Support NeoGAF

[KRod-57]

She's not addressing anyone, she is pandering to their confirmation bias.

She literally gave a non-answer by just fucking saying "questions need addressed". Cmon Jill, what questions? Care to address them for us given your medical background? No?

That is exactly what she is doing actually, she first acknowledges how doctors in the past were concerned over the level of mercury in vaccines, since then we have been able to remove thimerosal from child vaccinations, thus making vaccinations safer. She goes on to say that we have been able to answer these past concerns about vaccines, but she is unsure that we have been able to answer all of them.

That is not a problem.. that is a doctor saying "hey, I'm listening" which is what a scientist is supposed to do, accept that people have questions, listen to them.. and then answer them. Is she answering their questions in this specific statement? no, she is acknowledging that they exist. That is not something that should be condemned

 

[KRod-57]

Opening up to the questions only helps if those questioning are accepting of the answers. When you're starting from a base of "the government and its scientists can't be trusted," no answer, even one backed by the most rigorous study and testing, is going to be good enough.

For what it's worth, the answers to all the questions these people have are out there. They aren't even hard to find. If these people actually gave two shits about intellectual honesty, they would've sought those answers out and dropped this bullshit anti-vax policy.

She didn't say that the government and scientists cannot be trusted, she addressed that some people do not trust the FDA. She is not promoting a position on vaccines, she is acknowledging already existing concerns people have about vaccines

 

[soul creator]

Not a fan of green party or Stein but pretty much the policies of all candidates "kill kids".

Stein is extremely anti war. Other candidates dont mind bombing the shit out of the middle east

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out why pandering to anti-vaxxers is the most unforgiveable child-killing evil, but a history of directly supporting foreign invasions and bombings, and selling arms worldwide is considered a standard, perfectly rational approach needed to get things done. It's even called smart power! Who would be against something that has the word smart in the name? Heh

Seems like the obvious answer is that people draw their lines at whatever issue they value more. For some people, supporting single-payer and being anti-war might outweigh someone pandering to anti-science folks, while for others, being socially liberal, and supporting some moderate economic improvements outweighs a history of supporting violence overseas.

Which is totally fine if that's what you genuinely support! But it's amusing when one side pretends like they're the sober, perfectly rational voter, and the others are just being irrational loons.

 

[Audioboxer]

That is exactly what she is doing actually, she first acknowledges how doctors in the past were concerned over the level of mercury in vaccines, since then we have been able to remove thimerosal from child vaccinations, thus making vaccinations safer. She goes on to say that we have been able to answer these past concerns about vaccines, but she is unsure that we have been able to answer all of them.

That is not a problem.. that is a doctor saying "hey, I'm listening" which is what a scientist is supposed to do, accept that people have questions, listen to them.. and then answer them. Is she answering their questions in this specific statement? no, she is acknowledging that they exist. That is not something that should be condemned

Well that's a problem because we can be sure we've answered them all. Other civilised Western countries have had these magical answers Jill is still unsure about for tens of years.

One has to question how much attention she was paying during her studies. So yeah, these non answer political answers deserve condemnation. These are suppose to be the well educated people that have a go at running your damn country.

Have a bit more pride and a higher standard of someone that has the potential to run a country as large and great as America.

 

[MHWilliams]

Not a fan of green party or Stein but pretty much the policies of all candidates "kill kids".

Stein is extremely anti war. Other candidates don't mind bombing the shit out of the middle east

Truth.

 

[KRod-57]

Well that's a problem because we can be sure we've answered them all. Other civilised Western countries have had these magical answers Jill is still unsure about for tens of years.

One has to question how much attention she was paying during her studies.

So you're saying she was supposed to say "I know that all of these questions have been answered"?

That's not how you address peoples' questions, that's how you deny their existence

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

That is exactly what she is doing actually, she first acknowledges how doctors in the past were concerned over the level of mercury in vaccines, since then we have been able to remove thimerosal from child vaccinations, thus making vaccinations safer. She goes on to say that we have been able to answer these past concerns about vaccines, but she is unsure that we have been able to answer all of them.

