Jill Stein

Post Reply New Topic

Certainly better than Hillary and Trump. She seems to have a lot of similar views on issues as Bernie...except she didn't give up and endorse Hillary and submit to the democratic party. She may not win, in fact beings a third party candidate it is unlikely but at least this is someone I can stand behind, and isn't that what voting is about.

I suppose now I don't have to right in 'neither one' now.

I know plenty of right wing capitalists will call this a stupid choice, and I don't care...it's my vote. It is occured to me I cannot convince anyone to change their opinions/beliefs as far as politics so not going to try nor defend my reasons for voting for her. It is simple I think she is the right choice and just wanted to express that.

Jill Stein is totally anti-science. She believes autism is caused by vaccines and has used the term "epidemic" to describe autism.

Also here's something she tweeted:

WTF???

Lol, yeah she's got some odd views. I had not heard the nuke thing before but that gives me extra incentive to watch tonight.

Someone should give Stein and those Libertarians each a biodome with plenty of volunteers to make mini societies using their proposals. If one of them makes it out of Thunderdome mode we could green light it for serious consideration.

Did not know that about Jill Stein:that she is a vaccine blamer like Trump.

So we have TWO lunatics vying to run the asylum.

hmm all I can find is she changed some tweet that said 'there is no evidence vaccines cause autism' to 'I am not aware of any link between vaccines and autism.' neither one of which seem to indicate she is convinced vaccines cause autism. Also lot's of people use the term epidemic, its not exactly something I see as 'unforgivable' especially if their not an expert on autism.

Also ,yeah from what I understand there are some pretty heavy risks if something did go wrong with nuclear power plants, as well as the rather toxic waste they create. From her page I looked at it doesn't appear her plan would be just shut them down instantly without addressing how to make a smooth transition to making it an obsolete form of power.

I'd rather vote for someone incorrect about autism that's not a 100% corrupt politician...than support Hillary and the Hillary party. Its either Jill Stein, Trump or Neither that will be on my ballot have not made my final decision yet.

Look into it, she never blamed vaccines, just people jumping down her throat for saying something that could be construed as maybe she's not 100% sure about it but isn't aware of any connection between vaccines and autism. Kind of a stretch to say she blamed vaccines is the impression I am actually getting.

she beats the burlap outta The Rumpled. if he [or any other TP/GOPer was NOT in the race, then i'd vote for Stein in a heartbeat.

It was a tweet post, they are meant to be short and provocative...I don't think she is actually saying nuclear power plants are 'nuclear weapons' but rather addressing the devastating damage a disaster involving a nuclear power plant could pose.

But I am sure a biodome with no nuclear power using other safer/more renewable energy could probably do just fine in retrospect. I didn't know people saw nuclear power so damn sentimentally...I personally wouldn't be sad to see it go and have always been glad not to live near them...suppose I don't see why people get all up in arms whenever nuclear power is challenged or criticized it's a bit odd.

if she doesn't win than idc, I still think it would be useful if a political party actually trying to make a comprehensive plan to decrease human impact gains more momentum/attention. Especially since on her page it also draws attention to the fact in order to make a successful transition to renewable and cleaner energy they'd have to compensate people making a living in less than ideal energy sources not just shut those jobs down and tell those people 'oh you're f***d'. It is certainly not something I see commonly addressed by a lot of more environmentally minded people yet it's an important concern.

Not to mention if she's so anti-science why is she running for the green party, indicates she's probably not denying global warming.

Looked it up on CNN.

She doesnt seem to be all that far out.

She doesnt seem to be an out and out clear cut antivexxer.Just concerned about Vaccines.

In the same CNN article they show two tweets (from '12, and '14) in which Trump is clearly rabidly antivexxer, and blames vaccines for the "epidemic" of autism.

After Fukishima you cant blame someone for expressing fear of nuclear power plants that happened to be in the path of natural disasters. Not sayin that she is necessarily right to ignore the fact that Nuclear power plants dont give off much in the way of greenhouse gases, dont get us in hock to the House of Saud, and dont require strip mining. She may not be right to oppose nuclear power, but its not an unrespectable opinion to be against it.

I just don't understand why she keeps running for president. She will never win and the vast majority f people will have never heard of her. I think she would be much more effective if she ran for a position she can actually win and actually tried to make these changes happen rather than just pop up every four years. A protest vote for Stein or Johnson will be the quietest protest a person can possibly make.

Because she's challenging the two party system, should we really all submit ourselves to the same old game of republicans and democrats fighting over the white-house with no chance for alternate parties and their candidates? What position is it she can actually win? and I suppose I'd have to look into her more before I take your word for it that she hasn't made any efforts aside from running as president to make changes.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/politics/ ... o-science/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/1/ ... t-vaccines

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... 68264641a8

In local election a third party candidate can successfully get elected. But unfortunately the way our elections are set up it kind of forces the two party system. If three candidates were in the race than a person only needs 34% of the vote to be elected. If there were four then that number drops to just over 25%. That means a candidate can get elected even though almost three quarters of the population oppose them.

Until we get something like instant runoff voting or ranked voting we are stuck with the two parties. In national elections anyway. Vermont is a bit of an anomaly. Ranked voting is when people get to basically pick their first choice and also pick a second choice. If their first candidate doesn't clear the necessary ore count then their second choice becomes their vote and so on. So in essence what I'm saying is the only way to beat the two party system is from the bottom up. We need to start changing the way elections are done or we'll never see a viable third party on a national level.

I like this rebuttal.

Those are disappointing items regarding Jill Stein. I am a strong science supporter. That said,

I've arrived at Jill Stein as well. I just despise Hillary and wish Bernie had gotten on the ballot some way or another.