still subserviant to the mullahs. For example, if 100% of the country voted for adjimihad then he isn't guranteed to get appointed because a small group of people decide, not the voters. The people have ZERO say. They just get to say who they would PREFER but the gov't is under no obligation to oblige. This is unlike the US where if a person, no matter what party or affiliation, receives a majority of electoral votes then he will be the new president. Neither the SCOTUS or congress can change this.

I still think Iran is a form of democracy, because their parliament is also democratically elected in a procedure which is way more free than the presidential election. But even so, the president is also democratically elected..
I am not really sure as to the validity of your point that if he is elected by a majority that he also have to be approved after the election. I think only the final candidates have to be approved, and whoever is elected of them is the winner and will become president.. But then again, I am really no expert on Irans elections processes, and probably neither are you or anyone else on this forum.


Now if you wanted to point out how america isn't a democracy then you would have some valid points if you discussed the electoral voting system. This is why the US is actually a constitutional republic. But, as others have said repeatedly, the term "liberal democracy" as used by the US and other western countries isn't defined by voting alone.

I am not saying the US isn't a democracy. I am just saying all western democracies, including the one in the US, and most of those in Europe are quite dysfunctional, and I personally wish for great reforms of our political systems, not only to address those problems but also several other problems, such as corruption, the election process, separation of media and politics, and fixing the party system, and more.
 
Or, it doesn't have to be about how many votes you have. You can just lose a few and then have your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court appoint you into the position. The minimum requirements to run is a lot of money. To win, it helps to have the right bank support you. We're a Corporocracy controlled by corporations. :mrgreen:

This is one of the huge problems of the US political system and election process which have to be fixed. It is almost non existent in Europe, and one of the few flaws of the democratic system that only applies to the US and mostly not in Europe.. But then again, Italy elected Silvio Berlusconi who is the richest man in Italy and have control of 90% of the media. So we do have related problems.
 
Not necessarily. Threads on DP are changeable things and as long as the conversation is productive they should go on, even if they don't have to do with the OP. Even if someone in the thread is doing the intellectual equivalent of shoving their fingers in their ears and saying, "Nuh uh, nuh uh, I'm not listening!" like Zeebra is doing.

That's why I said the OP should be ignored.

Though I must ask you my friend. why?


Are you calling the quote a lie?

Because all that is quoted is "not feasible". It is incredibly easy to distort the meaning of something someone said when you're just quoting "not feasible". Why would she quote just those two words if he actually said it? Moreover, we saw this distortion in the "wipe Israel of the map" quote, so I find it suspicious for him to say something like that again, and considering that this is such a similar statement, there's a better chance that it's a distortion.

Now I must ask you: why do you believe the OP right of the bat, and don't ask for a direct quote for confirmation?
 
I am very doubtful as to the reality of this.. Not saying you are right or that I am wrong. But none have provided any credible evidence that what you say is right and what I say is wrong..

This is basics of American Government that we learn in high school, man. ****'s common knowledge here.
 
I still want to see an official source that this is correct.. PLease provide it, or I simply will not believe it.

I am very doubtful as to the reality of this.. Not saying you are right or that I am wrong. But none have provided any credible evidence that what you say is right and what I say is wrong..

And you have provided any evidence that the party heirarchy can disqualify a candidate on a whim. Do you know where candidates apply for a party primary? At a GOVERNMENT elections board, NOT a party office. If what you say is true, I would not have been allowed the contest the primary nine years ago in my county commission district. I will TRY to find an official source, but remember, in the US, everything is done on a state-by-state basis.
 
This is basics of American Government that we learn in high school, man. ****'s common knowledge here.

Prove it.. That anyone even a hardcore democrat(who hates all the policies of the republican party) can stand for candidate in the republican party without the republican party approval.

Ps. I might seem like an American but I am not :lol:
 
And you have provided any evidence that the party heirarchy can disqualify a candidate on a whim. Do you know where candidates apply for a party primary? At a GOVERNMENT elections board, NOT a party office. If what you say is true, I would not have been allowed the contest the primary nine years ago in my county commission district. I will TRY to find an official source, but remember, in the US, everything is done on a state-by-state basis.

Yes, but they cant just stand for whatever party they want without the consent of that party.

You are just mixing things up here for the sake of trying to be right..
 
