Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hey guys,
What are your ways of being politically active (besides voting, which isn't really being that politically active)?

I think that, given the state of the national election (chaos), that people aren't really paying attention to local elections. Local elections are really important, though- a lot of the time, state laws are adopted by other states if they are successful, and some state laws have very relevant federal ramifications. State laws and even more localized laws are also more likely to impact YOU personally than federal ones, because they are specific to your area.
So it's not just important to volunteer for the Presidential election, but the state ones as well. Unfortunately, barely anyone even knows the candidates running for things like their State Senate, let alone volunteers.

In my state, and I believe across America, November 8th isn't just when you vote for President. There are other elections on the ballot, such as State Senate and Assembly elections. So right now is the time to volunteer if you care about local politics (which you should), since the election is really close.

A woman running to defeat an incumbent and corrupt Trump-republican with a LOT of money has an office like fifteen minutes away from my house, so I did some phone-banking there (I believe you can do phone-banking online for Hillary Clinton, but obviously more local politicians don't necessarily have the money to set up things like that). And I did canvassing for the first real time, which was really fun (technically I did it yesterday for the first time, but my friend and I mostly just tagged along and observed). Canvassing is when you go door-to-door and tell people about local elections and encourage them to vote for your candidate.
Barely anyone at all actually knew who the candidates were, and almost everyone we talked to seemed pretty open. There was one guy who said he didn't know much about our candidate, but was really disgusted by a smear email he got against her from the other campaign about how she's a yoga instructor or whatever, and he described it as 'Trumpian', so he planned to support her. The other campaign is really dirty. I saw that they put two of their signs on both sides of one of hours (sandwiching it so that people couldn't see our sign!).

What do you guys think, and what are some of the ways you are politically active or plan to be?

Funny how you call state elections 'local' even though US states are all country-sized. You also have county and city council elections, right? That'd be local, and state would be regional. It's great that you're doing so much though. The fact that US states are country sized makes them all the more important, of course, given the huge amount of autonomy they have.

I vote, and I am begrudgingly a member of the Dutch green party (I'll probably cancel the membership soon). I'm not really politically active aside from voting because I find myself disagreeing badly with every political party, and everybody who is highly convinced of the rightness of their party (read: active members) just seems irrational to me. (because they have to be either antinuclear, libertarian or conservative)

miniboes wrote:Funny how you call state elections 'local' even though US states are all country-sized. You also have county and city council elections, right? That'd be local, and state would be regional. It's great that you're doing so much though. The fact that US states are country sized makes them all the more important, of course, given the huge amount of autonomy they have.

I vote, and I am begrudgingly a member of the Dutch green party (I'll probably cancel the membership soon). I'm not really politically active aside from voting because I find myself disagreeing badly with every political party, and everybody who is highly convinced of the rightness of their party (read: active members) just seems irrational to me. (because they have to be either antinuclear, libertarian or conservative)

Haha. Yeah, America is a HUGE country. It seems regular to me, because I've been here my entire life. I wonder what it's like to be able to drive a few hours and be in another country. :O

Yeah, we do have those too.

That's too bad. I'm really annoyed with the parties in America, because (especially on the federal level) the vast majority of politicians are bought off by big money interests. That's why it's so important to get money out of politics.
How does that work in the Netherlands? Do you guys have so much corporate influence on your politics?

In addition, because of the way America is set up, we are almost obligated to have a two party system. So it's just the democrats and republicans, and they are both really frustrating.

Yeah, it's really frustrating that the more liberal democrats (not so much the more establishment/conservative) are against nuclear energy, which is a huge part of the solution to climate change. Unfortunately, the democrat I'm supporting wants to shut down a really controversial nuclear power plant. Still way better than her opponent, but I wish she supported nuclear energy more.

No candidate or party is perfect. Even if you don't agree completely with the Green Party in your area, if it's the least bad party, I think you should do activism for it. I don't really know much about Dutch politics, so I'm not sure if that's what I would consider the best party, though.