That is not a problem.. that is a doctor saying "hey, I'm listening" which is what a scientist is supposed to do, accept that people have questions, listen to them.. and then answer them. Is she answering their questions in this specific statement? no, she is acknowledging that they exist. That is not something that should be condemned

As a doctor, she should know that answers to those questions exist. She should address the fact that vaccines have never been proven dangerous. She should address the fact that thimerosal has never been proven dangerous.

Instead, she engages in the same bullshit "I'm not saying it, I'm just quoting others who have said it" tactic that works for dog-whistlers of all stripes.

For a topic this important, that literally means life or death for some, she should have the courage to say she does not believe vaccines to be dangerous because the science points here in that direction.

Or conversely, she should have the courage of her convictions to say she's an anti-vaxxer so we can know beyond all doubt that she's a lunatic.

 

[hawk2025]

The impact of losing between half and 70% of our food supply, and more than 90% of our cotton, soy, and corn would be orders of magnitude larger than every single drone strike ever carried out in the planet.

Let me go a bit further:

The direct impact of doing that worldwide would likely be larger than every single armed conflict the world has been involved in for the entirety of the 20th century.

 

[Audioboxer]

So you're saying she was supposed to say "I know that all of these questions have been answered"?

That's not how you address peoples' questions, that's how you deny their existence

Yup, its pretty much as simple as saying all the genuine concerns raised previously have been answered. I'm now happy to say I fully support vaccination and taking care of yourself and child. There comes a point where the question from the guy in a tinfoil hat wearing a bath robe doesn't require to be taken seriously and answered legitimately along with the other genuine and worthwhile questions.

 

[KRod-57]

As a doctor, she should know that answers to those questions exist. She should address the fact that vaccines have never been proven dangerous. She should address the fact that thimerosal has never been proven dangerous.

Instead, she engages in the same bullshit "I'm not saying it, I'm just quoting others who have said it" tactic that works for dog-whistlers of all stripes.

For a topic this important, that literally means life or death for some, she should have the courage to say she does not believe vaccines to be dangerous because the science points here in that direction.

Or conversely, she should have the courage of her convictions to say she's an anti-vaxxer so we can know beyond all doubt that she's a lunatic.

She has addressed that, again I provided a link in my first post where she describes her position on vaccines. Just because she doesn't say it in this specific statement does't mean that is not a position that she holds

 

[whyamihere]

Actually, that entire interview with Jill Stein is insane. How could you vote for this person?

 

[hawk2025]

Actually, that entire interview with Jill Stein is insane. How could you vote for this person?

Look at her answers on the bailout.

She actually thinks we would somehow be ok letting it all burn.

 

[Spinifex]

I'm not sure how someone can read the full article in the OP and come to the conclusion that she's anti-vax. She immediately refutes that and then spends the rest of the response explaining part of the reason why some people (who unfortunately constitute far to much of the Green's electorate) came to their incorrect conclusions about vaccines.

No kidding. I guess the residual hate for Bernie had to go somewhere.

 

[DOWN]

https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/status/758734246072586240

Probably posted, but just a reminder of how Stein really feels about the election.

Dreadful

 

[KRod-57]

Yup, its pretty much as simple as saying all the genuine concerns raised previously have been answered. I'm now happy to say I fully support vaccination and taking care of yourself and child. There comes a point where the question from the guy in a tinfoil hat wearing a bath robe doesn't require to be taken seriously and answered legitimately along with the other genuine and worthwhile questions.

That is not a position of science, that is a position of zeal. When you fail to acknowledge the mere existence of the questions people have, you are not promoting a discussion of open information. When information is open, science will always prevail, that means we address all questions people have. Each question answered is a victory for science and for vaccines

 

[whyamihere]

Look at her answers on the bailout.

She actually thinks we would somehow be ok letting it all burn.

The Intercept article is actually insane. It's dreadful.

