Grev Pers hypocrisy
Day 684, 05:04
•
Published in Denmark 
•
by
•
by HoeMarx
Hypocrisy
Alright every time Grev Per says something, a lot of people unquestionably trust him. This will be a short article, as it simply states his hypocrisy. This is in regard to Grev Per calling foul play on me casting my vote in the PP for Junior, and recommending others to do the same, nothing wrong with that, or is there ?
Grev Per commented in regard to the PP:
"All I'm saying is organized voting AGAINST Danes should not have happened, it was wrong that it did."
August
Then let's just take a step back and look at the Presidential elections in August, where Grev Per ran for President for eDeO after wanting a bribe of 10 gold. As you all know eDeO consists of 30 something people, organizing votes to favor selected candidates, as all individuals respectively do.
In the Presidential elections in August Grev Per received 52 votes, so lets be nice and say that eDeO only stood for 30 of those votes, so 12 votes for Grev Per. Lerdeif received 13 votes in this election, meaning that without the support of the members of eDeO Grev Per would not have become President in August, Lerdeif would have.
Grev Per stated in the comment that the problem with the PP was "voting AGAINST Danes". Lerdeif is Danish, and has been in eRepublik since day 387 of the New World. So Grev Per should have screamed and shouted, sad.
Same diff ?
The fact is that the only difference from the PP and the Presidential election in August was the enormous difference of that the votes in the Presidential election were organized, and that they weren't organized in the PP.
As Zeb Jolnas wrote in his article, he voted for Skinke and as far as I know, no one has knowledge of who voted for who, except that we know from those stating who they voted for in articles or comments.
Grev Per gets mad because his buddy Skinke looses, but when he himself benefits from organized eDeO support they clap their hands. My point being that Grev Pers and Skinkes entire case is faulty, and that is a shame that so many have trusted them in their statements. I don't expect an apology from Grev Per, as I'm sure that he's too stubborn to reevaluate his original stance, but heck, I've been surprised before.
Consistency
By Grev Pers logic the Presidential elections in August where he won due to eDeO support was rigged, and he was fully aware of this, and welcomed the outcome. If anyone has an issue with loyalty, commitment and conscience it's Grev Per. So let's just end this with the simple question. Why isn't Grev Per consistent ?
The answer is that he's only human, and hypocrisy and shortness of memory is part of human nature. But get back on track Per, you used to be cool.
Best regards,
HoeMarx
Alright every time Grev Per says something, a lot of people unquestionably trust him. This will be a short article, as it simply states his hypocrisy. This is in regard to Grev Per calling foul play on me casting my vote in the PP for Junior, and recommending others to do the same, nothing wrong with that, or is there ?
Grev Per commented in regard to the PP:
"All I'm saying is organized voting AGAINST Danes should not have happened, it was wrong that it did."
August
Then let's just take a step back and look at the Presidential elections in August, where Grev Per ran for President for eDeO after wanting a bribe of 10 gold. As you all know eDeO consists of 30 something people, organizing votes to favor selected candidates, as all individuals respectively do.
In the Presidential elections in August Grev Per received 52 votes, so lets be nice and say that eDeO only stood for 30 of those votes, so 12 votes for Grev Per. Lerdeif received 13 votes in this election, meaning that without the support of the members of eDeO Grev Per would not have become President in August, Lerdeif would have.
Grev Per stated in the comment that the problem with the PP was "voting AGAINST Danes". Lerdeif is Danish, and has been in eRepublik since day 387 of the New World. So Grev Per should have screamed and shouted, sad.
Same diff ?
The fact is that the only difference from the PP and the Presidential election in August was the enormous difference of that the votes in the Presidential election were organized, and that they weren't organized in the PP.
As Zeb Jolnas wrote in his article, he voted for Skinke and as far as I know, no one has knowledge of who voted for who, except that we know from those stating who they voted for in articles or comments.
Grev Per gets mad because his buddy Skinke looses, but when he himself benefits from organized eDeO support they clap their hands. My point being that Grev Pers and Skinkes entire case is faulty, and that is a shame that so many have trusted them in their statements. I don't expect an apology from Grev Per, as I'm sure that he's too stubborn to reevaluate his original stance, but heck, I've been surprised before.
