Jill Stein for President

[Gary Childress]

This is a thread for discussing all things having to do with Jill Stein and the Green Party and to hopefully raise a little more awareness of some of the alternatives out there for the 2016 US Presidential election.

I still haven't decided yet whether I'm going to hold my nose and vote Hillary so Trump doesn't win or else vote for Dr. Stein. I guess I'll have to see what my state, Florida, polls at as the election approaches. If it's a swing state then I do sort of feel compelled to vote for Hillary just to vote for what I perceive may be the lesser evil. If it's a sealed deal for either Trump or Hillary then I will probably vote Jill Stein just on the chance that she may get the 15% required to enter the major debates and therefore gain the Green Party greater legitimacy for future elections.

So far I like what the Green Party has to say about getting off fossil fuel dependency and canceling student debt. I don't have any student debt but it seems like a very big problem for many people out there. And minimizing our dependency on fossil fuels not only will help the environment but also spare us a lot of grief from all the senseless wars we're getting into. Also I like what she says below about rank voting. We as a country really need to do something about what we've been stuck with these past decades of voting the lesser evil. We need to vote for our values and where our consciences are, not because we're afraid of the alternative.


Link to video.

 

[Skritcakes]

Jill Stein and her running mate are commies

 

[sophie]

Jill Stein and her running mate are commies

What is this, 1951? Who gives a <snip> if she's communist or socialist or whatever.

Of more relevance is the fact that she believes, or at least won't definitively speak against, vaccinations cause autism. That level of scientific lunacy, particularly coming from a medical doctor discounts her from the presidency irrespective of whatever her other positions are.

 

[Dreadnought]

The Clinton campaign has thus far run a very successful internet campaign to slander Stein on certain issues like vaccinations. It's a shame, really.

 

[metalhead]

Her willingness to dog-whistle validate lefty conspiracy theorists and propose wholly unworkable plans is downright Trumpian.

"Voting your conscience" is bunk. Voting isn't about you, it affects everyone. I don't understand how people can believe that the consequences of their votes don't matter. Placing a clear conscience over choosing who will make the best, most competent president is crazy, to put it mildly. We all have to compromise our ideals to some extent when we step into the voting booth.

 

[metalhead]

The Clinton campaign has thus far run a very successful internet campaign to slander Stein on certain issues like vaccinations. It's a shame, really.

It's not slander if it's true. Also, when done in writing it's called libel.

I want to talk about two recent controversies relating to science. One was about your stance on vaccines. Can you unequivocally say that the vaccination schedule of the federal government is safe and doesn&#8217;t cause autism or any other disorder?

What I can tell you is that I am not watchdogging that schedule now. As a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, there were concerns among our scientists some years ago about that schedule. I am now practicing political medicine, because it is the mother of all illnesses. So I want a regulatory agency that is above the fray and that is not subject to influence peddling. The best way to restore confidence and improve our vaccination rates is to get the big money out of politics&#8212;and that includes pharmaceutical money&#8212;and to stop the revolving door between industry and regulatory agencies.

But&#8212;just to put this to rest&#8212;you do not believe that autism is caused by the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine or any other vaccine administered to the American public?

I do not know of any evidence to that effect.

Totally unacceptable. "I do not know of any evidence" validates anti-vaxx, because they believe they have seen evidence.

 

[Tahuti]

Of more relevance is the fact that she believes, or at least won't definitively speak against, vaccinations cause autism. That level of scientific lunacy, particularly coming from a medical doctor discounts her from the presidency irrespective of whatever her other positions are.

The grain of truth of that's perhaps autism rose alongside vaccinations. I therefore wouldn't be surprised to see some correlation, though obviously, there is no causation between the two. There are a couple of reasons why autism can be suspected as a modern age (e.g. from 1800 onwards) disorder: It's linked to lead poisoning, being a child of parents who work in an engineering related field and physical health issues.

Perhaps the problem is not so much the disorder itself as society's increasing inability to integrate such people who have instead gotten that unfortunate label.

 

[Phrossack]

Her willingness to dog-whistle validate lefty conspiracy theorists and propose wholly unworkable plans is downright Trumpian.

"Voting your conscience" is bunk. Voting isn't about you, it affects everyone. I don't understand how people can believe that the consequences of their votes don't matter. Placing a clear conscience over choosing who will make the best, most competent president is crazy, to put it mildly. We all have to compromise our ideals to some extent when we step into the voting booth.