 

[Audioboxer]

That is not a position of science, that is a position of zeal. When you fail to acknowledge the mere existence of the questions people have, you are not promoting a discussion of open information. When information is open, science will always prevail, that means we address all questions people have. Each question answered is a victory for science and for vaccines

My head has had enough fucks for one night. I shall depart by saying surprisingly for once I found a Forbes contributed article I actually enjoyed

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi...bout-jill-steins-vaccine-stance/#481c42ef6465

 

[Cronox]

Good thing I'm not supporting Hillary as I'm British and can't vote.

I can sure as shit say the anti-vaccination nonsense coming from your country is downright embarrassing and maybe if that shit was tried to be pulled here in decent numbers you'd see why us at this side of the pond have an absolute zero tolerance policy for politicians playing games with public health and safety. We have many of our own problems, but anti-vax thankfully is a non-starter.

As I've already said before a "politicans answer" on this subject is precisely one reason why your country is still battling this embarrassing and dangerous movement in 2016. Hold your politicians to a higher standard instead of making excuses for them.

Why are you here then? Vaccination threads just get you fired up? Would you go into threads about the smallest UK political parties (~1% of the vote) and spend all this energy talking about their candidate's vague non-endorsement of the anti-vaccination movement?

Also this is a horrible time to extol the virtues of British politics. I'm with the general mood of being done with the discussion. At least it doesn't feel entirely unproductive.

 

[tuxfool]

Also this is a horrible time to extol the virtues of British politics. I'm with the general mood of being done with the discussion. At least it doesn't feel entirely unproductive.

Dude is the least likely to extol the virtues of British politics. He's Scottish.

 

[Audioboxer]

Why are you here then? Vaccination threads just get you fired up? Would you go into threads about the smallest UK political parties (~1% of the vote) and spend all this energy talking about their candidate's vague non-endorsement of the anti-vaccination movement?

Also this is a horrible time to extol the virtues of British politics. I'm with the general mood of being done with the discussion. At least it doesn't feel entirely unproductive.

Yeah I do for the record. UKIP are a disgrace and a party I've spent a lot of time bashing. Their leader Farage (at the time of Brexit) is basically the UKs Trump. An embarrassment to this country.

For what it is worth as well you shouldn't really give two shits about me partaking in a debate that is genuinely serious and genuinely worthwhile. It really doesn't matter where I am from I can add to the scientific values many of us hold globally. Keep in mind you approached me as some Hillary voter in a remark a few posts back.

Now excuse me as I go scour the Brexit topic for any Americans /s. As a matter of fact its actually good seeing non Brits slam our country in such a topic. Shit needs called out by anyone. Sometimes a little outsider perspective actually helps put in context just how bad a state your country might be in. Or how bad a politician from your country is.

 

[Cronox]

Yeah I do for the record. UKIP are a disgrace and a party I've spent a lot of time bashing. Their leader Farage is basically the UKs Trump. An embarrassment to this country.

For what it is worth as well you shouldn't really give two shits about me partaking in a debate that is genuinely serious and genuinely worthwhile.

It really doesn't matter where I am from I can add to the scientific values many of us hold globally. Keep in mind you approached me as some Hillary voter in a remark a few posts back.

Now excuse me as I go scour the Brexit topic for any Americans /s. As a matter of fact its actually good seeing non Brits slam our country in such a topic. Shit needs called out by anyone. Sometimes a little outsider perspective actually helps put in context just how bad a state your country might be in. Or how bad a politician from your country is.

There is literally no debate here, besides on what people think Jill Stein has said. No one here identifies as anti-vaccine. Just what I pointed out in my first post, a lot of knee-jerk, emotional reasoning and jumping to conclusions. Maybe tempered slightly for a moment, but no one's mind has been changed here. There were some attempts at reason which reassure me that I'm not entirely alone in this community, so that was nice.

I assumed Hillary because this thread is inherently a thread about US politics, and you know that this forum is defensive regarding the democratic candidate. I have trouble seeing the motivation for someone not involved in US politics to enter it, but I suppose the thread title doesn't give context about Jill Stein being the US Green Party candidate.