Consistency
By Grev Pers logic the Presidential elections in August where he won due to eDeO support was rigged, and he was fully aware of this, and welcomed the outcome. If anyone has an issue with loyalty, commitment and conscience it's Grev Per. So let's just end this with the simple question. Why isn't Grev Per consistent ?
The answer is that he's only human, and hypocrisy and shortness of memory is part of human nature. But get back on track Per, you used to be cool.
Best regards,
HoeMarx
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Wow, you all are mules...lmao. Not one of you is willing to let it be. It is a new day, go forward. Let the people decide the upcoming elections now. The field has been corrected, there are 4 players in the elections, so let the people read the platforms and let the people of Denmark decide now. Get on IRC to hash out your differences or something. This mud slinging in the newspaper is gettin old by both sides. Have you all considered moving to EUSA, you would fit in great there with how they do politics....lmao.
-> mrjholiday
I simply want my name cleared, and I would suspect that everyone would fight vigorously against false accusations and hypocrisy.
-at least I hope they will.
Understood, but sometimes it is also good to step back and let it be. Time and actions change most individuals views on a subject. I believe that is why they are asking me to wait one month before I can get citzenship. They want to see how I am and how I interact in Denmark first. So over time, everyone here will get a different view of me then they have right now. Now it is crazy here, but in due time with your actions, views will change. Let your actions speak your words. Without the actions, the words mean nothing. Does this make sense or should I have another drink...lmao.
-> mrjholiday
Indeed, but when actions are subjected to false-say, misinformation and imaginary friends, one must take out the trash.
Again I can't fight against peoples imagination, but I will try to appeal to their sense of logic.
Somehow, I don't think that a political party voting for its own candidate is the same. In fact this is such a stretch of the imagination that I'm even surprise you took the time to write it.
I ran for eDeO, and was voted by its members. Skinke and A. Holst ran in WBP, and you tampered with the election of a party you weren't a member of.
So you got any more stupid points to point out?
I'm still cool, you pay later.
-> Grev Per
IRL I vote for Ø, but in regard to the elections for the EU seats, I voted for a candidate from SF. This fluidness and being in agreement with a party, but also finding agreeable views reflected in candidates from other parties and supporting those, is one of the fundamental principals of our Democracy.
-if that's stupid, well then I guess I'm just thankful for living in a nation with a stupid constitution.
Yes that was stupid point, as its irrelevant.
-> Grev Per
Thanks for the illuminating comment, I guess that clears everything up.
-seriously ?
I find it difficult to discuss things with you when you focus on inane and irrelevant details. Which is what happens everytime we even broach the subject of the election rigging.
Bogoljub Tomic for president!!!
RL-party congress elections = eRep party presidency elections
RL-EU/Parlamentary elections = eRep congress elections
And for republics, president elections = president elections, but since both Denmark and Sweden are constitutional monarchies, it is unconnected to RL.
In other words, voting for a candidate in another party equals you paying the party fee of more than one party, traveling to the party's yearly congress and putting your hand up - only to leave and participate on the list for another party in another election. THAT would get you into some serious RL-political problems, don't you think?
-> pho3nix
Did you vote in the EU seat elections ? Do you know how the mechanics work ? Do you know the rights established for every citizen by our constitution ?
I guess that you do, that's why I don't understand your comment as it's in direct contradiction.
Last time I'll buy you guys beer that's for sure.
So because Per and Pho3nix do not agree whit you, you will not get to another meeting or?
I do not like to get in this, cause i am not sure what happened, but i think it is bad if its affect that we will not have another meeting..
And do not mind buying you a beer, cause you bought last time.
-> BNMaarcher
Best comment all week 🙂
I have readed all the newspapers and comments, and i have been playing erep for some time, but i do not know exactly what happen so i stay neutral and hope for the best ending. 🙂
-> BNMaarcher
Exactly, no one knows what happened, but conspiracy theories are more interesting than ignorance.
If I truly were as politically omnipotent as I'm accused of being, there wouldn't be any reason for me to respond to any accusations.