EquALLity wrote:That's too bad. I'm really annoyed with the parties in America, because (especially on the federal level) the vast majority of politicians are bought off by big money interests. That's why it's so important to get money out of politics.
How does that work in the Netherlands? Do you guys have so much corporate influence on your politics?

Less. There's lobbyists, but there's lobbyists of many different kinds of groups. Labour unions are the traditional counterweight of corporate lobby groups. We actually have some institutionalized lobbying in the form of the Social-Economic Council, which consists of government, corporate and union representatives and provides policy advice. They coördinated a recent climate accord in which businesses and the Dutch govenment agree to build the largest wind farm of the world in the North Sea. Such projects have the benefit of high public support, but can be shady (in this case, much of the wind farm will be funded with tax money even though the parliament didn't vote on it).

In the European Union about 60% of lobbyists is from corporate federations, and unions have little influence because their methods of lobbying are ineffective at the European level. As a result, corporate influence is probably a larger issue on the European level than national.

No candidate or party is perfect. Even if you don't agree completely with the Green Party in your area, if it's the least bad party, I think you should do activism for it. I don't really know much about Dutch politics, so I'm not sure if that's what I would consider the best party, though.

The problem is that, because don't have a two party system (which is a blessing, I am well aware), it's not easy to find the least of evils. There's 4 parties I consider lesser evils, and I have no clue which is the least because the differences between them are very subtle. Which one I favor most changes multiple times a year. This year I've been a member of the Party for the Animals, cancelled it, and am now strongly considering cancelling my membership of the green party.

EquALLity wrote:Unfortunately, the democrat I'm supporting wants to shut down a really controversial nuclear power plant. Still way better than her opponent, but I wish she supported nuclear energy more.

If she does that, hundreds of people, mostly older people and disabled, will die next summer of heat stroke when there are massive power outages due to over usage of the grid.
You should talk to her people and express your concern.

Even talk to individual citizens, and create a petition of a thousand people who pledge to support her IF she drops the proposal to shut down the plant without first replacing the power it's generating with green energy (solar, wind, etc.).

If you have numbers and organization on your side, she has to listen.

EquALLity wrote:No candidate or party is perfect. Even if you don't agree completely with the Green Party in your area, if it's the least bad party, I think you should do activism for it. I don't really know much about Dutch politics, so I'm not sure if that's what I would consider the best party, though.

Sometimes that's counter intuitive, though. If the Republican doesn't want to shut down the power plant and risk the lives of hundreds of people, and he'll have NO control over appointing supreme court justices, and he won't have the nuclear codes, etc. he may in fact be the lesser of the two evils.

Look at not just the character of the two people, but what they will do and what the consequences of those actions will be.

The true ambitions of the Republican option may be evil as fuck. But he can't override the supreme court and ban abortion. He basically can't do anything. But he can keep that nuclear plant open and save lives.

If that plant is shut down, people will die.

miniboes wrote: The problem is that, because don't have a two party system (which is a blessing, I am well aware), it's not easy to find the least of evils. There's 4 parties I consider lesser evils, and I have no clue which is the least because the differences between them are very subtle. Which one I favor most changes multiple times a year. This year I've been a member of the Party for the Animals, cancelled it, and am now strongly considering cancelling my membership of the green party.

You might have the best bet with a libertarian or conservative party.

Look at what they want to do, and then subtract what they can't possibly do.

The ultimate aspirations of the greens may look better, but when you take away what they can't actually accomplish, the libertarian or conservative leaning often end up (by sheer accident) much more favorable.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If she does that, hundreds of people, mostly older people and disabled, will die next summer of heat stroke when there are massive power outages due to over usage of the grid.
You should talk to her people and express your concern.

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.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Even talk to individual citizens, and create a petition of a thousand people who pledge to support her IF she drops the proposal to shut down the plant without first replacing the power it's generating with green energy (solar, wind, etc.).

That's funny.

