Political Activism

[miniboes]

The nationalists are most positive about nuclear, but otherwise their policies are asinine (e.g. no subsidies for science or development aid

That's a problem, but libertarians are probably on the same page about science subsidies, right?

No, they're not. European liberalism is similar to but not the same as libertarianism. They are very much in favor of investment in science, including fundamental research, as they see innovation as the backbone of our economy. One proposal of theirs I like is that they want to make all scientific publications free to access. It's not what a libertarian would do, but that's why I'm hesitant to just call them libertarian; liberals are far more moderate.

I'll respond to the other part of your post later.

[miniboes]

2. Maybe you can help soften their policies on this by explaining that there are different denominations of Islam, like protestant to Catholicism to Mormonsim. Only some of them are inclined to terrorism and that they could work with the more liberal and peaceful ones to help ban* the others (most religious sects are all for banning their competition).

It'd probably be much easier to persuade the Green party to support nuclear than to persuade the nationalist party out of their ridiculous policies. They don't have members (funded by subsidies and donations), and one guy (Geert Wilders) is practically the only one who's opinion matters at all.

1. They can't do it.

Perhaps not, but this comes down to the same disagreement I believe we might have on Trump. They may not be able to execute their crazy policies, but what will they do instead? I don't believe it would be much good.

Their election platform is literally one page. I'll translate it for you:

Millions of Dutch people have had enough of the islamisation of our country. Enough of the mass-immigration and asylum, terror, violence and unsafety.

Here is our plan: instead of financing the whole world and people we don't want here, we're going to spend our money on the normal Dutchman.

This is how the PVV is going to do that:
1. De-islamize the Netherlands:
- Zero asylumseekers from now on, and no immigrants from Islamic countries: close the borders.
- Retract all residence permits for asylum for some time. Close asylum seeker shelters.
- No islamic headscarves in public functions.
- Prohibition of islamic expressions that threaten public order.
- Preventively locking up radical muslims.
- Denaturalizing and throwing out criminals with a double nationality.
- Not letting Syria-goers [people that went to Syria to fight for ISIS] return to the Netherlands.
- Close all mosques and islamic schools, prohibit Quran.
2. The Netherlands indepent; leave the European Union.
3. Direct democracy: introduce binding referendum; citizens get more power.
4. Completely abolish personal risk in healthcare
5. Reduce rents
6. AOW [publicly funded pension] age back to 65 [from 67], index additional pensions
7. No money for development aid, wind turbines, art, innovation, public broadcast network, etc. [that's literally what it says]
8. Reverse cuts in home care and elderly care
9. Way more money for defence and police
10. lower income tax
11. halving of vehicle tax

[and now, why I say it doesn't add up]
1. +7.2 billion
2. PM [pro memorie]
3. PM
4. -3.7 bln
5. -1 bln
6. -3.5 bln
7. +10 bln
8. -2 bln
9. -2 bln
10. -3 bln
11 -2 bln
______
Total: 0

There's no way you earn 7.2 billion dollars with the deislamization stuff. It will probably cost billions instead. It's not clear where exactly the 10 billion comes from ("etc."). Not to mention the fact that they practically have 2 question marks in there (PM) but do claim it all adds up to 0.
When I said they are most positive about nuclear, that was based on their election platform of 2012. For all I know they may oppose it now. As you may note, climate change is completely missing from this list. In the same program of 2012, they dismissed the threat of climate change, dismissing the people who worry about it as 'environment sillies'.

The classical liberals (VVD) are now the only ones that support maintaining our one nuclear plant and even building another one. That's good, but at the same time they don't care about climate change at all and are okay with the Netherlands being one of the worst countries in Europe in terms of sustainable energy. I think, how inefficient their plans may be, the progressives will contribute more to a sustainable energy grid than the VVD will.

I'm leaning towards the social-liberals (D66) now, because they are the most pragmatic. Their policies are generally quite good, the only sore spot being nuclear. I think they're more persuadable than the greens.

[brimstoneSalad]

The classical liberals (VVD) are now the only ones that support maintaining our one nuclear plant and even building another one. That's good, but at the same time they don't care about climate change at all and are okay with the Netherlands being one of the worst countries in Europe in terms of sustainable energy. I think, how inefficient their plans may be, the progressives will contribute more to a sustainable energy grid than the VVD will.

I'm leaning towards the social-liberals (D66) now, because they are the most pragmatic. Their policies are generally quite good, the only sore spot being nuclear. I think they're more persuadable than the greens.

Maybe you can do a test. Try to find ten of each to have a conversation with, and record the results. That might give you an indication of which is going to be more reasonable.

[miniboes]

The classical liberals (VVD) are now the only ones that support maintaining our one nuclear plant and even building another one. That's good, but at the same time they don't care about climate change at all and are okay with the Netherlands being one of the worst countries in Europe in terms of sustainable energy. I think, how inefficient their plans may be, the progressives will contribute more to a sustainable energy grid than the VVD will.

