[pp.int.general] Why Members left

[Max Moritz Sievers]

aloa5 wrote:
> Max Moritz Sievers schrieb:
> > aloa5 wrote:
> AND someone wich has the "extremistic" point of view of the PP´s will
> say "yes" to the PP... and it does not matter what they say about
> communism.

No, it's very important if the PP wants communism or not.

> >> 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.
>
> Then it is easy for you to explain this logical in your terms. :)

Take me as an example. I am totally against nuclear power and communism and 
totally for anarchy.

> >> The voters does not know.
> >
> > They do not know what?
>
> If they wake up a morning and have a look at a newspaper - suprisingly
> finding an article in it explaining them that they votet for anarchists
> or communists or nazis.

If we explain it in our international manifesto, they could have known.

> It becomes only then a "direction" if you can place it into in a greater
> context, a vision. But at that time a party or even a member of
> parliament has to decide about issues wich are *not* "neutral" you get
> it anyway.

There is nothing wrong in having a "direction". "Neutrality" is stupid. We 
need a different direction than the present politics is heading.

> > This is answer A explained. We (PPDE) do that.
>
> No - this ist not answer A). Answer A) is a clear "no" on a single
> issue. Answer D) is an explanation of a vision, open for every "yes" and
> "no" on the way to reach this vision.

Are you a parser? If you have a clear vision and do everything to achieve it, 
then you are an ultra extremist. I doesn't matter in the least if there were 
some "yes votes". It depends on the question if the "right" answer is yes or 
no.

> >> 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.
>
> If this would be true you would not like to form an aim like anarchism.

[ ] You understand what anarchy means.

-- 
regards
Max Moritz Sievers