What is the metric of success for the Iraqi elections?

[Thirteen]

Then, by all means you are entitled to your opinion.  As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea.  However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best. 

i thought you needed voters for a successful democratic system... i guess i was wrong though

anyways i've already heard of all the foul ups that this election has...there were roughly 1000 candidates, people turned away....blah blah blah this just adds to my argument that these people are very brave in what they did, which is something you cannot debate because the bravest thing you have to endure is not getting carpal tunnel syndrome while cutting and pasting clips from the news

[Ant]

blah blah blah this just adds to my argument that these people are very brave in what they did, which is something you cannot debate because the bravest thing you have to endure is not getting carpal tunnel syndrome while cutting and pasting clips from the news

So is you argument that the Iiraqis who voted were brave or that the election was successful.  If it is the former, I've already stated I agree with you!  Again, I'm not trying to harm your ego when I say I suggest you actually read my posts, if you continue to just write stuff without reading there really is no point to having a discussion with you and there is no reason for you to argue that your arguements are actually superior. 

You can't have a debate unless you actually respond to what the other side has said.  After telling you to read my original post about three times now, and even paraphrasing it for you, you respond again, proving beyond a doubt that you haven't actually read my post (or if you have don't remember what I write long enough to write a response that actually refute the points I made.)  I said a long time ago, I don't dispute their bravery and essentially you end telling me I can't argue with you about their bravery.  I'm not arguing with you about their bravery and I never have.  If I was a typical ToT asshole, I'd write a long rant now about how you got sonned, instead I'll just ask politely that if in the future you want to discuss a topic with me you try to respond to what I've actually written instead of making things up and then debating things I've never even said.

[Thirteen]

blah blah blah this just adds to my argument that these people are very brave in what they did, which is something you cannot debate because the bravest thing you have to endure is not getting carpal tunnel syndrome while cutting and pasting clips from the news

So is you argument that the Iiraqis who voted were brave or that the election was successful.  If it is the former, I've already stated I agree with you!  Again, I'm not trying to harm your ego when I say I suggest you actually read my posts, if you continue to just write stuff without reading there really is no point to having a discussion with you and there is no reason for you to argue that your arguements are actually superior. 

You can't have a debate unless you actually respond to what the other side has said.  After telling you to read my original post about three times now, and even paraphrasing it for you, you respond again, proving beyond a doubt that you haven't actually read my post (or if you have don't remember what I write long enough to write a response that actually refute the points I made.)  I said a long time ago, I don't dispute their bravery and essentially you end telling me I can't argue with you about their bravery.  I'm not arguing with you about their bravery and I never have.  If I was a typical ToT asshole, I'd write a long rant now about how you got sonned, instead I'll just ask politely that if in the future you want to discuss a topic with me you try to respond to what I've actually written instead of making things up and then debating things I've never even said.

seing as voters are THE essential part, probably the sole thing that HAS to exist if a democracy is to exist ... yes it was a success...you're complaining that there wasn't enough time to get candidates right, people don't know who they voted for.... that's all secondary and that will be sorted out...but to take a group of people that never experienced something like this before....who were under threatening situations...and that have no idea what the outcome will be that right there is the success of the elections... i'm answering the questions that was posed in the topic of this thread, now if you want to sit there and elaborate and elaborate after each post i make....i can do that too

the iraqi's probably voted for a talking horse for the local school janitor... for all i know....i wasn't there...so yes, they might have a talking horse present when they try to set up Iraq's interim constitution...that would indicate that the Democracy was not a success but until all the smoke settles...what we have here is a great voctory against all sorts of nay sayers

[Ant]

seeing as voters are THE essential part, probably the sole thing that HAS to exist if a democracy is to exist ... yes it was a success...you're complaining that there wasn't enough time to get candidates right, people don't know who they voted for.... that's all secondary and that will be sorted out...but to take a group of people that never experienced something like this before....who were under threatening situations...and that have no idea what the outcome will be that right there is the success of the elections... i'm answering the questions that was posed in the topic of this thread, now if you want to sit there and elaborate and elaborate after each post i make....i can do that too

the iraqi's probably voted for a talking horse for the local school janitor... for all i know....i wasn't there...so yes, they might have a talking horse present when they try to set up Iraq's interim constitution...that would indicate that the Democracy was not a success but until all the smoke settles...what we have here is a great voctory against all sorts of nay sayers

Again you have a hard time reading my posts.  Let me directly requote my initial response:

If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.

Then I reminded you again in another post:

[by all means you are entitled to your opinion.  As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea.  However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best.

I never said you aren't entitled to your opinion.  I'm not arguing about your right to you opinion, I'm arguing about the strength of your opinion.  Notice the part where I said, "I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best."  So yes, you agree that 50% of the voters didn't know they were voting for a national assembly, and a majority of the voters didn't even know who the candidates, and it appears that in your opinion none of that matters.  All that matters for this to be considered a success is that people showed up.  That is the only argument you have ever made.   I don't know what else your metric could be at this point except something like:

"As long as people show up to vote, nothing else matters, and an election should be considered a success."

To which I tell you for a final time, by all means you are entitled to your opinion, but your not entitled to demanding your opinion is in fact correct. So again, if that is your opinion, I would suggest you are setting the bar rather low, and if we extended your metric accross the board to every nation, democracy would be in shambles.  Yes the question was give your opinions, but the point of discussion is to debate opinions.  All you ended up doing in the end is say "hey you asked for my opinion I gave it to you."   

