- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Zeebra, I don't believe lud is fully correct. Parties can choose and reject their candidates in any way they see fit.
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:
So, full quote? Or no? Otherwise, the OP should be dismissed.
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!
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Though I must ask you my friend. why?
Are you calling the quote a lie?
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..
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..
This is basics of American Government that we learn in high school, man. ****'s common knowledge here.
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.
How do you suggest solving the problem of retards launching rockets at your people? Play paddy-cakes with them?Israel's invasion of Gaza shows again that it only knows how to use overwhelming military force to solve its problems.
Yes, but they cant just stand for whatever party they want without the consent of that party.
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..
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......
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..
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.
Right Maximus....
Firstly you are engaging in intellectual honesty. .
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?