-so yeah
Direct contradiction? PP and Congress elections are two VERY different things. Congress elections - that is, elections to Riksdagen here in Sweden - gives legislative power to the elected members. One vote for one representative (hence one party) in national, regional and local (communal) level. The EU is basically a parliamentary election, but serves as an overarching organization to coordinate decision making and common policies for the union as a whole. We do not have anything resembling the EU in eDenmark, since we are not part of an alliance or any regional cooperation networks.
The party congress however only serves as an internal election for parties, to decide on who's to be the party's top names (in eRep the PP decides those names, that is the candidates for congress-/president elections). Parties don't meddle with eachothers' votes, people generally do not join two parties, vote in both but stand for elections in one.
We used to have regional or local elections, voting for mayors in each region. That was however scrapped, which means that the PP-elections cannot be seen as representative elections for the state per se, but as representative elections for political entities - in which members of different parties usually don't switch parties to affect results.
-> pho3nix
Now it makes more sense, you missed my point.
-the point is that all members of (e)society are free to vote for whomever the choose, and no one person or group should try to undermine that.
I have no control over what people do, if I did I would be God (and I wouldn't exist 🙂 )
-> pho3nix
You and I only control what we respectively do. Therefor you can't say that "people generally do not join two parties", unless you have a dynamic map of each individual citizens actions. Are you starting to get my drift ?
And hence, voting for "your candidate" in a party which you do not belong isn't right. Voting for your candidate in your party however is something quite different - nobody can have a problem with that.
The problem is that you voted for Holst in WBP, yet I don't remember you being a part of the party. Instead, we find you as a candidate for presidency in HrBjorn Rocks party. I think that is were my arguments for inconsistency has its roots.
I get your point Marx, but come on... Can't we all just act like the grown-ups we hopefully are, and accept that we can't control everything? It's just silly running around making shit sour for people due to personal problems.
And just to make it clear - you are supposed to be in one party. Otherwise the admins would have implemented multiple party belongings and most of all, allowing you to vote more than once.
The pro side of party skipping: you can place your vote wherever you want.
The con side: the media will probably get on your ass.
-> pho3nix
exactly: "accept that we can't control everything?"
-you are all of course welcome to say that "Emil, you shouldn't have voted for Junior". But that was not the case. I got blamed for the entire PP election, and that's why I call FAIL on the issue, and that was why I took offense. I'm sure that every citizen would stand up against unjust accusations.
Nice to see that you got my point, now we just need Grev Per and Skinke to come to the same conclusion.
Marx, agreed. Yet there are some questions left:
First of all, we can't tell you not to vote for Holst. Your vote could be based on a roll of dices for all we know. What we expect you to do is to respect the natural party boundary, which keeps parties and its members, candidates and votes separated. It's sad that one has to point that out, in my opinion. Then again, this is the internet.
Secondly, you have to accept the fact and the responsibility that your words and actions matters. People listen to you, you are influential. So mind your words, mind your actions - they do have consequences. Your might not have intended to funk up the PP-elections, yet your actions might have done it, or a blunt analysis of the elections would say that you did.
-> pho3nix
If I suggest to you that you should go and kill your dog and you do it, it's not my responsibility, that we agree upon and that's part of the discussion since some people aren't able to see that.
But the point was and still is the fact that I was blamed to the entire farce. I will continue to vote for whomever I want to vote for. The point of my previous comments to you in regard to the EU seat talk, was that even though I might be in agreement with a party, there could also be a candidate from another party that I prefer on a certain issue as opposed to one residing in my own party.
Marx - I get your example, but its not the case. The EU thing is the beauty of liberal democracy - you're allowed to change your mind in different levels of government. The PP votes however do not resemble that. The EU vote would be like the few people who vote think when they vote in the church elections in Sweden: they vote for anything but the nationalist party, just to keep them out. Your PP vote would resemble you being a member of a 1😒t party, then joining a 2:nd party - attending their yearly congress and vote for a weaker candidate to make the 1😒t party's chances better in the next elections. Spoiling the race, in other words.
And if you want to continue doing what you're doing, then face the consequences or stop being public about it. It's as simple as that.