[Tewodros III]

Donald Trump. I would vote for lesser of two evils in this election.

Hillary Clinton is something between a monster and a vampire. She want to spread the war all over MENA.

It is revealed that Clinton and people related to her are behind Turkish coup attempt of 15 July. Sick woman.

Think of it this way, if ww3 happens, both USA and Russia will die and you can restore your ottoman empire, but only if killary is president.

[Red Barn]

I'm voting Stein based on the Immortal Goon Theory, as the Green Party seems the most realistic alternative among the variously unrealistic alternatives.

I'm slightly surprised that Gary Johnson isn't doing better. Does that mean that there are fewer Right Libertarians here now, or that the Libertarians just don't like him? (In Real Life it seems like the latter, but with PoFo you never know.)

[Frollein]

Trump of course. He'll destroy Merkel.

[colliric]

I'd vote for The Republican Party, and Donald Trump is obviously the nominee.

[Suntzu]

I'm voting for fewer Muslim immigrants.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I'm voting Stein based on the Immortal Goon Theory, as the Green Party seems the most realistic alternative among the variously unrealistic alternatives.

Stein is awful. Like no joke. She might be the most unqualified candidate ever to run for president besides Donald Trump. And she's a cooky conspiracy theorist. Plus the policies of HRC are objectively more science affirming than Stein's.

I'm slightly surprised that Gary Johnson isn't doing better. Does that mean that there are fewer Right Libertarians here now, or that the Libertarians just don't like him? (In Real Life it seems like the latter, but with PoFo you never know.)

Yeah, he loses a lot of cred with Libs because of his Free Trade stance. Very popular among people looking to feel like they didn't elect either candidate though.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm voting for fewer Muslim immigrants.

Really? I would have thought that you would be voting for Trump.

----------------

Stein is awful. Like no joke. She might be the most unqualified candidate ever to run for president besides Donald Trump. And she's a cooky conspiracy theorist. Plus the policies of HRC are objectively more science affirming than Stein's.

I doubt it. The Green party has an environmentalist platform, which is almost always based on science.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Here’s what Stein, a medical doctor, told the Washington Post:

“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.”

Notice the Trumpian ending. Stein just doesn’t really know if vaccines are totally safe. This is disturbing stuff, given a trend of vaccine skepticism being promoted by medically illiterate celebrities and known fraudsters like Dr. Joseph Mercola, who’s been repeatedly warned by the FDA over federal law violations.

Stein was directly asked about the Green Party stance on vaccinations in a Reddit AMA and replied, “I don’t know if we have an ‘official’ stance.” She then continued with a paragraph full of conspiratorial fear-mongering about regulatory agencies, a favorite target of the anti-science homeopathy and “alternative medicine” movements.

Recently, Stein went so far as to suggest wireless signals are bad for children’s brains and punctuated her reckless statement with this alarmist soundbite: “We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die.” (Apparently, for all Stein is vehemently against, casual references to animal testing doesn’t make the list.)

The stunning lack of medical and scientific literacy, from a seasoned medical professional who certainly knows better, continues in her food policy. Her official platform states, “Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.” This is absurd, as GMOs have been repeatedly found to be safe. There’s zero serious scientific debate on this point, because the evidence is in and results are clear. GMO crops could save hundreds of thousands of children’s lives in a single year. Stein is trying to stop their development to satisfy anti-science extremists.

Her non-medical pandering often dips into comical absurdity, such as the time she suggested appointing fugitive Edward Snowden to her Cabinet if she won the election. I’m all for principled whistle-blowing, but the idea of nominating a guy who leaked government secrets to the media as Secretary of Homeland Security seems beyond ridiculous. Pardoning Snowden is probably the right thing to do, installing him in the White House is just frightening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jil ... 51db3ff3a8

She's pretty much a quack that will do anything for attention. But at least she's not Killary, amiriteguaiz?

[Pants-of-dog]

http://www.jill2016.com/baseless_anti_v ... m_concerns

Baseless “Anti-Vax” Attacks Against Dr. Jill Stein Distract from Her Call to End the Corrupting Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry Within the FDA

This is the Jill Stein for President campaign’s official response to a recent series of attacks in the press that falsely accused Dr. Stein of “pandering” to the anti-vaccination movement. These attacks began as she called attention to the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical industry within the FDA’s regulatory process.

Dr. Jill Stein has repeatedly articulated her support for vaccinations in interviews and online. The online fact-checking website Snopes.com has debunked accusations claiming Dr. Stein opposes the use of vaccines. The conspiracy theory that Dr. Stein is “anti-science” is becoming a bizarre new counterpart of the “birther”controversy that hounded President Obama's candidacy in 2008.

...

So, now that we have the actual beliefs of Ms. Stein, and not someone else's interpretation, we now see that she is not anti-vaccines.

And I do like the fact that she would not continue the US military involvement in developing countries, which Hillary Clinton has already done.

