I'll go with what Chomksy is saying, which turns out to be pretty much what i was saying, that evn if there were irregularities, there's no real evidence that it would have been a landslide for the other guy. Ahmadinejad might have been around 51% of the vote, and the
possibility that the other guy could gain enough to get elected made loyalists paranoid.
Also do you believe Obama and Romney are personally orchestrating everything done by local Democratic and Republican officials? One common thing i see is that people in the West easily see that actions of a local political party, may not be authorized from the top-down. But automatically assume that if there is any local corruption in, for example, Venezuela that President Chavez is personally overseeing every detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk04v2yq4PQI really don't like the line that "my point of view is so self-evident that i don't need any evidence at all" no matter what the topic.
Hell, florida 2000. Talk about stealing elections. And a lot more solid evidence than Iran. Is bombing of the United States justified from that? That election-stealing administration went on to kill MILLIONS of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention all the torture camps and rendition you guys seem to like running.