A disputed national presidential election is verified by a supreme authority electing a leader who clearly did not have support of the majority of the people who cast the ballot.

Sounds familiar?

It should remind you less of the election in Iran right now but more of the bitter end to the 2000 Presidential Election right here in the United States of America between Al Gore and the eventual selected winner George W. Bush.

I just don’t understand what moral grounds the United States really has to stand on when peaceful protesters outside the convention of their own National Party Conventions are thrown in jail and where dirty political tricks are played into fooling uninformed voters, that they can not only foreign elections but get to determine who should be the winner?

Don’t confuse my argument into saying I support the results of Iran because there certainly seems like there might have been wrongdoings committed but until you know for sure, it’s the same thing to say the previous administration willing let a ‘terrorist’ attack happen on their watch. You can certainly say both things but you just don’t have any solid ground to stand on when you do.

You have mayoral elections in cities like Hoboken, NJ where you have law enforcement parking their cars in front of a candidate’s rally that they don’t support. You probably have elections in Illinois where if only six out of every five eligible voter votes, it is considered a success.