Ahmadinejad "wins" Iran presidential election

[biggamer132]

Khameini basically said today that whatever happens from now on is the protestors' fault. I'm more than a little concerned.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Khomeini is dead for some time now.

Yeah. I keep getting those names confused.

And as already mentioned in this thread, Khamenei had already endorsed Ahmadinejad's victory before the official announcement..

I guess you didn't hear that he had officially called for an investigation due to Mousavi's continuing whining. Well, the investigation is now over.

If there was indeed fraud, Khamenei is part of it.

More sheer speculation on your part disguised as fact?

 

[luiz]

I guess you didn't hear that he had officially called for an investigation due to Mousavi's continuing whining. Well, the investigation is now over.

Which only makes it even more bizarre that he agreed upon an investigation after giving blessing to Ahmadinejad's victory (I repeat, before the official result was released).

Do you think anyone believes in that investigation? Not even Ahmadinejad's supporters do. If you actually believe there was a comprehensive and fair investigation, you are the only person on Earth.

More sheer speculation on your part disguised as fact?

Of course it is speculation. What do you expect, a signed confession? But the fact that he was so quick to endorse the results, even breaking the tradition and manifesting himself before the Guardian Coucil, is a strong suggestion that he was informed of the things going on (if there were things going on).

 

[Formaldehyde]

Which only makes it even more bizarre that he agreed upon an investigation after giving blessing to Ahmadinejad's victory (I repeat, before the official result was released).

Got a source for that allegation? I seem to remember him giving his blessing after it was announced that Ahmadinejad had won an overwhelming victory, not before. Or is it the fact that it wasn't yet "official", whatever that means? In most cases where it isn't a close election, one candidate is typically deemed to have won long before the final votes are actually counted.

But no, I don't find it bizarre in the least that he investigated the results given the amount of whining which has transpired. Doing just the opposite would have been "bizarre" given the circumstances.

Do you think anyone believes in that investigation? Not even Ahmadinejad's supporters do. If you actually believe there was a comprehensive and fair investigation, you are the only person on Earth.

I never claimed it was "comprehensive and fair", nor did I insinuate how many people might believe it. I merely stated it was now officially over. I suggest you learn how to tell the difference between what I post and the strawmen you inevitably try to erect.

Of course it is speculation. What do you expect, a signed confession? But the fact that he was so quick to endorse the results, even breaking the tradition and manifesting himself before the Guardian Coucil, is a strong suggestion that he was informed of the things going on (if there were things going on).

This sounds like something Oliver Stone would have said in JFK. But then again, that is true with most of the conjecture and speculation found in this thread.

 

[Miles Teg]

Hey Forma, what exactly would you ask for to prove that the elections were rigged? I mean, something that could actually be provided when the free media isn't allowed to leave their offices.

 

[JerichoHill]

CLASS WAR IRANI STYLE.

We have tried to analyse who voted for who demographically by considering the ethnicity, rural/urban, young/old, religious/less religious, but strangley we have hardly touched the major voting trend, class/income level. Actually in the early days of british democracy there was no other voting paradigm and still remains the dominant paradigm. The whole idea of left vs right mainly about the 'haves' versus the 'have nots'. So is ahamdi a righty or a lefty? Ask his very good mate chavez! Actually ahmadi economically speaking is a lefty. Mousavi/rafsanjani economically speaking are 'righty'.
Real populist lefties (like ahmadi) don't need to cheat because the majority are poor and as long as those poor people go out and vote they will do well.

'Rightys' on the hand can only count on the moneyed vote which is usually a minority (it is in iran). To win election fairly they need either for the poor vote to stay home (=low voter turnout/voter apathy) or to find some angle to seduce the poor vote away from the lefties with promises of a better life and so on. Given the vote turnout was 85% it is clear most of the poor vote did not stay home. The angle that mousavi tried in this election was to promise to reduce moral restrictions. Well this actually pulls the middle class vote more because they tend to be more pleasure orientated. The poor vote in Iran are not necessarily pulled by that so much because looser moral restrictions don't put food on the table.

Seducing poor people with promises can work but against a genuine populist lefty like ahmadi it is apt not to work very well. Just ask chavez.

Also given that populist ahmadi is apparently intent on helping the poor by cleaning the establishment of corruption which would very well mean rafsanjani is going to jail. It is clear to me that mousavi/rafsanjani could not accept an ahmadi win under any circumstances.

It is also clear that populist ahmadi could win the election very easily without cheating and even if he did lose it wouldn't worry him because he can always try again in the next election and have a good chance.

For mousavi and rafsanjani they are unlikely to win against a populist and losing the election is not an option. So they are the ones most likely to cheat. They are using a cheating method that doesn't use ballot boxes instead uses manipulation of opinion, disruption, pressure and noise.

To clear up one thing, Chave's lefty policies have left Ven with a massive budget problem forthcoming. Iran is suffering from 25% inflation which will destroy everyone's wealth in time if not checked (what happens when monetary policy is too expansionary, helps debtors short-term but hurts all long-term.

Further, your entire analysis is supposition without grounding in fact. No one has facts except those analyses done using confirmed 2005 data.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hey Forma, what exactly would you ask for to prove that the elections were rigged? I mean, something that could actually be provided when the free media isn't allowed to leave their offices.

Some actual evidence instead of sheer speculation?

And how about you? What do you want before you think it has been proven?

 

[Miles Teg]

Some actual evidence instead of sheer speculation?

Of course. Since Ahmadinejad has put every media outlet he doesn't own into a gimp suit, how would you expect people to get that?