QFT, especially the bolded. Bad things happen because most people either do not know or do not care that their choices can affect large numbers of people they'll never meet. No one ordinary citizen caused economic crises and world wars any more than any one snowflake causes an avalanche, but they contribute all the same, and it adds up.

 

[Gary Childress]

It's not slander if it's true. Also, when done in writing it's called libel.

Totally unacceptable. "I do not know of any evidence" validates anti-vaxx, because they believe they have seen evidence.

It sounds to me like a perfectly honest answer. What's wrong with saying that she doesn't know of any evidence that vaccines cause autism? That hardly sounds like an endorsement of the opinion that vaccines cause autism.

As far as what I said about voting our conscience, it's better than voting the lesser of two evils which is what I'm against. I think you completely mischaracterize what I said above. Also, please note that this pertains to rank voting as a potential solution to the dilemma of voting the lesser evil.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Totally unacceptable. "I do not know of any evidence" validates anti-vaxx, because they believe they have seen evidence.

?

So if I say "I do not know of any evidence that indicates there is a God" then I'm validating the views of Christians/Muslims/Whatevers? How exactly?

 

[rah]

"Voting your conscience" is bunk.

I couldn't disagree more. You seem to be saying that you have determined what is best for all of America and if we don't agree with you there's something wrong with us.

My choice this election, being a Repug, is vote Trump or an independent. I can not vote for Hillary. I will not vote for Hillary. Even if you tell me that if I don't vote for Hillary because YOU believe it will be the end of the world, I can not vote for Hillary. This is America and I have the right to vote as I want.

Since I also refuse to vote for Trump, an independent gets my vote this time. It is not bunk, it is my right.

 

[sophie]

?

So if I say "I do not know of any evidence that indicates there is a God" then I'm validating the views of Christians/Muslims/Whatevers? How exactly?

Because it allows for the possibility that there may be evidence now she is unaware of or that some may appear in the future which validates an anti-vaxx position. Conspiracy theorists operate on those gaps in evidence. She didn't say yes, but she also didn't say no. In fact she initially did say no (as in "There is no evidence which would suggest that vaccines cause autism"), and then immediately deleted that tweet and replaced it with the more wishy-washy version you see above.

She's also playing the classic republican dirtbag dogwhistle game of "Oh I'm not really talking about [thing I'm dogwhistling], I'm just concerned about [vague, yet generally uncontroversial opinion]. In this case Stein is couching her rhetoric in handwringing about Big Pharma and corruption in the FDA and CDC, but in doing so she is validating the fears and "concerns" of anti-vaxxers, who constitute a not-insignificant portion of her base. And she's doing this through the Trump tactic of talking, not about facts and data (all of which counter her position - neutral, unbiased studies performed by independent researchers have also shown there is no connection between vaccinations and autism; the CDC is staffed, not primarily by former Big Pharma execs, but by researchers and professionals in the medical field; the only "concerns" about mercury came from non-medical professionals who didn't understand that ethylmercury posed and still poses no risk to patient health whatsoever), but about "feelings". "People feel", "people do not trust", "there were concerns" (note the passive voice here - avoids the need to cite or reference anybody in particular). This is the sort of crap we harp on the Republican party all the time for doing and yet here we have no problem with it?

Concerns about corporate involvement in regulatory bodies such as the FDA, CDC, and indeed others such as the SEC are totally valid. But that's not what this is about. This is about Jill Stein weaseling out of answers so she doesn't have to alienate the crackpot wing of her base.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because it allows for the possibility that there may be evidence now she is unaware of or that some may appear in the future which validates an anti-vaxx position.

And what's so bad about that? If I said there absolutely definitely is no evidence anywhere for the existence of God, isn't that less reasonable than just saying I'm aware of no such evidence? Wouldn't I actually be criticised more for the former from all sides? It doesn't validate anything.

Seriously... allowing for the possibility that you could be wrong and may not know everything is bad?!

 

[metalhead]

?

So if I say "I do not know of any evidence that indicates there is a God" then I'm validating the views of Christians/Muslims/Whatevers? How exactly?

Not a very good equivalency. There are mountains of evidence which show no link between autism and vaccines. "I don't know of any evidence that autism is caused by vaccines" mis-states the current state of the science, badly, and also leaves people free to take this medical doctor at her word and believe that the crackpot "evidence" they've seen is valid.