I'm leaning towards the social-liberals (D66) now, because they are the most pragmatic. Their policies are generally quite good, the only sore spot being nuclear. I think they're more persuadable than the greens.

Maybe you can do a test. Try to find ten of each to have a conversation with, and record the results. That might give you an indication of which is going to be more reasonable.

Interesting idea. What do you think the best place would be to have such conversations? Youth party events, perhaps?

[brimstoneSalad]

Interesting idea. What do you think the best place would be to have such conversations? Youth party events, perhaps?

Frankly, if they're popular parties you could go door to door on the weekend. Or just find random people on the street. Bring a clip board and make a print out with some questions and check boxes, and tell them you're doing a survey (you are).

[EquALLity]

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.

That's not true at all; you barely know anything about her. She started an organization that made New York a leader in fighting sex trafficking of children. Of course she cares about other people.

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?

Can you please explain why you think hundreds of people would die? o_O

What harm can the republican do?
You just made a post about how republicans on the state level are using gerrymandering to suppress minority votes in swing states. State politics are extremely relevant.

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.

Probably more than 100,000. More like 1,000,000, maybe. I seriously doubt that people would pledge to support a politician they just heard about due to this one issue at the door. That's just not going to happen. People are generally very skeptical about trusting strangers at the door, among all the other things.

It's really hard enough to get people in the Young Democrats club to do a little bit of activism for the candidate. Getting people to help me go to like a million houses probably isn't going to happen.

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/ ... -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.

For the first part, I actually do not think that is comparable. These republicans can restrict abortion on the NY state level. The number of deaths wouldn't be related to the global deaths. It'd probably be a lot less than two-hundred.
But we're not just talking about deaths, and we're not even just talking about abortion. There are a lot of important issues than republicans are wrong on- pretty much all issues.

As for the rest, again, this isn't just about abortion.
The democrat has pledged to sign the Clean Conscience Pledge, which will do a LOT to reduce corruption in NY. The republican, who is currently in office, hasn't, and is a big corporatist.

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_wat ... _responses

Ok, the federal government seems like it played a role as well.

However, there was definitely some bad stuff going on at the (republican) state level. They knew about the poisoned water and didn't do anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj00e1OzXAY

The EPA specifically, since you quoted some stuff about it, warned the state government about the problem, but they didn't listen.

Reason points out it was a fully government made disaster (with nothing to do with privatization)
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/11/what- ... e-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.

Reason, from my understanding, is a libertarian-slanted site. Of course they're going to say it's all the government's fault. That's not really a reliable source.
I didn't even say it was about privatization, though. From my understanding, it was because republicans in Michigan lowered taxes on the wealthy (because the wealthy are their donors) and had to compensate by cutting funding for this issue.

It's about corporatism, not capitalism.

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.

I got the wrong Murphy anyway, but see:

*Oops, that was Tim Murphy. Wrong Murphy. Sorry, it's almost midnight here, I should really get to bed. He's really horrible though, I swear.
Yeah, he actually is a chiropractor, so he scams people with pseudoscience for a living. On the other hand, she was in the Peace Corp and co-founded an organization that made NY a leader in fighting sex trafficking of children that she is currently President of.

[brimstoneSalad]

That's not true at all; you barely know anything about her. She started an organization that made New York a leader in fighting sex trafficking of children. Of course she cares about other people.

Then why is she trying to destabilize the power grid and commit mass murder?
Good intentions won't save anybody on their own.

Can you please explain why you think hundreds of people would die? o_O

When the power goes out, people die. Heat stroke, accidents, etc.
Look at the numbers in the last great summer blackouts.

What harm can the republican do?
You just made a post about how republicans on the state level are using gerrymandering to suppress minority votes in swing states. State politics are extremely relevant.

Is that the only thing you're worried about?

But we're not just talking about deaths, and we're not even just talking about abortion. There are a lot of important issues than republicans are wrong on- pretty much all issues.

OK, can you list them? We can try to add it up.
Until you add it up, you're just guessing based on a gut feeling.

The democrat has pledged to sign the Clean Conscience Pledge, which will do a LOT to reduce corruption in NY. The republican, who is currently in office, hasn't, and is a big corporatist.

I don't think that's meaningful. Their policies are what they are.

However, there was definitely some bad stuff going on at the (republican) state level. They knew about the poisoned water and didn't do anything.

Democrats do shit like that too, when they screw up. That's human nature. Did you read the reason article?

The EPA specifically, since you quoted some stuff about it, warned the state government about the problem, but they didn't listen.

Of course, they're idiots. This is actually a problem across the country. A disaster like this probably had to happen somewhere to motivate government to finally update infrastructure. Republicans just happened to be in office during this, but nothing about it has to do with Republican policies in particular, except Republicans at the federal level who have impeded the EPA.

