EquALLity wrote:
I could, but I don't think that's going to do anything. I'm just one volunteer, and the position I'm trying to get her to support will hurt her politically.
Her being hurt politically vs. possibly hundreds of people dying.
Maybe she doesn't care about the lives of the poor, elderly, and disabled, and she just want to win no matter what.
The power produced by Indian point must be replaced before it's shut down, if that's what people really want for some silly reason, otherwise the grid will groan and fall when it's overloaded during next summer's heat waves.
Maybe she will win, and maybe she'll shut down Indian point. But if you help her win, she shuts down the power plant, and hundred of people die next summer... how is that going to make you feel?
Really, what harm can the republican really do? Or does he want to shut it down too?
EquALLity wrote:
I'd have to go to like 100,000 houses to get a thousand signatures of support. That's outrageous.
Likely, if on your own.
20 minutes per house? That would take you something like eleven years if you have that bad a success rate.
Get a few other students to support you, and you'll multiply the effort. Collect data, and make some fliers. An informational brochure will help a lot.
Also, talk to the other side and figure out what their policies are on the plant.
EquALLity wrote:
They can't ban abortion, but they can make it VERY difficult to get an abortion.
They can make it slightly more difficult, particularly for late term abortions. If you think that's something that will kill more people than the few hundred who will die next summer if this plant is shut down, then that's a judgement call. It's unlikely, though.
73,815 abortions a year.
Globally, around 2 in a thousand deaths from dangerous black market abortions.
Worst case, assuming they all went black market and many avoided proper medical care after (which they won't, it will just be slightly restricted) that's something like 200 deaths.
Comparable to the deaths the Democrat will cause by shutting down Indian point.
However, when you narrow it down to medication induced abortions in the first trimester (which is something more widely available in countries like the US where people can afford the couple hundred bucks and get pills by mail) the rate is much lower.
https://www.womenonweb.org/en/page/561/is-a-medical-abortion-dangerous
We should expect about
one death a year if people are using medication provided by NGOs like Women on Web.
Republicans can't stop safe illegal abortions in the day of the internet and the silk road any more than they can stop weed. And because they're not quite to the point of throwing women in jail for having abortions, it's essentially without repercussion (for now).
Anyway, let's assume worst case scenario that these two candidates are planning to kill the same number of people to win their seats.
The difference is, once the Nuclear plant is shut down, that's for good. Best realistic case for the people of New York is it will be replaced with oil or coal within the next year after the massive black outs of the first summer. That's a terrible case for the world. It will also hand the next election cycle to a Republican.
With the Republicans, the more they can enact their draconian laws, the more backlash there will be against them. Abortion restriction never lasts long, and people will rise up against them in the next cycle, or these laws can be crushed by the courts in due time.
EquALLity wrote:
Who poisoned the water in Flint? That wasn't the federal government, those were the republicans in Michigan. State governments are very relevant.
That was actually a state and Federal failing. That doesn't have to do with Republicans specifically, it has to do with corruption and incompetence, and lack of oversight due to inadequate funds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Other_responses
Wikipedia wrote:The New York Times notes, "Although Congress banned lead water pipes 30 years ago, between 3.3 million and 10 million older ones remain, primed to leach lead into tap water by forces as simple as jostling during repairs or a change in water chemistry." Inadequate regulation was cited as one reason for unsafe lead levels in tap water and "efforts to address shortcomings often encounter push-back from industries like agriculture and mining that fear cost increases, and from politicians ideologically opposed to regulation." The crisis called attention to a "resource gap" for water regulators. The annual budget of the EPA's drinking water office declined 15% from 2006 to 2015, with the office losing over 10% of employees, and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators reported in 2013 that "federal officials had slashed drinking-water grants, 17 states had cut drinking-water budgets by more than a fifth, and 27 had cut spending on full-time employees," with "serious implications for states’ ability to protect public health."
Reason points out it was a fully government made disaster (with nothing to do with privatization)
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/11/what-to-do-about-flint-evacuate-the-resi
They make some compelling arguments, although I haven't fact checked them.
The issue is more complicated than just blaming Republicans, and I doubt it has anything to do with your local election.
EquALLity wrote:
Her opponent is against stem cell research (and has voted to stop it). That's the kind of guy we're dealing with here.
Yeah, that was important twenty years ago. Bush did terrible things by delaying the advancement of medical science.
It doesn't really matter anymore, science has advanced beyond government restriction. We have a number of pluripotent lines.
Also, I think most medical funding is federal, not state.
Wrong Murphy. Sorry, it's almost midnight here, I should really get to bed. He's really horrible though, I swear.