I mean, anytime people talk about the state of politics in a foreign country it sounds incredibly embarrassing. Politics in most the first world appears to just be in a sad state right now.

 

[Audioboxer]

There is literally no debate here, besides on what people think Jill Stein has said. No one here identifies as anti-vaccine. Just what I pointed out in my first post, a lot of knee-jerk, emotional reasoning and jumping to conclusions. Maybe tempered slightly for a moment, but no one's mind has been changed here. There were some attempts at reason which reassure me that I'm not entirely alone in this community, so that was nice.

I assumed Hillary because this thread is inherently a thread about US politics, and you know that this forum is defensive regarding the democratic candidate. I have trouble seeing the motivation for someone not involved in US politics to enter it, but I suppose the thread title doesn't give context about Jill Stein being the US Green Party candidate.

I mean, anytime people talk about the state of politics in a foreign country it sounds incredibly embarrassing. Politics in most the first world appears to just be in a sad state right now.

That it is. Fear not my friend I'm more concerned about my embarrassment of my own country first and foremost. We've currently got an unelected PM, a vote to leave the EU with no timeframe on when and masses of a country now depressed at what they voted as we almost certainly plummit into a deeper recession.

It just so happens we've recently shot our own feet off, and America is probably next for the global eyes on who the next president is going to be. Nearly every night on British news there is something new about Hillary and Trump. Or something repeated.

 

[Cronox]

I've read through the entirety of her platform. Literally all of it. There's a reason why I found (see post history, if you wish) her absurd anti-GMO policies months ago a gigantic, deal-breaking problem while everyone else focused on weaker anti-vaccine positions for months.

Like I said, when we are quite literally interpreting the exact same words of a very specific statement differently, there's really nowhere else the debate can go. I think the words are a clear and direct dog whistle to a lunatic base, I think her position on banning GMOs and Pesticides correlates to it, and you see it differently (I won't presume to know exactly how you see it, of course).

I suppose it's a matter of good will. Many smart people fill in the uncertainty of Trump's positions with their own and pretend that the Trump in their head is the Trump they're voting for. I take up a far less herculean task by simply saying I find it incredibly unrealistic that Stein would stop all GMOs, or start down a road that will leave people dying of starvation or any such thing. The Green Party platform, and even Jill Stein's is a platform of ideals that I believe (and many other Greens would agree) would quickly become more utilitarian under the scrutiny of reality via election.

It also helps that, like I said, I've seen her speak in person before, and on the subject of GMOs she only mentioned labeling them, which I'm not against. You can read what you want into why she didn't mention putting "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe," and reach a different conclusion than I. Even if I believed that she staunchly wanted to shut down GMO food entirely, it wouldn't change my vote because a) this isn't about her getting elected in 2016 and b) I agree with her on issues I deem more important.

Once again, if you're jumping to "people will literally be starving to death because she would shut down GMOs" we have nothing more to talk about. There is no danger because it's not happening. Even if she truly wanted to do that and was elected, it still would be very unlikely to happen, the US isn't a dictatorship and even the expanded powers of the president have their limits.

So let's all calm down, it's going to be alright.

 

[Zereta]

This is who Bernie or Bust supporters want to vote for now?

 

[Alucrid]

https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/status/758734246072586240

Probably posted, but just a reminder of how Stein really feels about the election.

i wonder how it feels to sell your soul for a few thousand more votes

 

[hawk2025]

I suppose it's a matter of good will. Many smart people fill in the uncertainty of Trump's positions with their own and pretend that the Trump in their head is the Trump they're voting for. I take up a far less herculean task by simply saying I find it incredibly unrealistic that Stein would stop all GMOs, or start down a road that will leave people dying of starvation or any such thing. The Green Party platform, and even Jill Stein's is a platform of ideals that I believe (and many other Greens would agree) would quickly become more utilitarian under the scrutiny of reality via election.