Reason, from my understanding, is a libertarian-slanted site. Of course they're going to say it's all the government's fault. That's not really a reliable source.

Consider the arguments on their own merits. Reason isn't too bad, they're one of the more sensible libertarian leaning sites.
Their argument was that this was done to support entitlement programs through local economy. There are two sides too it -- under taxing, or overspending. Apparently this wasn't going to save money, though.

Yeah, he actually is a chiropractor, so he scams people with pseudoscience for a living. On the other hand, she was in the Peace Corp and co-founded an organization that made NY a leader in fighting sex trafficking of children that she is currently President of.

Sounds like he's a terrible human being. It he attempting mass murder though?
I'd probably rather have lunch with her, but if her policies will kill more people and cause more damage to the world, I'd have to favor him in the election.

I think you should save your time here and campaign for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win.

[EquALLity]

The most amazing thing just happened!
I went to do phone banking for that candidate tonight, and when it was over Mikayla (volunteer) and Rosalyn (the chair of the Democratic committee in a town near me!) were talking, when Rosalyn said something about how a politician I've been trying to get to support a bill about big money influence on politics since like January sat in her seat!

"Did you say [name]?"
I told her that I'd been calling their office forever about this bill on getting money out of politics, but that they hadn't been very receptive. I asked if she would help me out, and she said she'd text him about the bill!!! I gave her the name.

Oh my god, I can't believe this!

This is why local activism matters.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is why local activism matters.

Absolutely. If you make some friends there, you might even be able to talk to some of these people about the nuclear plant, and how it's important to replace the power it's generating with other green power before shutting it down (if they insist on that, rather than updating it).

[EquALLity]

Then why is she trying to destabilize the power grid and commit mass murder?
Good intentions won't save anybody on their own.

That's extreme rhetoric.

When a corporation gives a million dollars to a politician and that politician then does things to help the corporation, and I identify that as bribery (because that's what it is), then apparently that's rhetoric.
If that's rhetoric, then saying this candidate is TRYING TO COMMIT MASS MURDER is very extreme rhetoric.

When the power goes out, people die. Heat stroke, accidents, etc.
Look at the numbers in the last great summer blackouts.

I don't remember any of those in NY. o_O

Is that the only thing you're worried about?

No.

OK, can you list them? We can try to add it up.
Until you add it up, you're just guessing based on a gut feeling.

Reasons why state politics are important? Do you not agree with this? o_O

Or reasons why the republican is worse?

I don't think that's meaningful. Their policies are what they are.

The Clean Conscience Pledge is a policy that involves things like stripping pensions from individuals convicted of corruption.

Democrats do shit like that too, when they screw up. That's human nature. Did you read the reason article?

I didn't read the article, because I don't consider Reason a reliable source.

It's not stupidity- they knew the water was poisoned. They didn't care, because they'd rather cut taxes on their donors than actually help people.
Businesses paid $1.7 billion less every year after the governor's tax cuts- so that's over $8.5 billion total since he got into power. Then, he RAISED taxes on the average person, and didn't have enough money to continue using the more expensive and safe Detroit river because he gave so much money to corporations.
Him personally- the governor made these decisions. In fact, the emergency manager he implemented to deal with the process told him not to switch to the Flint River.

Btw, this is another example of corporatism. Corporations donate to Rich Snyder -> Rick Snyder cuts taxes on corporations.

Of course, they're idiots. This is actually a problem across the country. A disaster like this probably had to happen somewhere to motivate government to finally update infrastructure. Republicans just happened to be in office during this, but nothing about it has to do with Republican policies in particular, except Republicans at the federal level who have impeded the EPA.

It's not an issue of lack of intelligence.

Many of the politicians who say climate change isn't real went to Ivy League colleges, including Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is very smart, he's just a liar due to corruption.

Consider the arguments on their own merits. Reason isn't too bad, they're one of the more sensible libertarian leaning sites.
Their argument was that this was done to support entitlement programs through local economy. There are two sides too it -- under taxing, or overspending. Apparently this wasn't going to save money, though.

Entitlement programs is more rhetoric- that's something conservatives say to make it seem like programs like Social Security are bad.

Of course that was their argument. They're libertarians, and they're against welfare programs.
Do you really think that the republicans in Michigan are allocating a lot of money to welfare programs?

If you think there are both sides to it, did the Reason article address both sides? Or did they just blame it all on welfare?

Sounds like he's a terrible human being. It he attempting mass murder though?
I'd probably rather have lunch with her, but if her policies will kill more people and cause more damage to the world, I'd have to favor him in the election.

I think you should save your time here and campaign for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win.

Again, really? Attempting mass murder?

Hillary is probably going to win in a landslide, though gerrymandering is worrying.
I'll campaign for both.