In lieu of hard evidence, we're going with statistics (not rumors, statistics) The statistics scream vote fraud.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course. Since Ahmadinejad has put every media outlet he doesn't own into a gimp suit, how would you expect people to get that?

First, Ahmadinejad doesn't control the media. Khamenei does, whom Mosavi ostensibly still supports.

Second, there is no way in hell to effectively cover up massive voter fraud. There are simply too many people involved.

In lieu of hard evidence, we're going with statistics (not rumors, statistics) The statistics scream vote fraud.

'Statistics' are meaningless drivel with no basis in fact, which you readily admit you don't have...

 

[JerichoHill]

Is that right? Does the first and second Gulf War ring a bell? While the US obviously enjoys freedom of the press on most all occasions due to the First Amendment, there are a number of exceptions to that general rule, including the Vietnam protests and the 1968 DNC in particular.

And let's not forget about the Big Kahuna of protests, the 1968 DNC in Chicago where the press were also deliberately clubbed and driven away from covering the onging police atrocities, not to mention the shoot-to-kill orders handed down by Mayor Daley to quell the riots created by the assassination of Martin Luther King:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protests

http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/1553/c68chron.html

You can't very well cover a news story when the police essentially have permission to assassinate you if they wish.
[/url]

But...those stories carried the news that day and the days that followed and were well known. When has the USA been able to lock down all media and in recent times, internet access, for the vast majority of the nation? When have we had our cell phone networks knocked offline nationwide by the government? When has foreign press been elected or confined en masse?

 

[JerichoHill]

'Statistics' are meaningless drivel with no basis in fact, which you readily admit you don't have...

Umm. No. Most assuredly not. Statistical analysis is quite powerful.

 

[GinandTonic]

Khamenei implied in his speech today that the demonstrants are "enemies of Islam" - nice. He also said that the media reporting about this are owned by Zionists, even nicer

Thats nothing, we got top billing The Brits are aparently the most evil of the western forces despite not really having had anything to do with them for decades! Either the BBC are getting under Khamenei's skin or he's still wingeing about wanting the ambassadors residence back.

It's such a comic shot into the dark. The saddest thing is that the UK gov doesnt even care what he says since he's a total irellivance.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Formaldehyde
Got a source for that allegation? I seem to remember him giving his blessing after it was announced that Ahmadinejad had won an overwhelming victory, not before. Or is it the fact that it wasn't yet "official", whatever that means? In most cases where it isn't a close election, one candidate is typically deemed to have won long before the final votes are actually counted.
--It is tradition to wait 3 days before "blessing" the results in Iran. This has been covered extensively. It is known. How did you miss that?

I never claimed it was "comprehensive and fair", nor did I insinuate how many people might believe it. I merely stated it was now officially over. I suggest you learn how to tell the difference between what I post and the strawmen you inevitably try to erect.
--I sincerely doubt its over NOW. Maybe its the precipice, but I think one has to wait to see tomorrow's reaction / rallies to see if its...over.

--PS; Drop the know it all attitude.

 

[Miles Teg]

First, Ahmadinejad doesn't control the media. Khameni does, whom Mosavi ostensibly still supports.

Good for him. But Khamenei is an Ahmadinejad supporter.

Second, there is no way in hell to effectively cover up massive voter fraud. There are simply too many people involved.

Awfully easy if you discretely screen people for their political opinions, fire the ones you don't like.

'Statistics' are meaningless drivel with no basis in fact, which you readily admit you don't have...

I never thought I'd see you agree with George Bush!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Umm. No. Most assuredly not. Statistical analysis is quite powerful.

Not if the data is based on propaganda instead of facts. I would think you should know that. Or did you completely misunderstand what I wrote?

--It is tradition to wait 3 days before "blessing" the results in Iran. This has been covered extensively. It is known. How did you miss that?

That I haven't bothered to read all the rhetoric and sheer speculation in this voluminous thread?

So that's your evidence that the election was rigged? That he supposedly strayed for the first time from a longstanding convention? Hmm.

----I sincerely doubt its over NOW. Maybe its the precipice, but I think one has to wait to see tomorrow's reaction / rallies to see if its...over.

The outcome of the election is certainly over. The victor has been decided, and the election has been found to not contain sufficient fraud to overcome the number of votes, as determined by the actual ruler of the country. It's all in the article I posted. I suggest you read it for further details.

And I certainly hope that the Mousavi supporters, or anybody else who has been demonstrating, aren't going to openly defy the real leader of the country, because it could be very dangerous to their health to do so for obvious reasons. They don't exactly have freedom of speech so they can't keep teabagging when told to quit.

------PS; Drop the know it all attitude.

Hello, pot.

 

[JerichoHill]

That I haven't bothered to read all the rhetoric and sheer speculation in this voluminous thread? So that's overwhelming evidence that the election was rigged? That he supposedly strayed from a great convention which has supposedly always been followed?

Sigh.

Not in this thread. In the media reports. BBC covered it. Hell, it was on PressTV last Friday night.

(Referring to the usual wait three days rule)

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I hadn't heard that particular theory yet. Then again, I haven't exactly been glued to the tube awaiting the latest developments either.

I merely posted the article I saw when I logged on this morning, since I noticed nobody had mentioned it yet.

And no, I don't hold much significance even if he did break with a longstanding tradition. It could be easily explained as a reaction to the initial rioting and demonstrations. AFAIK, this is the first Iranian election where either has occurred.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's the first iranian election, period, for a long time

 

[Formaldehyde]

Um, no? You do realize Ahmadinejad got re-elected, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Iran

 

[Flying Pig]

Amend to meaningful election.