It also helps that, like I said, I've seen her speak in person before, and on the subject of GMOs she only mentioned labeling them, which I'm not against. You can read what you want into why she didn't mention putting "a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe," and reach a different conclusion than I. Even if I believed that she staunchly wanted to shut down GMO food entirely, it wouldn't change my vote because a) this isn't about her getting elected in 2016 and b) I agree with her on issues I deem more important.

Once again, if you're jumping to "people will literally be starving to death because she would shut down GMOs" we have nothing more to talk about. There is no danger because it's not happening. Even if she truly wanted to do that and was elected, it still would be very unlikely to happen, the US isn't a dictatorship and even the expanded powers of the president have their limits.

So let's all calm down, it's going to be alright.

See, read into it what I want?

It's an extremely clear sentence. There's no room for other interpretation.

If your defense for the obviously dangerous policy proposal, however, is she wouldn't do it anyways, and even if so, she won't win anyways, by all means. As I said, there's not much more to say when we don't even interpret an extremely simple, matter-of-fact sentence the same way.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

i wonder how it feels to sell your soul for a few thousand more votes

It's not about votes, it's about $$$

 

[kadath]

I mean, hey. If these questions involve looking at vaccines and finding ways to make them better? Let's question them all we'd like!

Basically this. In a rational world, critical evaluation improves the method.

 

[Cronox]

See, read into it what I want?

It's an extremely clear sentence. There's no room for other interpretation.

If your defense for the obviously dangerous policy proposal, however, is she wouldn't do it anyways, and even if so, she won't win anyways, by all means. As I said, there's not much more to say when we don't even interpret an extremely simple, matter-of-fact sentence the same way.

You are not in any danger. If this is your issue to die on, believe the worst case scenario by all means. There is a context in Jill Stein the candidate, and independent platforms are usually going to be more outlandish than the establishment ones, often in ways that get amended when a candidate gets in and there's work to be done.

Personally it's more important to me that Jill Stein is a peace candidate and would go far further in combating climate change than the establishment parties. If I am in personal danger from anything, it is climate change, and a candidate who understands that is necessary to me. If Hillary continues Obama's empty rhetoric regarding the environment (and I have no reason to believe she would do better), there is a preponderance of evidence implying that we are pretty well fucked. We needed to be working on solutions decades ago, and now nothing short of extreme measures will save the world's coastal cities. Not small reductions in emissions by 2050.

Looks like we each have issues important to us, eh?

 

[hawk2025]

You are not in any danger. If this is your issue to die on, believe the worst case scenario by all means. There is a context in Jill Stein the candidate, and independent platforms are usually going to be more outlandish than the establishment ones, often in ways that get amended when a candidate gets in and there's work to be done.

Personally it's more important to me that Jill Stein is a peace candidate and would go far further in combating climate change than the establishment parties. If I am in personal danger from anything, it is climate change, and a candidate who understands that is necessary to me. If Hillary continues Obama's empty rhetoric regarding the environment (and I have no reason to believe she would do better), there is evidence that we are pretty well fucked. We needed to be working on solutions decades ago, and now nothing short of extreme measures will save the world's coastal cities. Not small reductions in emissions by 2050.

Looks like we each have issues important to us, eh?

Not at all. Climate change is extremely important to me.

Which is why banning nuclear energy is completely idiotic, and which is why the Clinton Foundation has been working directly on climate change-related issues for well over a decade. The Clintons have done more to fight climate change than the entirety of the Green Party.

 

[Cronox]

Not at all. Climate change is extremely important to me.

Which is why banning nuclear energy is completely idiotic, and which is why the Clinton Foundation has been working directly on climate change-related issues for well over a decade. The Clintons have done more to fight climate change than the entirety of the Green Party.

The Clinton Foundation has done some stuff, but it's small time, as with most other outfits trying to deal with climate change. Once again, I'm not convinced Hillary is willing to enact the measures needed to truly stop climate change, and it's too late for half-measures. To be honest, some number of our nuclear plants probably need to be shut down. There's one near Miami that's in a particularly precarious situation near the sea. They all need to be evaluated for safety. New ones would be much safer, but that's as much of a nonstarter under Hillary as Stein.

