Ethics and Politics

I was wondering, at what point do you as individuals stop supporting a candidate or party?

It is pretty obvious that politicians lie. They tell partial truths to make their side look better. They tell half truths to make the other side look bad. Sometimes they just tell out and out lies for the benefit of themselves or their party.

Sometimes the news media even goes along and reports these things as truth and even occasionally they will report the truth as a lie. ( I am sure some would dispute this but for the sake of argument assume it is so)

Is there a point at which you draw a line and say, I can no longer support this man/woman/party or do the ends always justify the means?

Well I didn't vote at all last elections

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well I didn't vote at all last elections

---

Did the reason you didn’t vote have to do with:

A) disgust with lying politicians?

B) corruption?

C) political manipulation of the news media?

D) all of the above?

E) just didn’t feel like it?

E, it's just of no use as the unelected EU tells us what to do

Hereabouts I usually vote on policy tempered by observance of past actual behavior.

Last election the 2 main parties got caught up in the Evil!<=>Evil! game; the perennial dark horse party was the only one that stuck to policy so I voted for them. From permanent 3rd party to official opposition; I guess talking policy when others will not will get you votes.

Note: I don't think I have voted for the same party 2 elections in a row since the extinction of the Rhinoceros Party.

Posted this in the frontroom but it sums up why I loath politicians.

The CSIR has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 35 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Posted this in the frontroom but it sums up why I loath politicians.

The CSIR has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 35 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.

---

And this is why you vote for people who may not be saints, but who are nevertheless not so consumed by ideology that they no longer have need of reasoned discussion, and just use jokes to confirm how much they agree with each other.

I voted Conservative at the last election but shall be voting UKIP from now on. Nothing to do with ethics - I couldn't give a hoot what they do in their own privacy but A. Don't tell me more and more what I can and can't do. B. Don't bankrupt the country and C. Don't give the value of my vote to some unelected European official.

The fact checkers seemed to have been more busy in our last election than previously. Of course that could just be an impression. Almost every debate at least one of the candidates slipped up and in most cases it wasn't picked up immediately by the others, but reported the next day in the media. One of them, a guy called Roemer (socialist party) "complained" on TV about fact checkers making it difficult for him to sprout numbers and "facts" for rethorical reasons. That particular guy has a poor track record as far as factual knowledge is concerned and never had my vote to begin with, though. He did extremely well in the polls a couple of weeks before the elections but eventually came in fourth - which I'm happy with.

As for lies and half-truths in general, they're bad, but it really depends on the specific circumstances. Political debates over here get so bogged down in detailed discussions that it's inevitable that you accidentally say something that's not entirely true. I fully expect my candidate of choice to apoligize and correct himself when called out on it, though.

At least as disturbing, if not moreso, is when someone is giving you half of the story - telling you something that is entirely correct, but leaving out stuff that gets in the way of using the story for your political points. A striking example is the way Wilders met with some fishermen who were concerned that they wouldn't receive subsidies if the Netherlands would leave the EU and that they'd have to go out of business because of it. Wilders not only ensured them that he would continue to pay the same subsidies to fishermen, but a couple of days later said something along the lines of "Those fishermen are trying to make an honest buck and are hampered at every turn by EU regulations, we need to get out!". He, too, did pretty badly in last election and I'm happy with that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The fact checkers seemed to have been more busy in our last election than previously. Of course that could just be an impression. Almost every debate at least one of the candidates slipped up and in most cases it wasn't picked up immediately by the others, but reported the next day in the media. One of them, a guy called Roemer (socialist party) "complained" on TV about fact checkers making it difficult for him to sprout numbers and "facts" for rethorical reasons. That particular guy has a poor track record as far as factual knowledge is concerned and never had my vote to begin with, though. He did extremely well in the polls a couple of weeks before the elections but eventually came in fourth - which I'm happy with.

As for lies and half-truths in general, they're bad, but it really depends on the specific circumstances. Political debates over here get so bogged down in detailed discussions that it's inevitable that you accidentally say something that's not entirely true. I fully expect my candidate of choice to apoligize and correct himself when called out on it, though.

At least as disturbing, if not moreso, is when someone is giving you half of the story - telling you something that is entirely correct, but leaving out stuff that gets in the way of using the story for your political points. A striking example is the way Wilders met with some fishermen who were concerned that they wouldn't receive subsidies if the Netherlands would leave the EU and that they'd have to go out of business because of it. Wilders not only ensured them that he would continue to pay the same subsidies to fishermen, but a couple of days later said something along the lines of "Those fishermen are trying to make an honest buck and are hampered at every turn by EU regulations, we need to get out!". He, too, did pretty badly in last election and I'm happy with that as well.

