Election, shmelection

[Gary Sisco]

Apparently without irony:

Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, says he has no plans to resign despite a sweeping election victory by opposition parties.

When asked by The Wall Street Journal whether he would resign or retire, Musharraf said: "No, not yet. We have to move forward in a way that we bring about a stable democratic government to Pakistan."

[Scott Dolan]

I had a good laugh a couple of weeks back when Pervez The Worm said that he would abide by the decision of the the people.

Number of surprises here: 0

[Gary Sisco]

He is.

Just, uh, not right now.

Later, after there's a stable democracy that elects Him, like it's supposed to.

[Scott Dolan]

Life is hard all over when people won't simply bend to your will.

[Uli]

I did not see Bush resign when he lost majority in congress.

[Monte Smith]

Evidently, and this is a problem you'd think they'd have seen coming, there is no legal mechanism that removes a president as a result of a parliamentary election. (Uli makes a good point, there isn't such a mechanism in our system, either). Pakistan is a nation of men and not laws. I've heard comment from the opposition parties (yesterday's victors) that one thing the parliament can do, if they can form a coalition, is restore the supreme court judges that Musharef fired, who can then in turn impeach the president. But until then, because the place is a mess, it is not accurate to say that Musharef is remaining in office in defiance of the law. He's remaining in office in defiance of the anarchy.

[Gary Sisco]

Probably no legal mechanism in a parliamentary system for a military coup, either. So what?

One of the funniest things in Female Clinton's campaign so far was when she talked about "President" Musharef's "running for re-election."

Hell, Papa Doc was a "president," too. So was Baby Doc. So were a lot of mufkas.

I find it hilarious when legalities are pointed out by a military dictator. Doubtless Myanmar hasn't a legal way to dump theirs, either.

Kind of like when there was the big discussion over whether it was "fair" to subject Pinochet to trial and sentencing, at his age, being unhealthy and all. Hey, he should've been happy to receive a trial.

[Uli]

You may forget that he actually was elected President, twice iirc.

I have no reason or intention to defend him. But it for sure is not as simple as you and Dolan want it to be.

[Gary Sisco]

Doesn't change anything at all about today, though, does it?

Hilarious to talk about legalities in this context.

Once when I was working in the shelter we had an influx of nazi skins. They started leaving propaganda tracts around about blacks and so on and so forth. I told them to keep that shit to themselves and they started raving about their rights, and free speech, and yada yada. I told them Welcome to the domain of the anarchist prince, motherfuckers. People live here. This ain't the street and I don't give a fuck about the rights of people whose politics *is* the denial of rights.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Uli

You may forget that he actually was elected President, twice iirc.

I have no reason or intention to defend him. But it for sure is not as simple as you and Dolan want it to be.

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, did I say it should be simple. Or even that I wanted it to be.

If you're going to create thoughts for me out of thin air, please properly attribute them to your fevered imagination and don't involve my name.

[Gary Sisco]

It's not all that hard, either. You take out the guns, put them to civilian heads, tell them the general runs ting from now on. Get it? You're out the door or your brains are on the floor.

They usually leave.

Faster than counting in votes in Florida.

[Scott Dolan]

B-but, he was elected President twice, Gary. By the people.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Doesn't change anything at all about today, though, does it?

Hilarious to talk about legalities in this context.

It does, imho. As far as I understand today's situation the two parties who have now the numbers to form a coalition, don't really have a history of getting along that well. So, they would have to at least first work out their kinks for him to step back.

I am really not informed enough to judge how good or bad Musharaff is and yes he originally came to power thru a military coup and yes he has intituted emegency laws. But he also has stepped back from being the military leader and sfar as I know these present elections have been fair.

I find your compairison to Papa and Baby Doc or Pinochet hilarious. What has he done that I don't know that compares to the deeds of these scoundrels?

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, yeah. So was Somoza. So was Marcos. So was ...

Hell, so was the American installed "president" of South Vietnam. Until the American inspired generals put bullets through his and his brothers brains in the back of a truck.

Hell, some "presidents" have been "elected" president for life, hey.

Having been elected in the past does not change anything so far as a coup goes.

In El Salvador, under death squad rule, people marked their ballots while the men with the rifles watched them and then they deposited them, marked "correctly" it goes without saying, into clear plastic boxes, for all to see. Then they received a mark on their hands and a paper proving they'd voted. See, if you couldn't prove you'd voted, you were necessarily a "guerrilla" and therefore it was of course obviously necessary to shoot you in the head for reasons of democracy.

And the US coughed up a million dollars a day for all of the Reagan days to pay for it.

[Gary Sisco]

It's ok, Uli. I never mistook you for a democrat.