I'm also against bombing the shit out of other countries until the end of time with our never-ending war on terror, which will continue under Hillary.

 

[mlclmtckr]

I'm glad we've moved from "Stein isn't technically an anti-vaxxer" to "But Hillary is a warmonger!". At least it's arguable.

 

[Cronox]

I'm glad we've moved from "Stein isn't technically an anti-vaxxer" to "But Hillary is a warmonger!". At least it's arguable.

Sounds like you're trying to win on the internet. Please don't. A conversation moves and when a topic has been discussed to death one starts talking about other things. I've already said all I have to say on your first topic in my earlier posts. If you truly believe she's anti-vaccinations then go on your merry way believing it.

 

[Wensih]

She should address the fact that vaccines have never been proven dangerous.

This is false. The Sabin Vaccine is widely acknowledge of having the risk of reverting back to the virulent strain and has happened in the past. It's used throughout the rest of the world because it's cost effective, more easily administered, and has less maintenance than the Salk vaccine which is heat inactivated (the polio virus cannot become virulent), basically the benefit from the vaccine outweighed the risk of the vaccine becoming virulent again for developing nations, but the United States has decided to revert back to the original IPV, forgoing the more easily administered OPV.

There are also risks with the small-pox vaccine which is no longer required, unless working with it in a lab setting.


http://www.emergency.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/reactions-vacc-public.asp

The infinitesimally small danger associated with vaccination compared to the danger of contracting and spreading a life-threatening disease makes vaccines justified in their use.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

This is false. The Sabin Vaccine is widely acknowledge of having the risk of reverting back to the virulent strain and has happened in the past. It's used throughout the rest of the world because it's cost effective, more easily administered, and has less maintenance than the Salk vaccine which is heat inactivated (the polio virus cannot become virulent), basically the benefit from the vaccine outweighed the risk of the vaccine becoming virulent again, but there is a risk.

There are also risks with the small-pox vaccine which is no longer required, unless working with it in a lab setting.

http://www.emergency.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/reactions-vacc-public.asp

Seriously? Stein is addressing vaccines given in the US. We don't really do Sabin-style polio vaccines here. And even if we did, the incidence of reaction is rare.

Same with smallpox vaccine concerns. Normal reactions are mild, with a very small chance of a more serious reaction--the same as with any medication, or any other substance you put into your body.

I guess that'll teach me not to asterisk my declarative statements. This is for the one you quoted:

*Obviously, there are risks involved in everything, including the intake of foods, medications and vaccinations. But no known link exists between vaccines and illness, other than very rare adverse reactions. Which are to be expected and have nothing to do with the actual vaccine being an issue, and is instead linked to the idiopathic nature of allergies and reactions. Also, it's all about Salk, not Sabin.

 

[Wensih]

Seriously? Stein is addressing vaccines given in the US. We don't really do Sabin-style polio vaccines here. And even if we did, the incidence of reaction is rare.

Same with smallpox vaccine concerns. Normal reactions are mild, with a very small chance of a more serious reaction--the same as with any medication, or any other substance you put into your body.

I guess that'll teach me not to asterisk my declarative statements. This is for the one you quoted:

*Obviously, there are risks involved in everything, including the intake of foods, medications and vaccinations. But no known link exists between vaccines and illness, other than very rare adverse reactions. Which are to be expected and have nothing to do with the actual vaccine being an issue, and is instead linked to the idiopathic nature of allergies and reactions. Also, it's all about Salk, not Sabin.

I edited my post to reflect that I agree that I think the need for vaccination outweighs the infinitesimally small danger of vaccination. I just wanted to be your assterik.