[Red Barn]

No, of course she's not an anti-vaxxer.

I think it's very telling, though, that this - along with the idea that she's "dangerously anti-science" - is the #1 bullshit charge leveled against her. It's like the DNC did a bunch of focus groups to determine which thoroughly non-threatening pseudo-issue would unify "Liberals" most effectively, and this is the one that came out on top.

Just look at the outlets peddling this "anti-science" line with the most gusto: HuffPo, MSNBC . . . pretty much says it all.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

The conspiracy theory that Dr. Stein is “anti-science” is becoming a bizarre new counterpart of the “birther”controversy that hounded President Obama's candidacy in 2008.

Yeah that's an incredibly retarded comparison. Attacking someone based on the words that they put out there is not the same thing as demanding a birth certificate because someone is black. Secondly, if anybody is peddling conspiracy theories it's Jill Stein.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ ... r/d31ydoe/

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's [not] safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.

Honestly if you can't see how she's pandering to the anti-science, new age crowd, I can't help you. Questioning the safety of current vaccines is the same thing as being an anti-vaxxor. She's saying that their concerns are rational. No. They. Are. Not. Can't show a single scientific study that validates those concerns, it's all just idiotic speculation from people who want to feel like they are in control of their child's health but are actually risking the health of their child so they can feel empowered. Sickening, and I don't want a candidate that will pander to that.

And no, looking at someone's words is not a conspiracy theory.

Bonus nod to homeopathy so you can see how far the dogwhistle politics go.

Bonus top comment in case you don't go to the link:

Let's be honest; the Green Party takes this position because they rely on the support of people who hold faith in homeopathy. It's pandering, pure and simple.

For anyone paying attention, Jill gave a typical politician non-answer. Just throws in a bunch of Fear & Doubt about big pharma with no mention whatsoever of the huge financial interests pushing pseudoscience. Sure, Monsanto shouldn't decide what I eat but neither should NaturalNews.com, who donated $1MM to push GMO labeling in CA and is a purveyor of homeopathic "remedies". You think those greedy fucks wouldn't love to replace our current regulatory system with one that values woo-woo over science? Please.

Published Science and Peer Review are subject to industry influence, but it is by far our best methodology for determining truth. Anything that strays from that is bullshit and anyone who handwaves it away in favor of other systems due to the threat of corruption is a liar.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the anti-vaccine thing.

Also like how you chose to focus on the anti-vaccine thing when there are other issues for which she is against the science on, like GMO's, like saying we make guinea pigs out of the population. lol really?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... n-dollars/

^ Here we see her peddling conspiracy thoerists straight from right-wing news sources and then having those same right wing news sources use her ideas to justify their preferred candidate, Donald Trump.

Also from the site that is supposedly saying she wasn't pandering to anti-vaxxors:

Those who incorrectly label questions about corporate influence over regulators as “anti-science” are disregarding the key scientific principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Science is a method of asking questions that doesn’t always provide the comforting certainty that the media demands from politicians.

We're just asking questions. Did the holocaust really happen? Just asking a question. People can ask questions, can't they?

[The Immortal Goon]

The point is that Stein or not, the vote is going to the left of the Democratic Party. It will force them, and the electorate as a whole, to pay attention to the left if it's not loyally snuggling up to the Powers That Be whenever asked to do so.

I've used this before, but the reason the right is powerful in the United States is because the Tea-Baggers and Alt-Right are willing to jump off the GOP boat and the GOP has to chase after them.

Then the Democrats happily become the Republicans of yesterday, leaving the left there to loyally applaud. It's pathetic, and it means that the Tea-Baggers and Alt-Right are leading the congo-line into hell. People like Red Barn are going to keep resisting, but some people are going to just dance in the line and roll their eyes at us like we're the ones doing something wrong.

[Red Barn]

I know, right?

You'd think the Republican lesson must have sunk in by now, but apparently it hasn't. This whole election cycle is like watching the sloppy, drunken suicide of whatever's left of American Liberalism.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I like how we're just going to ignore the fact that Jill Stein is pandering to anti-vaxxors, homeopathetics, and GMO skeptics for votes because false equivalence.

If there was a social democrat/democratic socialist party I could vote for and have it matter, I would do that. I'll take the liberal over the fascist douche any day though.

[Tewodros III]

I'm voting for fewer Muslim immigrants.

I'm voting for dead confederates.

[Decky]

I know, right?

You'd think the Republican lesson must have sunk in by now, but apparently it hasn't. This whole election cycle is like watching the sloppy, drunken suicide of whatever's left of American Liberalism.

I wouldn't hold your breath; working class people in the UK still vote Tory despite the fact the Tories were the ones fighting hardest against giving them the right to vote in the first place. People are dumb.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah that's an incredibly retarded comparison. Attacking someone based on the words that they put out there is not the same thing as demanding a birth certificate because someone is black.

It is the same in one way: people a lying about a candidate in order to discredit said candidate.