Israel's invasion of Gaza shows again that it only knows how to use overwhelming military force to solve its problems.
How do you suggest solving the problem of retards launching rockets at your people? Play paddy-cakes with them?
 
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......
 
Yes, but they cant just stand for whatever party they want without the consent of that party.

You are just mixing things up here for the sake of trying to be right..

You can run in the PRIMARY and it is up to the voters in the primary to decide who represents the party in the general. I know because I have actually GONE through this process at a local level election. Several of my ideas about policy went AGAINST the county party platform. I still won the primary and though I lost the general, I was able to get in and enact CHANGES in the local party platform. This happens all over the country. Sorry you can't accept the fact that the US system does't live up to your preconceived notions of it.
 
This is utter madness, I don't know why everyone is feeding Maximus. This Euro troll has moved the posts. .

You are just absurd, and your misunderstandings of everything I say stems clearly from a narrow perspective, rather than a wide understanding of things and a will to listen.

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.

I never said it was the same thing.. But it is somewhat comparable. I mentioned it since someone said "Iran is not democratic because the guardian council weeds out presidential candidates".

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......

It is comparable since the Ayatollah and the Islamic part of the republic of Iran protects the Islamic foundation of the nation, just like the supreme court protects the foundation(constitution) in the US..
However, they are not EXACTLY the same, I never claimed that.

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.

As far as I know without being an expert on Iran, the Ayatollah can only make sure the rules of Islam is applied to policies conducted by the parliament and the president of 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.

Thats ridiculous, I never said Iran is just as democratic as the US. I said Iran is a form of democracy, but I also said the US and European democracies have their own dysfunctions. Thats not saying that Iran is even close to as democratic as those, its just also admitting the flaws of our own democracies for the sake of not being over biased like many people in this thread are.

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.

You can easily compare the Aytollah as a form of pope with political power equal to the president. He is there to protect Islam in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those things you mention in the paragraph is not because of the Ayatollah making Iran non liberal and narrow, but rather because Islam is.

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?

Again, I think your view here is quite distorted, I never said that Iran is just as democratic as the US. But it is correct, unlike you(probably) I also question the democratic process in the US and Europe, and often find the answers quite laughable and the system quite corrupted.

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.

The process in both the US and Europe is quite free, but also quite corrupted, and has lately become quite unpolitical in nature.

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......

I never said Irans elections were anywhere close to good, I am just saying that both the parliament and their leader is democratically elected. Also I am saying that Iran is a form of democracy.
 
You can run in the PRIMARY and it is up to the voters in the primary to decide who represents the party in the general. I know because I have actually GONE through this process at a local level election. Several of my ideas about policy went AGAINST the county party platform. I still won the primary and though I lost the general, I was able to get in and enact CHANGES in the local party platform. This happens all over the country. Sorry you can't accept the fact that the US system does't live up to your preconceived notions of it.

Whats the problem with just showing me the party laws on this that says the party have to allow anyone(even hostiles) who nominate themselves under the party platform to stand in their primary round of 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.
 
Whats the problem with just showing me the party laws on this that says the party have to allow anyone(even hostiles) who nominate themselves under the party platform to stand in their primary round of elections..

Because everything in the US is so decentralized. Did you know that where I lived, you register for primaries at the Board of Elections and NOT at the party headquarters? Why can't YOU provide the "evidence" that party leaders have the authority to disqualify primary candidates - as you are the one who initially made this claim.
 
Because everything in the US is so decentralized. Did you know that where I lived, you register for primaries at the Board of Elections and NOT at the party headquarters? Why can't YOU provide the "evidence" that party leaders have the authority to disqualify primary candidates - as you are the one who initially made this claim.

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.
 
Right Maximus....

Firstly you are engaging in intellectual honesty. .

Yet you are not even addressing any of the things I wrote in my response to you, so I consider it so that we have nothing to talk about, that we are basically in agreements.
Your last thread doesn't really say anything....

:confused:
 
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.

No, I might not as well have, that would not be my opinion. I still think Iran is a democracy, a form of democracy, just like the UK, France and the US is also a form of democracy, and that all those forms of democracy are very different forms of democracy.
The US and European systems are less free than we like to believe.
I am not trying to equate Irans democracy with the US...
 
Back
Top Bottom