I couldn't disagree more. You seem to be saying that you have determined what is best for all of America and if we don't agree with you there's something wrong with us.

My choice this election, being a Repug, is vote Trump or an independent. I can not vote for Hillary. I will not vote for Hillary. Even if you tell me that if I don't vote for Hillary because YOU believe it will be the end of the world, I can not vote for Hillary. This is America and I have the right to vote as I want.

Since I also refuse to vote for Trump, an independent gets my vote this time. It is not bunk, it is my right.

I'm assuming your reasoning has to do with the job you believe they will do, correct? And this time, at least, there is a third option available that has experience in governing.

You have the right to vote however you want, of course. I accept that your calculus regarding what is best for the country is very different from mine. But I don't hear you saying that "conscience" is the reason for your vote, as if who you vote for is detached from any real world consequences. You seem to have come to that decision because of the real world consequences, not because your conscience says you need to vote out of some desire for ideological purity.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not a very good equivalency. There are mountains of evidence which show no link between autism and vaccines. "I don't know of any evidence that autism is caused by vaccines" mis-states the current state of the science, badly, and also leaves people free to take this medical doctor at her word and believe that the crackpot "evidence" they've seen is valid.

I think it's a very good equivalency. There's mountains of evidence that show absolutely no link between anything in the universe and the necessity for a divine creator. It also doesn't mis-state anything as what she's saying is undeniably the truth. Anyone who thinks they have access to more evidence on a medical matter than a medical doctor, well... that's on them really.

 

[Gary Childress]

Because it allows for the possibility that there may be evidence now she is unaware of or that some may appear in the future which validates an anti-vaxx position.

Apparently we live in an age where intellectual honesty is a bad thing?

 

[metalhead]

See, if you like Jill Stein, I'd think you know better. That's the exact same argument Climate Change deniers make.

"40 years ago they said global cooling so who knows what future evidence will say?"

It has been conclusively proven that there is no link between autism and vaccines. It's not a question that is open to further scientific inquiry, it's fact. Jill Stein is deliberately misrepresenting that, and presenting it as an open question, in order to curry political favor with anti-vaxx crackpots.

If someone asks me if the Earth is round, how big of a toolbag would I have to be to answer, "I have seen no evidence that the Earth isn't round?" Or what if the question was about Earth's age? Come on, people, be better than this!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What she said, as quoted, was true and entirely reasonable. In fact it was also incompatible with any reasonable belief in such a link, only unreasonable ones. So if anyone comes away from that thinking their belief in such a link has been validated, that's entirely on them.

 

[Gary Childress]

See, if you like Jill Stein, I'd think you know better. That's the exact same argument Climate Change deniers make.

"40 years ago they said global cooling so who knows what future evidence will say?"

It has been conclusively proven that there is no link between autism and vaccines. It's not a question that is open to further scientific inquiry, it's fact. Jill Stein is deliberately misrepresenting that, and presenting it as an open question, in order to curry political favor with anti-vaxx crackpots.

If someone asks me if the Earth is round, how big of a toolbag would I have to be to answer, "I have seen no evidence that the Earth isn't round?" Or what if the question was about Earth's age? Come on, people, be better than this!

There is certainly the possibility that Stein is reluctant to more assertively dismiss the possibility of a connection between vaccines and things like autism because she doesn't want to alienate some of her voting base. Although it wouldn't be a good thing, that in itself is not unheard of in politics. Do you apply the same standard of criticism to Clinton, though? Do you think Clinton panders to some elements of her voting base for no other reason than to win their votes? When push comes to shove, do you think Clinton will depart from a pro-corporate agenda? Or is a pro-corporate agenda something we should all back?

 

[rah]

You have the right to vote however you want, of course. I accept that your calculus regarding what is best for the country is very different from mine. But I don't hear you saying that "conscience" is the reason for your vote, as if who you vote for is detached from any real world consequences. You seem to have come to that decision because of the real world consequences, not because your conscience says you need to vote out of some desire for ideological purity.

More pap based on your picture of the world.

My conscience will not allow me to vote for either because I consider both of them to be untrustworthy and not the type of person I want leading this country.
I personally don't think any president can do the damage that many here believe they can.
This country has survived scum in the past and will if necessary in the future, regardless of which scum is elected this time. But I don't have to like it or vote for them.