Secondly, if anybody is peddling conspiracy theories it's Jill Stein.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ ... r/d31ydoe/

Regulatory capture is not a conspiracy theory. It is actually a common problem in capitalism.

Honestly if you can't see how she's pandering to the anti-science, new age crowd, I can't help you. Questioning the safety of current vaccines is the same thing as being an anti-vaxxor. She's saying that their concerns are rational. No. They. Are. Not. Can't show a single scientific study that validates those concerns, it's all just idiotic speculation from people who want to feel like they are in control of their child's health but are actually risking the health of their child so they can feel empowered. Sickening, and I don't want a candidate that will pander to that.

And no, looking at someone's words is not a conspiracy theory.

Bonus nod to homeopathy so you can see how far the dogwhistle politics go.

Actually, arguing that medications are not safe because drug companies have influenced the testing process is not the same argument as the anti-vaxxers, who argue that the vaccinations are unsafe due to mercury and other additives.

Also, the fact that you deliberately ignored Ms. Stein's actual words, in order to continue to believe in the interpretaion that she has explicitly denied, suggests that you have already made up your mind and will not be swayed by facts.

You would rather believe that Ms. Stein, Snopes, and me are all liars.

Bonus top comment in case you don't go to the link:


This pretty much sums up how I feel about the anti-vaccine thing.

It have no idea why you think some random person on another forum (who happens to agree with you) is a good source for this kind of debate.

Also like how you chose to focus on the anti-vaccine thing when there are other issues for which she is against the science on, like GMO's, like saying we make guinea pigs out of the population. lol really?

That is the issue you chose to bring up, and I responded to that specific claim. If you are now making another claim, we could discuss that.

The text you quoted does not show Ms. Stein making claims about the safety of GMOs. Instead she discusses the conflict of interest inherent in having a CEO of a food company deciding what food is safe to eat. The conflict of interest is obviously that the CEO has a vested financial interest in having their company's food declared safe, regardless of its safety. It seems logical to me.

Speaking of issues on which we focus, I notice you did not address the fact that under Clinton, the USA continues its military aggression.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... n-dollars/

^ Here we see her peddling conspiracy thoerists straight from right-wing news sources and then having those same right wing news sources use her ideas to justify their preferred candidate, Donald Trump.

We see her staff reposting a Wall Street Journal article.

But since you began this discussion with a smear campaign about Ms. Stein, you do not really have the moral high ground here.

Also from the site that is supposedly saying she wasn't pandering to anti-vaxxors:

We're just asking questions. Did the holocaust really happen? Just asking a question. People can ask questions, can't they?

What do you think the phrase "corporate influence over regulators" means?

I like how we're just going to ignore the fact that Jill Stein is pandering to anti-vaxxors, homeopathetics, and GMO skeptics for votes because false equivalence.

Actually, Ms. Stein has explicitly discussed these very issues in order to clarify her position. I even quoted part of it.

You seem to be ignoring it in order to continue to believe what she has explained to be incorrect.

If there was a social democrat/democratic socialist party I could vote for and have it matter, I would do that. I'll take the liberal over the fascist douche any day though.

TIG has already explained why it matters that we do not support the centrist candidate: to let the centrist party know that they cannot count on the votes of the left if they do not support leftist policies.

If this means that the centrist party fails and the right gets into power, so be it. That is not my fault with my one vote. It is the fault of the centrist party for not being a party that I, and many others, would support.

[mikema63]

There's really no point in going on about stein and whether or not she's anti vax or pro-pseudo science.

Nobody is voting for stein and thinking she will gain real power for any of that to matter. They are voting for her either as pure protest or the idea that TiG and RedBarn are putting out there.

I'd be more interested in arguing about that tactic then arguing about Jill Stein in particular. I think their tactic is more applicable in the primaries than in the General. Any single vote (or block of votes) holds far more power in the primaries than in the general.

Barring a constitutional change of our voting system away from first past the post we will always have two parties. Denying the centrist candidate your vote doesn't move the democratic party to the left, it moves the government of the united states to the right, which is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

[Decky]

You are the one trying to get a Neo Con elected Mike. Only one person on the forum is directly contributing to the rise of the far right in the US and you can find him by looking in a mirror.

[Red Barn]

Actually, I think that guy named after shoes is also stumping pretty hard, but whatev.

One could always argue that a vote for any third party candidate - Johnson as much as Stein - is a blow against the tyranny of the bankrupt two party system, and should always be encouraged no matter which candidate's chosen.

I think this argument actually makes a lot of sense, especially in a year when the major candidates are so widely despised. I mean, if ever there was a time when the "Lesser of Two Evils" looked like a dreary and worthless strategy, this would be it. So why not (pardon the expression) capitalize on this, and try to establish third party voting as a viable alternative?

I think this would pay off a lot quicker than all the crazy, convoluted scheming people "working within the system" invariably favor.