1) If I go to a thousand houses, only a fraction of people will actually answer. Way less than a half, maybe around a fifth or sixth? I don't think I have time to go to five or six thousand houses.
2) Even if I could go to thousands and thousands of houses, NY hates Indian Point. It's not just liberals; my dad wants it to be shut down. People are very skeptical of nuclear energy, and Indian Point specifically is actually pretty risky. I don't agree with shutting it down when we could fix it, but most people LIKE that she wants to shut down Indian Point.
3) To get people to sign anything at the door, even if they lean towards agreeing with you, isn't easy. People barely know about state elections. There were like two people who knew who the candidates were, and they only knew OF them, not their policies etc.. They're not going to pledge to support her at the door after just finding out who she is just because they agree with her on one issue, especially a position that doesn't inspire a lot of passion (maybe being against the plant does, but supporting it usually not).
4) From my understanding, the election is very close. So among people who know about the election, about half are supporting her opponent. They aren't going to pledge to support her.

I'd have to go to like 100,000 houses to get a thousand signatures of support. That's outrageous.

If you have numbers and organization on your side, she has to listen.

Except I don't.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Sometimes that's counter intuitive, though. If the Republican doesn't want to shut down the power plant and risk the lives of hundreds of people, and he'll have NO control over appointing supreme court justices, and he won't have the nuclear codes, etc. he may in fact be the lesser of the two evils.

Look at not just the character of the two people, but what they will do and what the consequences of those actions will be.

The true ambitions of the Republican option may be evil as fuck. But he can't override the supreme court and ban abortion. He basically can't do anything. But he can keep that nuclear plant open and save lives.

If that plant is shut down, people will die.

Um, what?
Do you just think that people in State Senates and Assemblies only control nuclear power plants or something?

They can't ban abortion, but they can make it VERY difficult to get an abortion. There are states in which you have to drive hours to get an abortion, and there are unnecessary and expensive and invasive procedures involved. That's because of state politics, not federal politics.

Who poisoned the water in Flint? That wasn't the federal government, those were the republicans in Michigan. State governments are very relevant.

Even though New York is very blue, the State Senate is kind of republican in practice. Republicans don't have a technical majority, but there is a group of five "democrats" who always vote with the republicans. We need a liberal majority.

Her opponent is against stem cell research (and has voted to stop it). That's the kind of guy we're dealing with here.
*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.

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.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

miniboes wrote: The problem is that, because don't have a two party system (which is a blessing, I am well aware), it's not easy to find the least of evils. There's 4 parties I consider lesser evils, and I have no clue which is the least because the differences between them are very subtle. Which one I favor most changes multiple times a year. This year I've been a member of the Party for the Animals, cancelled it, and am now strongly considering cancelling my membership of the green party.

You might have the best bet with a libertarian or conservative party.

Look at what they want to do, and then subtract what they can't possibly do.

The ultimate aspirations of the greens may look better, but when you take away what they can't actually accomplish, the libertarian or conservative leaning often end up (by sheer accident) much more favorable.

Yeah, the libertarian(ish) party is in my list of lesser evils; the greens, social-democrats, social-liberals (somewhat like the American liberals), libertarians.
The conservative parties are not, they don't even support nuclear. Only the libertarians and nationalists do. The nationalists are most positive about nuclear, but otherwise their policies are asinine (e.g. no subsidies for science or development aid, closing all mosques, banning the quran, other trumpian policies and a bunch of free beer policies that don't add up).

miniboes wrote: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?

Most publicly funded science research right now isn't going to offer anything like immediate returns.
Things like genetic engineering that have practical effects now are funded privately too, and I'd hazard a guess that the nationalists and libertarians are for deregulation, thus opening up the ability of industry to introduce new products faster. Taking down red tape is often as good as or better than a subsidy.

miniboes wrote:closing all mosques, banning the quran

1. They can't do it.
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).
*Not that even that will help them succeed, but softening on that position might help reduce divisiveness.

miniboes wrote:other trumpian policies and a bunch of free beer policies that don't add up).

Like what?