 

[KRod-57]

My head has had enough fucks for one night. I shall depart by saying surprisingly for once I found a Forbes contributed article I actually enjoyed

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywi...bout-jill-steins-vaccine-stance/#481c42ef6465

There's a difference between supporting vaccines based on conclusive information, and outright refusing to acknowledge any concerns that some may have with vaccinations. Science isn't just about showing enthusiasm for a side, it is a calculated conclusion. What you fail to realize is if you do not acknowledge questions, then you are preventing misinformation from being debunked

Is Jill Stein anti-vaccine? no, again here is her position on vaccines http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

 

[Boombloxer]

Yes we have real questions, like "Why would anyone not vaccinate?"

Pretty much. Fuckin loon.

 

[televator]

Well... Fuck.

 

[JackDT]

Jill Stein:

And on climate, you know, Trump talks terrible on climate, although in Ireland, I believe it is, he does believe in climate change: He’s trying to build a wall to protect one of his luxury golf courses in Ireland, because he’s worried about sea level rise from climate change, according to the papers that he’s filed for that permit.

In fact, you know, Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate. Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things. Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing. She basically said, "No, bar the gates, send them back." You know, so we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing.

Jill Stein claiming she can't see daylight between Clinton and Trump has got me to reconsider ever voting Green even in local elections for the foreseeable future.

These are different arguments:

"Vote for me because I'm the best candidate." Ok Great.

"Vote for me because I can't tell the difference between Clinton and Trump..." give me a break.

She's making the second case, so either she's an idiot or she's being disingenuous.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/s...34246072586240

Probably posted, but just a reminder of how Stein really feels about the election.

What a stupid fucking woman, holy shit.

 

[Cronox]

Jill Stein:

Jill Stein claiming she can't see daylight between Clinton and Trump has got me to reconsider ever voting Green even in local elections for the foreseeable future.

These are different arguments:

"Vote for me because I'm the best candidate." Ok Great.

"Vote for me because I can't tell the difference between Clinton and Trump..." give me a break.

She's making the second case, so either she's an idiot or she's being disingenuous.

Your jimmies seem rustled, friend.

In a political campaign, one says why one should vote for you, and one also says why one shouldn't vote for your opponents.

"I can't tell the difference between Clinton and Trump" isn't what she's saying, but she is certainly saying that both of them have records of hypocrisy and from her perspective, aren't the way forward. Many people don't find much to like about either candidate, this is well known, and not shocking in the least. Christ, look at the polls. Are Greens are supposed to have some secret truce with the Democrats? Does Jill Stein, as a candidate who wants your vote, have to say "vote for me because these other guys aren't any good for X reasons, though Hillary is better than Trump" to pass your test? Why would she do that?

 

[JackDT]

Your jimmies seem rustled, friend.

In a political campaign, one says why one should vote for you, and one also says why one shouldn't vote for your opponents.

"I can't tell the difference between Clinton and Trump" isn't what she's saying, but she is certainly saying that both of them have records of hypocrisy and from her perspective, aren't the way forward. Many people don't find much to like about either candidate, this is well known, and not shocking in the least. Christ, look at the polls. Are Greens are supposed to have some secret truce with the Democrats? Does Jill Stein, as a candidate who wants your vote, have to say "vote for me because these other guys aren't any good for X reasons, though Hillary is better than Trump" to pass your test? that?

Let's start with not implying that a wall on a Donald Trump golf course means climate policy isn't much different from Hillary Clinton. What an absurd argument to make.

 

[Cronox]

Let's start with not implying that since Donald Trump built a wall on a golf course his climate policy isn't much different from Hillary Clinton. What an absurd argument to make.

I'm not seeing that implication at all. It seems to be a separate thought from what follows. Like she was speaking extemporaneously and what she said reminded her of another point, which she then makes. In my opinion, people speaking don't tend to imply something that is sentences apart. But more context in which this was said (ie a link) would help.

I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread seemingly looking for something to be offended by. When you come up with that link to her comments (which seem like they're either from an interview or a speech transcript), am I going to see a leading, editorialized headline? I'm having trouble believing so many people can find offense (as with this thread's title) without one.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

That is exactly what she is doing actually, she first acknowledges how doctors in the past were concerned over the level of mercury in vaccines, since then we have been able to remove thimerosal from child vaccinations, thus making vaccinations safer. She goes on to say that we have been able to answer these past concerns about vaccines, but she is unsure that we have been able to answer all of them.