We should have a graded system of acceptable military dictators. The ones we prefer of course being acceptable and the ones we don't, unacceptable.

Democracy gets too messy.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

If you're going to create thoughts for me out of thin air, please properly attribute them to your fevered imagination and don't involve my name.

If you think below is thin air and if you think the election results are something that he can just abide with, so be it. For me, that's as simpistic as it gets.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I had a good laugh a couple of weeks back when Pervez The Worm said that he would abide by the decision of the the people.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It's ok, Uli. I never mistook you for a democrat.

We should have a graded system of acceptable military dictators. The ones we prefer of course being acceptable and the ones we don't, unacceptable.

Democracy gets too messy.

Yeah, it gets really messy sometimes. it gets so messy sometimes that the more ignorant people support somebody like Paul until they change their "minds". It's all their right of course.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Uli

If you think below is thin air and if you think the election results are something that he can just abide with, so be it. For me, that's as simpistic as it gets.

It's not simplistic at all. A pol blew a lot of hot air out of his mouth and made words that were meaningless.

Just like most politicians.

But, you're playing on a level FAR above me, so I'll let you bestow your expertise of Pakistani politics on the rest of us and not interrupt you again. My bad.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

It's not simplistic at all. A pol blew a lot of hot air out of his mouth and made words that were meaningless.

Maybe you did not understand the meaning. This was not a presidential election. He has also in the meantime sed that he will work together with any government that the two winning parties will form, without confrontations.

Anything that I have read about the elections was that they were fair and transparent.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Uli

it gets so messy sometimes that the more ignorant people support somebody like Paul until they change their "minds".

What the heck does that mean?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

What the heck does that mean?

It means what it means.

[Scott Dolan]

Pot shot at Gary.

[Uli]

Yeah, it was in reply of "I never mistook you for a democrat".

Oh and yeah, some leaders coming to power thru a military coup are better than others, imho Jerry Rawlings e.g. is one of my heroes.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Uli

It means what it means.

So are you belittling the fact that someone would support Ron Paul, or that someone would change their mind and support someone else? In either case, I don't see anything that I would consider dishonorable. I've never supported Ron Paul, but I'm glad he ran (or is still running), because if nothing else, he's a voice in the republican wilderness on the issue of runaway government budgets under the current administration.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

So are you belittling the fact that someone would support Ron Paul, or that someone would change their mind and support someone else? In either case, I don't see anything that I would consider dishonorable. I've never supported Ron Paul, but I'm glad he ran (or is still running), because if nothing else, he's a voice in the republican wilderness on the issue of runaway government budgets under the current administration.

Yes, I admit it. I am belittling somebody for whom somebody like Paul, who wants to reinstitute the gold standard, abolish federal taxes and believes that we went to Irak because of a UN resolution and that evolution is just a theory would make a good president for the United Sates of America. It's my godamn constitutional right which I don't consider just a legality either.

[walto]

I'd also like to point out that it wasn't simply a matter of supporting and then withdrawing that support or changing it to somebody else. It was much more like "If I ever vote for a fucking Dim again, everybody here has the right to shoot me. I will never (ever ever) vote for any Dimwit ever (ever) again. As God is my witness I will vote for Ron Paul and every Obama/Clinstone/Anybody else supporter can go fuck themselves. That party has no excuse for existing and neither has anybody who will vote for any of those mindless dwarves. And I mean it. Deeds, not words."

And this not in one post, JMJ, but in, maybe 15 or 20 thousand posts. Over and over and over. Paul. Paul. Paul. Everybody else is scum. And then phhhht. He's with Obama. Changed his mind the same day Sullivan did. How about that?

Anyhow, I think a comment in that kind of situation is a little understandable.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

One of the funniest things in Female Clinton's campaign so far was when she talked about "President" Musharef's "running for re-election."

Yes, that was funny. But the reason it was funny is because Musharef wasn't on the ballot and so that's something you would expect to come from the copious volumes of Bushisms. Uli's so right and uncontroversial on this thread. This wasn't an election that automatically and legally would determine who serves as Pakistan's president. This was a parliamentary election. The presidential election had been fixed previous to this. You don't have to defend Musharef's coup or administration to wonder why people are surprised he's not honoring, by resigning, an election that did not depose him.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by walto

Changed his mind the same day Sullivan did. How about that?

Hehehe. But in fairness, for the last several days he's maintained that his favorite thinker is now Pags. So you can't accuse him of intellectual vassalage to Sullivan anymore except subconsciously.

[walto]

I think Gary said his favorite conservative thinker is Paglia.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by walto

I think Gary said his favorite conservative thinker is Paglia.

I was going to type that, but I wasn't sure.