[Thirteen]

seeing as voters are THE essential part, probably the sole thing that HAS to exist if a democracy is to exist ... yes it was a success...you're complaining that there wasn't enough time to get candidates right, people don't know who they voted for.... that's all secondary and that will be sorted out...but to take a group of people that never experienced something like this before....who were under threatening situations...and that have no idea what the outcome will be that right there is the success of the elections... i'm answering the questions that was posed in the topic of this thread, now if you want to sit there and elaborate and elaborate after each post i make....i can do that too

the iraqi's probably voted for a talking horse for the local school janitor... for all i know....i wasn't there...so yes, they might have a talking horse present when they try to set up Iraq's interim constitution...that would indicate that the Democracy was not a success but until all the smoke settles...what we have here is a great voctory against all sorts of nay sayers

Again you have a hard time reading my posts.  Let me directly requote my initial response:

If thats the highest you set the bar for achievement no wonder Republicans still support Bush.

Then I reminded you again in another post:

[by all means you are entitled to your opinion.  As I said in my first post, success is a subjective idea.  However, I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best.

I never said you aren't entitled to your opinion.  I'm not arguing about your right to you opinion, I'm arguing about the strength of your opinion.  Notice the part where I said, "I would suggest that had your metric been applied across the board and extended to other nations the long-term success of a democratic system would be fragile at best."  So yes, you agree that 50% of the voters didn't know they were voting for a national assembly, and a majority of the voters didn't even know who the candidates, and it appears that in your opinion none of that matters.  All that matters for this to be considered a success is that people showed up.  That is the only argument you have ever made.   I don't know what else your metric could be at this point except something like:

"As long as people show up to vote, nothing else matters, and an election should be considered a success."

To which I tell you for a final time, by all means you are entitled to your opinion, but your not entitled to demanding your opinion is in fact correct. So again, if that is your opinion, I would suggest you are setting the bar rather low, and if we extended your metric accross the board to every nation, democracy would be in shambles.  Yes the question was give your opinions, but the point of discussion is to debate opinions.  All you ended up doing in the end is say "hey you asked for my opinion I gave it to you."   

like i said, voting is the key component in a democracy...take out rep and dem parties....take out fancy campaign slogans and commercials... and what you pretty much have is the iraq election.. you have people voting for people they think would do the best job

it is a little primitive but who's to say taht out present version of democracy hasn't bastardized the very foundation it was built on... all the complaining you're doing would point to the fact that not even our election was a success because you've stated a milliontime that people didn't know what they were voting for....idiots were voting...there were scandals....

so i think this very thing as people just going out and voting has happened and it applied across the board... ours was succesful to 51% of the populations point of view...and you haven't even let the votes tally in iraq and you're already complaining that it's nothing special

[Ant]

1.  Go back to the beginning of the American Democracy and read the federalist papers.  People were very well informed in our system.

2.  Take out the campaign slogans in our election, and yadda yadda, and you do not have the iraqi election where people voted for "who they thought would do the best job."  How the fuck did they vote for who they thought would do the best job, when 50% of the population thought they were voting for the president, and virtually they entire population had almost no knowledge of the candidates?  Are you fucking retarded? 

3.  I think there is a big difference between the average American not really grasping the issues and the average Iraqi not even knowng who the candidates were of that they were voting for a national assembly.  Dude fuck it... just stop talking unless you want to run for dumbest republican on this board. . 

[Thirteen]

1.  Go back to the beginning of the American Democracy and read the federalist papers.  People were very well informed in our system.

2.  Take out the campaign slogans in our election, and yadda yadda, and you do not have the iraqi election where people voted for "who they thought would do the best job."  How the fuck did they vote for who they thought would do the best job, when 50% of the population thought they were voting for the president, and virtually they entire population had almost no knowledge of the candidates?  Are you fucking retarded? 

3.  I think there is a big difference between the average American not really grasping the issues and the average Iraqi not even knowng who the candidates were of that they were voting for a national assembly.  Dude fuck it... just stop talking unless you want to run for dumbest republican on this board. . 

1st off the entire population didn't vote... don't try and hope on the bush bandwagon...secondly, you don't even know how many people voted so how do you know how many of those voters didn't know anything about the candidates? you're grabbing at air with your reasoning... when i use the amount of voters to back up my argument, you toss them out from lack of proof, but then you base your argument on the same voters... doesn't make much sense to me

now if they thought they were voting for president...weren't they still voting for the person they thought would do the best job? i mean this is basic logic....do you think they found out they were voting for people to write up thier laws and then looked back and said "oh shit... i voted for abdul jamar because he drove a taxi very well, but he doesn't know shit about writing documents....we're screwed!" also one of the shiite leaders is in the lead meaning that a majority of these people recognized one of the names and voted for that person...so seeing as there were roughtly 1000 candidates, you would lead people to believe that all these voters that knew nothing of these people just guessed and ended up picking the same guy? so there goes your whole "they didn't know the candidates theory out of the window"

and secondly, one misinformed voter is better than a different type of misinformed voter? they are both examples of the flaws of voting... just because the candidate got to lie, and talk trash about another candidate makes him better than a candidate we don't know about? you have some good reasoning

so you think it's far better to vote for groups of liars that bash each other than to vote for someone you don't know... they both seem equally stupid to me