[pp.int.general] Why Members left

[Max Moritz Sievers]

aloa5 wrote:
> A voter will have priorities and other questions. Asking you - what
> about nuclear power, what about social things, labour, whatever.
>
> *Example:+
> "What will you decide in case of any nuclear power decision in parliament"
>
> *Options:* (and this *before* having any seat in parliaments and any
> need for decide yes or no)
> A) "we will every time say *no*" (green stance; after the last BPT
> Pirate Party Germany stance)
> B) "we will every time say *yes*" (? stance)
> C) "I can not tell you what we will do - *maybe yes or no*" (your stance)
>
>
> So - I go with you Kaj as far as you say that with options A) and B)
> (before elections/seats) you will have parts of voters and members wich
> will say no to the party. But: why? Because they take care of that point
> and *the priority in our core issues is not enough for him/her*.

Where do you know?

> And this ist the point you did not thought over (enough). This persons
> will *also* not be very happy about a "maybe". Because *no* answer can
> be a "really yes" or a "really no" to nuclear power or to anarchism or
> to communism.

Of course it can.

> The voters does not know.

They do not know what?

> And because of this I give you the answer D) for wich I fighted (without
> success) in the PPD:
> D) "Dear voter - we think that a world without nuclear power and with
> "clean" energy is a better world. In the future are concepts as desertec
> (solar energy) or perhaps nuclear fusion the better way. They are not
> only mor clean but will also be cheap. We will have a look to ensure
> that we force such clean technologies and help easily (and cheap)
> spreading knowledge (copyrights) over the world for example over
> patent-rules."

This is answer A explained. We (PPDE) do that.

> And you could be sure - this would not exclude but *inbclude* A) and B).
> Only radicals of A) (greens) and B) (don´t know - libertarians?) would
> be "excluded"... but they were never included (would anyway not vote for
> the PP´s).

The supporters of answer B are not libertarians, they are idiots.

> The Germans failed to choose this way D). Without this, without even
> *understand the need of* forming a vision of a better future for the
> voters, you will never get a chance to form anything - no seats, no
> success, no influence on the long run.

Meine Rede seit 33.

-- 
regards
Max Moritz Sievers