Fraud in Iran elections and US Primary elections

[Ziggy Stardust]

First off, the huge fallacy: OF COURSE you can compare things that aren't exactly the same! Just because two things have some differences doesn't mean the similarities disappear.

This isn't what I said, and you damned well know it, moron. You see, when you compare different things, you need to frame the comparison in a way that actually makes logical sense. That means controlling for the differences in some fashion. And remember, controlling =/= ignoring. You can't ignore the differences to focus in on a perceived similarity; any conclusions from that are borderline meaningless.

You have yet to prove that the Iranian elections and the US primaries have any parallels worthy of the comparison you originally made.

You make it sound widespread. Only was one criminal arson was confirmed. Criminals have targeted campaign offices in American elections, ranging from throwing stones through the windows to arson.

I expect proof that any Ron Paul offices have been the targets of arson during this US primary cycle.

Where's your evidence that it had anything to do with the election?
Iran's web filter sometimes blocks terms like "women's rights". This is something I'd like to see change in that country. But the filter is like that independently of the election. Similarly, they block foreign propaganda in Iran regularly.

Are you suggesting it's just a coincidence that these happened during the election cycle? The jamming and blocking that occurred was not the normal "background" filtering. During the day of the election, mobile phone signals and internet access were outright blocked in some parts of the country.

Prove it.

This is well reported.

I talked about stats. You still haven't provided any reasoning as to why the excuses are "flimsy".

So was I. Dismissing statistical evidence is "flimsy" when the numbers aren't addressed, and you simply appeal to vague notions of, "Well, maybe THIS happened ..."

Dr. Maddow's report discusses votes not being counted in Maine.

To the tune of millions? And, even if this is true, this does not invalidate the fact that none of the other items I've listed are occurring, does it?

6) BANNING OF PRO-OPPOSITION ORGANIZATIONS, FOLLOWED BY STREET RIOTS

I never said these happened before the election. Don't put words in my mouth. The entire point is that the political situation and reaction to the elections in Iran was COMPLETELY different than that in the US primary cycle. Thus your comparison was invalid. Prove otherwise.

Scientists look at the whole picture, not a single piece of one-sided stats or other propaganda, before coming to a conclusion.

Shove it up your ass. Not only am I not relying on "propaganda," but this does nothing to address your extraordinarily idiotic claim that, "It is dangerous to just use evidence as your standard because you can probably find evidence for just about anything." Do you have any idea what the word 'evidence' even means?

I'm asking you to honestly participate in the discussion by familiarizing yourself with the other side.

And I have done so. All you have done is dismissed the other side as "propaganda" and "butt-hurt losers." Do you really call that honest debate?

The authors of the statistical analysis said they found no evidence for fraud at anything above the local level.

So how does this discount the possibility of fraud above the local level?

A statistical analysis shows the possibility of fraud... but the people who were actually there, from all parties and many walks of life, didn't raise any concerns. If there was widespread fraud, wouldn't one of them have said something?

Why would this be the case? If the numbers suggest fraud above the local level, why would the apparent lack of it at the local level in any way be a cause to dismiss those numbers?

He was referring to the Interior Ministry's announcement that "excess voting" had occurred in 48 small cities. The Ministry spokesman had explained that local turnouts exceeding 100% had been more common this time because turnout had been extremely high; this did not mean fraud had occurred. Moreover, the spokesman had added, the outcome would have been the same even if fraud had occurred – in fact, even if all 3 million votes cast in those 48 small cities had been fraudulent.

So the voting numbers are irregular, and the government (which has a vested interest in the results), issues a statement saying, "We EXPECTED these irregularities", so we just ignore the numbers altogether? This would be all well and good if it weren't for all of the other factors that I listed in my previous post. Even if the Ministry spokesman is telling the truth, the other actions of the regime vis-a-vis the election are enough to cast doubt on taking government spokesman at face value.

[I snipped all the parts about you talking about your perception of Ahmadinejad because it is utterly irrelevant and I don't give a shit what your opinion of the Iranian government is one way or the other.]

The "fishy" numbers are the next level up.... which are simply the sum of the local numbers. The arithmetic can be easily confirmed; any idiot can add a bunch of numbers.

There is no room for manipulation in addition.

By this logic, election fraud is mathematically impossible. None of this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election wasn't rigged (and no, it doesn't show that it WAS rigged, either, but that's not the point I have ever been trying to make), it simply shows a different interpretation of the same data. But, guess what? Those aren't the only fishy numbers. There are plenty of other odd statistical anomalies in the Iranian election.

Anyway, the point I have been trying to make from the beginning: the numbers themselves don't prove anything. This is obvious. However, there are a LOT of rather bizarre trends in the election numbers, defying standard mathematical and HISTORICAL voting trends in the country. When you combine the extraordinarily low odds of these numbers occurring purely by chance with other extant factors (jamming of mobile communications and blocking of social media sites in the days leading up the election, pre-election violence, the questionable independence of the various branches of the Iranian government from the executive, the inordinate influence of the religious clerics, the government response to the protests, etc. etc.), they become more difficult to ignore. And nothing about the situation is at all similar to the 2012 US primaries, because NONE OF THIS STUFF IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY.

Ziggy, you lose,

My God, you are stupid. Why don't you actually address the main point of my argument, which I have elaborated on more than once? I can post it again ....

Honestly, it does not matter whether there WAS outright fraud or not, or how strong the [statistical] evidence is. The point is, the situation is ENTIRELY different from the situation with Ron Paul, and it takes amazing mental gymnastics to equate them in any way, shape, or form, or to dismiss the Iranian protesters as simply being butt-hurt losers.

The onus, here, is on YOU to prove that the 2009 Iranian elections and the 2012 US primaries are comparable situations. You have not done so, for reasons I have already illuminated.

and if you were honest enough to actually look at the links the first, second, or third time I posted them, we wouldn't have had to go this far.

It really takes some gall to call me dishonest, considering how prettily you avoid the main point of my argument.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also, still waiting for you to respond to this. I know it's not technically relevant, but I'd like you to address it, because I think you are making a lot of assumptions about where I am coming from, here.

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Turns out other people don't always share your political concerns, not in America, and certainly not in Iran.

You don't even know what my political concerns are you lying little weasel. I never even made a statement in this thread about Ron Paul or the political race. I only posted because you were saying monumentally stupid things without a shred of evidence, and others have call you out for it as well as I. Seriously, it boggles my mind how dishonest you are being. You accuse me of ignoring your rebuttals, which themselves were just ignoring my arguments and evidence entirely, then smugly pass it all off as some vague political bias on my part? Tell me right now what my political concerns are, and how this is any way impacts the points I made, or fuck off.

[SirNitram]

PS, Nitram, I'm waiting for a retraction and apology from you too for your dishonest trolling and attempts to use force to derail the discussion. I know the green name gives you immunity, but might doesn't make you right. Never has, never will.

Given I was not trolling nor attempting to derail the discussion.. You can wait until the sun goes out.