The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

[Skeptic Ginger]

And allow me one more question, very to-the-point.

Say you have two candidates, one who believes that vaccines cause autism (Stein doesn't, but for the sake of this hypothetical...)
And another believes in an all-powerful being that looks like Charles Heston and allows people like Skeptic Ginger to burn in damnation while rewarding mass murderers with eternal glory--
based on those facts alone--who do you think is being more "unscientific"?
Who would you prefer as you're POTUS??
I can't wait for your response...

If said religious believer were basing legislation on their religious beliefs and I had no other choice, I'd take the fanatical leftist over the right wing religious candidate.

Just because someone says they believe in a god, such as Clinton and Trump both do, as long as it has a meaningless impact on their legislative actions, it's not an issue for me. I wish someone would stand up and run as an atheist but it'll be a while. But the right wing religious zealots (not all right wingers) want to legislate based on the Bible. That's is a problem.

 

[The_Animus]

So the argument goes...
which is why we should come into the 21st Century and institute ranked voting, just as Stein recommends.

It is really telling that no candidate from either major party, nor the media, talks about how our winner take all system is crap and we should switch to ranked voting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ask Skeptic Ginger, she ran away cause she's afraid to answer.

Seriously?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would make a huge difference! Take the Republican primaries--if ranked voting had been in effect, all the people who split their votes between Cruz, Rubio etc but who did not like Trump--all of those votes would have transferred to the 2d place candidate (behind Trump)--so Trump very well could have lost.

"If" didn't happen. It's a bit late to be whining about it now.


It's a Nader pipe dream to allow more room to vote for 3rd party candidates. I get it they think they are only being held back because people are afraid to throw away their votes. Neither Nader nor Stein are realistically assessing their qualifications to be POTUS and they have completely inflated views of their popularity.

Stein debated Ben Jealous (former Sanders supporter, now backing Clinton) on Democracy Now this morning. She thinks the fact she went from getting 2% of the vote to getting 5% means she has a viable chance to win. It was clear she'd love to get on the debate stage. I think it would be a waste of everyone's time.

She was also ranting idiocy that Clinton was just as likely to start a nuclear war as Trump was, and spewing unrealistic left wing nonsense. She sounded like a fanatic.

Jill Stein vs. Ben Jealous: Should Progressives Reject Hillary Clinton & Vote Green?

DR. JILL STEIN: I agree. Donald Trump is a very dangerous person. He says extremely despicable, reprehensible things. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton has a track record for doing absolutely horrific things, for expanding wars, in the likes of Libya, for example.

This is BS that needs rebutting. You have Syria where we didn't take Assad out and Libya where we did take Kadaffi out. Which one is better off? Neither. When there are no good options, blaming the outcome of choosing one of them on the person that made the decision is BS.

She goes on to blame any and everything on Clinton as if Clinton had been running the government for decades.

And in terms of racism, the immigrant deportations that Hillary has approved of and has supported are equally horrific. Whether it’s against black people or Muslim people or Latinos, it’s not acceptable for anyone. And, in fact, Hillary played a major role in creating the refugees, the waves of refugees, particularly coming out of Honduras, into this country, where she’s supported the deportation of women and children, and, in fact, the night raids that are going on, and, under the Obama White House, the greatest number of immigrants who have actually been deported.

How can you take someone seriously who thinks in these exaggerated black and white terms:

So, let me say, I think there’s more reason than ever for Bernie Sanders to move over. After the email revelations and the media—the corporate media’s characterizing this as, "Oh, they said bad things about Bernie"—they didn’t just say bad things about Bernie, they sabotaged his campaign.

No one sabotaged his campaign. That's CT BS. Believing Sanders is still going to come over to the Green Party, maybe she should have been working on Sanders' campaign instead of her own?
There's a reason this woman has no more than 5% support in the polls even after Sanders conceded.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, let's say you have Trump, Rubio and Cruz. The first-place vote distribution, is, say,
Trump: 46%
Cruz: 30%
Rubio: 24%

Nobody has an absolute majority, though Trump has a plurality. But let's say everyone who votes for Rubio prefers Cruz to Trump. To account for this, you eliminate the lowest candidate, Rubio, all his votes go to Cruz, so you get
Cruz: 54%
Trump: 46% ...

... and so on, and you could end up with 1. Kasich, 2. Trump.

Yes, in this year's GOP Primary, they'd have been much better off. But on the Democratic side, it only ever was between the top two candidates. The other three never had enough votes to matter.

Stein wants to see that kind of voting in the general election because as Ben Jealous told her, she's in fantasy land thinking she has more than a tiny fringe of support. From the link above:

If you can get 5 percent, then you can get some more money for your party. And what was the cost of that in 2000? The Iraq War. And how much did that cost us, and how much did that cost our children and the future?...

... The reality is that we have a responsibility, when our Earth is in such peril, to not be kind of flying kites and investing in fantasies, but to actually do the hard work of organizing. And the real hard work, we all know, is actually in the streets once you get somebody in office. We don’t elect presidents to make change happen for us. We elect politicians to make it easier for our movements to make change happen. But you’ve got to be willing to build a movement.

I would say not just willing, but capable of building a movement, something Sanders did and showed was possible. Something Stein imagines she could but that she was not capable of doing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah, so a system designed to increase the odds for a third party candidate, but not actually designed to be better for anyone else.

