If there is one door thats bound to bad, then don't open it, you go back until you do find a door thats suitable
Admiral Donutz;4601494Spoiler: Show
Chose door C, D , E, F, G, H, I and J? One of them is bound to be reasonable enough.
I hav the free choice of about 10 parties (doors if you like) and if I don't like it I can build my own door (though not a lot of people will bother since those other 10 doors are reasonable enough).
Maybe you wouldn't tell what you would think about some details or smaller issues but if you lied about your fundamentals it would pretty tricky. If you be able to keep a straight face while selling pure bullshite from tip to toe and from here to haven, hell and back again and you would end up in power you could either:
- Keep up the lie and do what you told you would do evne if you disagree with it (heh). - Just ignore some promises but overall work on what you promised. - Fuck it all, but in that case the other parties in power would probably let you drop rendering you to a useless opposition position.
I like a politician to tell me he will try to set things right but I won't trust them if they promises me to move mountains and shit gold. Those are populist assholes who make promises things they can not make true (even if they wanted to or just to gain power). That said, the politicians have shown a slight move in this direction. People living their own reasonablily good life with an income and roof above their head and a car before the door (well unless you live in the states... ;) ) and they are happy enough with that. But for the trouble down the street they want "them" to fix it. "them" being politicians. And they can't fix all and they know it. Any sane person should know. I know I know. I know I can only hope the politicians are able to build a foundation to deal with such issues down the street though in the end it would still be the people who would have to fix it themselves. Politicians can give you the tools that is it.
So if a politician tells me he's going to fix this and that for me and make chickens shit gold I will laugh at them. Currently we have two poppulist parties like that overhere (Geert Wilder's his Party of Freedom and Rita Verdonks party Proud of The Netherlands) and some others who are a bit nervous about losing votes and showing these tendencies of sweet talking "the" citizen. I don't buy it. I laugh.
Well true on the "promising a shit right" part. No leader should promise a shit right. That would be like a choach telling his team "we are going to lose this afternoon, it's a bunch of shit, we shouldn't even try, we are all fucked, don't bother" he would eb a bad leader. He should tell them "things don't look pretty but we must fight and try, we might achief more then we would think but at the very least we might still stand. At the worst, we would go down fighting and with pride".
And that is why you should distrust the guy who promises you gold, go for the guy who says things are brons but he will try to turn (some) things silver and maybe one or two items into gold. And if he lies, well the other parties in the coalition will drop the ball and the voters will drop them next time around. Keeping up a lie can only be done for so long. And indeed I wouldn't know what his stance would eb next week on certain new items. But I can't tel that about myself either. Certain events, circumstances, information and such might chanche my view. But I do know that several of the politicians atleast share some fundational principles so whatever happens they wouldn't screw me in the arse. THey might take a piss on me at worst. But then I'll piss bak on them during the next elections.
You're just confusing being a bad liar, which most people are, with telling the truth. You don't have to lie about your fundamentals, although under a lot of systems you can get away with it easily enough. If you want to get away with something people wouldn't accept you just lie about or omit certain elements of the situation in order to justify your position. Iraq can launch WMDs in 45 minutes, "'Duck and Cover,' to be safe from the Reds," (greatest political tool evar! Btw.) We grant politicians the power to define our social reality, both through the media, often including state funded or controlled studies, through rhetoric and through shaping our physical and economic landscape with laws. To quote a discussion from a man using a rather crude interpretation of the principle:
[INDENT] Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.[/INDENT]
Even in the example of your stirring speech you've lied to people. Knowing that they're screwed in the upcoming fight you say, [INDENT]'at the very least we might still stand,' [/INDENT]
Indicating an incredibly high likelihood of success, which doesn't exist. While your example of the truthful man says,
[INDENT]'we are going to lose this afternoon.' [/INDENT]
Which one of the two did you offer up as the example of a good leader?... Kinda scary isn’t it?
It's reflexive in that kind of speech writing even for men who see themselves as honest or good leaders, and those aren’t necessarily the same thing mind, to twist the truth to serve their ends either by omitting certain elements of it or lying outright. Now apply that to a national level and instead of a coach take a leader going into a war that his country will certainly lose. Which one is more likely to allow him to lead his population to war or indeed into any other conflict?
Anyone who chooses to forgo that power does not stand a chance when playing with the big boys; it's a great part of the reason why Ron Paul was never going to be President, it’s why none of those doors is going to be a reasonable choice, at least not consciously on your part, because in order to be built they have to be built upon a firm foundation of dishonesty, even if we assume that one of them somehow wasn't you've no way of knowing which one it is, and it’s why voting doesn’t really matter in giving you a choice any more than flipping a coin does. You’re in the hands of forces far beyond your control.
[QUOTE=Admiral Donutz;4601494]Ofcourse, politicians can't perform miracles. To make this society reasonable enough we need them though, but we also need various agencies, watchdogs, workers, idealists, artists, realists, pesimist and the whole bunch of them. And then there will always be reason to complain, even if you end up fucking rich or down in the gutter and nobody can do a thing about it. You either live with it or you can die. I prefer to live with lives flaws and enjoy the good parts in it.
:wtf: That has no bearing at all on what I wrote there.
'we are going to lose this afternoon.'
That is not the truth. The truth is 'we are most probably going to lose. That is not to say that it will happen, just that it's so probable that the chances we will win appear to be negligible.' That is the truth.
Maybe, maybe, there are some no-win scenarios. Though it would make little differnece anyway
Pointy metal thing with powder behind it, your back, dark alley.
My views are "out there" enough to cause me to be apathetic towards 90% of the political parties, the 10% that "sort of" interest me oppose me on as many subjects as they don't. Which is why i don't vote. If i were to vote, i'd simply maintain the status quo which isn't something i'll leave the house for.
Pointy metal thing with powder behind it, your back, dark alley.
....What's that supposed to mean?
Mr. Pedantic;4607546....What's that supposed to mean?
:rolleyes: Someone shooting you in the back in a dark alleyway is a no win scenario. For that matter any of a thousand and one other situations in which you're just screwed with no chance of victory are all no win scenarios. The law of physics dictate certain limitations as to what can and cannot be done. Even on a large scale a small army that has run out of bullets lacks the physical force to overcome the one that has not, the remains of Hitler's armies in the ruins of Berlin were in a no win scenario; a civilian exposed to certain amounts of chemical agents is going to die, you've been jumped by five knife wielding thugs and you're unarmed and away from any help of man. No win scenarios not only exist but are plentiful both historically and in concept, hells if you've got any kind of imagination at all you should be able to create them in your mind as you please. There are many things in this world that are physically impossible for you to overcome and go on to win against. Indeed if humans are causally determined every scenario where a person loses was a no win scenario from the get go.
Someone shooting you in the back in a dark alleyway is a no win scenario. For that matter any of a thousand and one other situations in which you're just screwed with no chance of victory are all no win scenarios. The law of physics dictate certain limitations as to what can and cannot be done. Even on a large scale a small army that has run out of bullets lacks the physical force to overcome the one that has not, the remains of Hitler's armies in the ruins of Berlin were in a no win scenario
Yes. I suppose. However, it is still possible to choose an option wherein you win as much as possible (if such an idea is even possible).