---

Roemer had a point there, I don't believe anything that is polled, it's too obvious that the sp was rised in the polls to make people vote a strategic late-minute labour instead. I don't trust what I am feeded one bit. Happy with the outcome though, back to the middle is best and it's ok that the liberals and labour take the cake. Not that I like them but please no Wilders or Roemer. And yeah I know I like Wilders but not there

Wilders -> opposition

I think that the polls before elections over here are "accurrate" in the sense that they're not rigged, but they're useless anyway. Dutch voters are very fickle.

Roemer? Half of the time he doesn't know what he's talking about, his grasp of the English language is appalling (and he's a teacher!) and he tried to sneak a pension age increase into his fiscal plans without the general public noticing. Being a nice guy is not enough for leading a large party in parliament, let alone the entire country. I'm not sure how or why exactly the SP's rise in the polls started, but I imagine it had something to do with their opposition to our austerity policies (and the pension age, don't forget). Their dramatic decline in the polls, however, happened because they couldn't hide that their leader is a fumbling idiot.

All Dutch are terrible at English, they shouldn't even try it as I know I will be ashamed. But the left has the right to be represented and that is what the sp does, better than the pvda. But the pvda holds all media mercilessly and made them bigger then they really ever were to make people vote strategically. It's pretty obvious, the sp never was that big the left has been played

My favorite by the way 'we are a nation of undertakers'

What he meant was 'we zijn ondernemend land'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

All Dutch are terrible at English, they shouldn't even try it as I know I will be ashamed. But the left has the right to be represented and that is what the sp does, better than the pvda. But the pvda holds all media mercilessly and made them bigger then they really ever were to make people vote strategically. It's pretty obvious, the sp never was that big the left has been played

My favorite by the way 'we are a nation of undertakers'

What he meant was 'we zijn ondernemend land'

---

Rotfl, I knew about that quotation but I never knew that was Joop den Uyl until I googled it today. I also love the term "Dunglish".

Another good one is when our fat crown prince visited some foreign country's capital and remarked that it was a "bubbling city" (which is an expression in Dutch meaning something is dynamic or vivid) or Bolkestein's gaffe about "golden showers".

As for the polls: I agree that they influence elections because it encourages strategic voting, but the VVD benefited immensely from this as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Rotfl, I knew about that quotation but I never knew that was Joop den Uyl until I googled it today. I also love the term "Dunglish".

Another good one is when our fat crown prince visited some foreign country's capital and remarked that it was a "bubbling city" (which is an expression in Dutch meaning something is dynamic or vivid) or Bolkestein's gaffe about "golden showers".

As for the polls: I agree that they influence elections because it encourages strategic voting, but the VVD benefited immensely from this as well.

---

You must have missed out on our crownprince's greatest, he actually admitted he likes fucking shrimps when he was in Mexico. They speak Spanish there not Portugese, oops

You will like this btw http://www.bol.com/nl/p/i-always-get...O0020081351bf7 these are all real screwups, try not to blush all too badly

Here is shrimpboy hehe, talk about having to be ashamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqgU...e_gdata_player

Lol.

I know about that book, btw. Funny stuff but some of it seems fabricated. If the people who wrote it really did hear all of the quotations mentioned there, then that's really sad, and the Netherlands don't deserve to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Lol.

I know about that book, btw. Funny stuff but some of it seems fabricated. If the people who wrote it really did hear all of the quotations mentioned there, then that's really sad, and the Netherlands don't deserve to exist.

---

I am afraid it's really that bad, you haven't heard the worst a teacher was trying to lead a foreign student around the garden, seriously. Get some lessons beause you need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Is there a point at which you draw a line and say, I can no longer support this man/woman/party or do the ends always justify the means?

---

I've said it before, but I'll reformulate here: Politicians have two jobs, getting elected and governing.

1. Getting elected requires telling people want they want to hear.
2. Governing involves doing what you gotta do.

The two jobs often require different things. So no, I don't hold it against a politico if they tell some half truths, so long as I personally see it in service to these two jobs.

Where I start to turn up my nose and walk away in disgust is when I perceive a candidate or politician to be telling lies in excess of the basic job requirement. Or worse, when a politician tells clumsy, easily disproved lies. That causes me to question his or her basic competence as a politician.