No, it is to our benefit to have a runoff when no candidate gets more than 50%. Certainly better than having the GOP Congress appoint a POTUS. That would truly suck and should be changed post haste before it actually happens.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you ever been around anyone over 60 when they are voting? There is already so much confusion for a large segment of our population when the choice is binary. I can't imagine the confusion when we have to rank candidates, especially when the general population barely knows the positions of 2 candidates, much less 6 or more. No, Stein's system may be beneficial in a primary where few vote, but it is fiddling with the electoral system in order to bias it in favor of unknown candidates, nothing more.

You can't be serious. That is an absurd conclusion about the elderly. You do know both Sanders and Clinton are in their 70s. Do you think they'd be too confused if the voting is complex?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is really telling that no candidate from either major party, nor the media, talks about how our winner take all system is crap and we should switch to ranked voting.

Which winner take all system are you referring to here? Only the GOP Primary used that system. As for the Electoral College, you have a point. But the power was given to the states to chose proportional delegates or winner take all.

 

[wareyin]

You can't be serious. That is an absurd conclusion about the elderly. You do know both Sanders and Clinton are in their 70s. Do you think they'd be too confused if the voting is complex?

You are correct, I should not have limited that statement to the elderly. There is a large segment of our population of all ages that would be confused if the voting became more complex. However, there is a long running belief with a lot of truth to it that older people are not comfortable with new ways of doing things (see: programming VCRs, using mobile phones, etc).

 

[carlitos]

I wish someone would stand up and run as an atheist but it'll be a while. But

From theblaze.com:

During a CNN town hall with Gary Johnson Wednesday night, one voter asked the Libertarian presidential nominee about his faith — something the former New Mexico governor rarely addresses publicly.

“I have to admit to praying once in a while, and, yes, I do believe in God,” he said.

-----

Johnson said he was raised Christian, but is not an active churchgoer.

“If there’s one thing that I’ve taken away from Christianity,” Johnson said, “[it's] do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

As for why he choses not to attend church, Johnson said he doesn’t “speak” to a God who adheres to any one particular faith.

“I’m one of those that just — the God that I speak to is not — doesn’t have a particular religion,” he said.

Maybe he's not atheist, but close enough for jazz. I think I heard him say something like nature was God to him in another interview

 

[Brainster]

You can't be serious. That is an absurd conclusion about the elderly. You do know both Sanders and Clinton are in their 70s. Do you think they'd be too confused if the voting is complex?

Hillary is not quite 70.

On the topic of the thread, Stein (who as a doctor should know better) indulges herself in a little anti-vaxxer sentiment:

“As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved,” Stein said. “There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.”

 

[Maya22]

This lists the ages of various presidential candidates.

 

[stanfr]

Yes, it is bad science to make statements about the science of vaccine recommendations that are based on conspiracy theories. It is bad science to lump all the thousands of dedicated public health and medical researchers in with corporate profiteers. It is bad science to seriously consider a bunch of claims about vaccines from people who have little or no expertise.

So making a wishy-washy statement about vaccination recommendations is now "science"??
I think you need to look up the definition again, SG.

 

[stanfr]

If said religious believer were basing legislation on their religious beliefs and I had no other choice, I'd take the fanatical leftist over the right wing religious candidate.

Just because someone says they believe in a god, such as Clinton and Trump both do, as long as it has a meaningless impact on their legislative actions, it's not an issue for me. I wish someone would stand up and run as an atheist but it'll be a while. But the right wing religious zealots (not all right wingers) want to legislate based on the Bible. That's is a problem.

Fair enough, if a bit of a diversionary tactic (nice job diverting, though, you should run for office )

 

[stanfr]

Yes, in this year's GOP Primary, they'd have been much better off. But on the Democratic side, it only ever was between the top two candidates. The other three never had enough votes to matter.

Stein wants to see that kind of voting in the general election because as Ben Jealous told her, she's in fantasy land thinking she has more than a tiny fringe of support. From the link above:
I would say not just willing, but capable of building a movement, something Sanders did and showed was possible. Something Stein imagines she could but that she was not capable of doing.

LOL, you really don't get it, do you? Why do you think Bernie ran as a Democrat? Do you think his 'movement' would have gotten off the ground if he had run as an Independent??

 

[Axiom_Blade]

On the topic of the thread, Stein (who as a doctor should know better) indulges herself in a little anti-vaxxer sentiment:

Jill's Twitter a couple of days ago:

I support preventative health care as a human right (including vaccines), now let's discuss why the DNC rejected universal health care.

Shots. Fired.

 

[Cleon]

Jill's Twitter a couple of days ago:



Shots. Fired.

There's no point. She's said a number of times that she supports vaccinations, but people laughably using the name "skeptic" have decided that she's really anti-vax after all.

The only thing she could say at this point to make the accusations stop are the words - and only these specific words - "I support Hillary Clinton for President."

 

[Tony Stark]

Jill Stein is a nutjob (she is talking about wifi)

We should not subjecting kid’s brains especially to that.. and we don’t follow this issue in our country, but in Europe where they do, you know, they have good precautions about wireless. Maybe not good enough, you know. It’s very hard to study this stuff. You know, we make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is the paradigm for how public health works in this country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQjaSJP2Xg

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So making a wishy-washy statement about vaccination recommendations is now "science"??
I think you need to look up the definition again, SG.

If you don't understand the basis of the scientific process, that reflects on an anti-science POV. I'm not sure how to make that any more clear.


The FDA does not make vaccine recommendations. Stein seems to think they do. If you are a physician, that doesn't say much for your knowledge of the science of vaccines.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fair enough, if a bit of a diversionary tactic (nice job diverting, though, you should run for office )

It's a diversion because I answered your leading question without falling into your trap?