Note that this is factually incorrect - removing thimerosal from vaccines did not make them any safer. In fact, it only made them less safe for use in developing nations due to an increased risk of contamination and a reduced ability to use multi-dose vials. In reality, this demonstrates the problem with Stein's logic rather that defends it - the decision to remove thimoersal was entirely a non-evidence based, knee-jerk decision to appease people with nebulous concerns - and there were consequences for not following the science with intellectual honesty.

"Just asking questions" doesn't lead to safer vaccines. Scientific research, however, does.

 

[hawk2025]

Your jimmies seem rustled, friend.

In a political campaign, one says why one should vote for you, and one also says why one shouldn't vote for your opponents.

"I can't tell the difference between Clinton and Trump" isn't what she's saying, but she is certainly saying that both of them have records of hypocrisy and from her perspective, aren't the way forward. Many people don't find much to like about either candidate, this is well known, and not shocking in the least. Christ, look at the polls. Are Greens are supposed to have some secret truce with the Democrats? Does Jill Stein, as a candidate who wants your vote, have to say "vote for me because these other guys aren't any good for X reasons, though Hillary is better than Trump" to pass your test? Why would she do that?

Amazing argument.

You are essentially saying she's just playing a purposefully obtuse part, discrediting any differences, and flirting with allowing the fascist to win.

For political gain.

...and that's suppose to make me relate to her? It's disgusting.

 

[KRod-57]

Note that this is factually incorrect - removing thimerosal from vaccines did not make them any safer. In fact, it only made them less safe for use in developing nations due to an increased risk of contamination and a reduced ability to use multi-dose vials. In reality, this demonstrates the problem with Stein's logic rather that defends it - the decision to remove thimoersal was entirely a non-evidence based, knee-jerk decision to appease people with nebulous concerns - and there were consequences for not following the science with intellectual honesty.

"Just asking questions" doesn't lead to safer vaccines. Scientific research, however, does.

You're mistaken, thimoersal is no longer used in child vaccines in the US at the request of the CDC and the AAP. 1. This did not effect what other nations did with their vaccines, but I should also note that the US was not the first country to remove thimoersal from its vaccines intended for children.2. It is also important to note that this was not a decision made at the demand of public pressure, but out of concern from doctors within the CDC and the AAP

but getting into public concerns, the notion that questions regarding vaccines should not be acknowledged is not a position of science, by not addressing questions regarding vaccines we are also preventing ourselves from debunking misinformation. Questions are nothing that science cannot answer, we should welcome them, and assure people that vaccines are safe, and that vaccine manufacturers must comply to all medical guidelines, which includes (but is not limited to) listing all negative health effects associated to specific vaccines.

Legally, drug manufacturers are not allowed to keep medical side effects secret from the public. Full disclosure is not an anti-vaccination position, it is common sense. When information is open, science will always prevail

 

[Condom]

https://twitter.com/AlanKestrel750/status/758734246072586240

Probably posted, but just a reminder of how Stein really feels about the election.

I agree with her there. I'm sure Clinton supporters are using the beautiful thing called cognitive dissonance to deny Liberal contribution to the rise of the extreme right. Then again I think the GOP contributed even more obviously.

 

[gutter_trash]

I agree with her there. I'm sure Clinton supporters are using the beautiful thing called cognitive dissonance to deny Liberal contribution to the rise of the extreme right. Then again I think the GOP contributed even more obviously.

LOL wut? she sounds like a either a conspiracy theorist nutter or an opportunist trying to syphoone from the Democrats

she spends way too much energy attacking Clinton than Trump, obviously because she wants her voters more than his

 

[hammysaurusrex]

.

None of this provides evidence for your incorrect statement. My point still stands - the removal of thiomersal did not in any way make vaccines safer. You remain wrong.