To be fair, if the questionnaire included questions relating to GMOs and vaccines I imagine they'd be a decent bit further apart. Same for her and Bernie
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jill Stein on vaccines: People have real questions
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, if the questionnaire included questions relating to GMOs and vaccines I imagine they'd be a decent bit further apart. Same for her and Bernie
Both the question and the answers are ridiculous.
But on the question: it seems like it's everyone else's fault if Hillary doesn't get elected. Why is she so unappealing that she wouldn't be able to beat an insane man who said something stupid every 10 minutes? Trump is a softball that any other politician would have knocked out of the park in the polls. What does that say about her? Why wouldn't it be her fault?
I'm pretty sure it does contain both vaccination and gmo questions.
MHWilliams
Member
Also note, Stein does acknowledge the issues with the two-party system in making it nonviable to vote for anyone outside of those parties.
Further in the interview, as evidenced from that quote above, she seems to fear Clinton more than Trump. Also, she has choice words for Bernie.
Further in the interview, as evidenced from that quote above, she seems to fear Clinton more than Trump. Also, she has choice words for Bernie.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Yeah, I took it the other day and answered questions on each.
I actually got 98% Stein, 97% Clinton on it. I'm surprised I was as high on both. Thankfully, I was almost as low as I hoped for on Trump (7%, if I recall correctly, but it was single digits).
smokeandmirrors
Banned
people like her (and Who in here) spouting bullshit like this is exactly why vaccines need to be federally mandated for everyone outside of the people who absolutely cannot get vaccinated.
boiled goose
good with gravy
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
A Link to the Past
Banned
What are you talking about? I'm criticizing Jill Stein for doing something problematic.
Audioboxer
Member
Good thing looking at one issue isn't an automatic answer for every other.
This one is an internal country affair and like it or not its embarrassing as heck if Americans die of preventable and horrible afflictions usually only seen these days in poor and struggling 3rd world countries.
A country such as America has a right and ability to treat it's own better than that. It is literally making a mockery out of African countries begging for help and seeing children and families die everyday in disgusting numbers.
Tell me, based only on what you've read in the interview the OP posted, what you think Jill Stein would do as president to stop vaccinations. Re-read it if you need to. Not just the highlighted parts.
Apparently no one gets my point, so I'll stop before I grow even more disappointed.
Jill Stein, as with any other independent candidate, has the goal of getting 5% of the vote so as to get federal funding in the next election and build momentum from there.
She doesn't believe change will happen from within, that's all she's saying about Bernie - that she thinks he was out of touch to run as a Democrat, and that even had he been elected he would have been hamstrung. Don't know if I'd call that "choice words."
"Have you spoken with Bernie Sanders?
No. Ive tried. He has not been interested. Never returned a phone call or answered an email. Its pretty clear where he stands."
Lol.
Here's an example of why this topic -- framed this particular way -- is so click-baity. She specifically mentioned how critical polio vaccines are in the article.
Audioboxer
Member
Its fine and dandy to say she can wash her hands of actually stopping vaccinations as we all know she won't do that.
What she does do, or doesn't, is tackle the idiotic problem of individual Americans killing their children. Sure the blood might not be on her hands directly but as someone in a place of politics she has a right to protect and serve the people she supposedly stands for. Not having a zero tolerance policy on vaccines is precisely a reason why your country has more anti vax nonsense than any other developed democratic nation.
Think about that and then wonder why someone from across the waters in the UK finds it completely unacceptable your country has politicians with some/major spotlight not scoffing and shutting down the idiocy of the anti vax movement. Keep giving an inch and then idiot Americans will keep killing their children. Or seriously harming their children.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
but we have questions
I think it is important to note that we ought to support vaccinations because they are a scientifically viable solution to human well being. Having questions about vaccines is not a problem, because questions are nothing that science cannot answer. We are not zealots, we should welcome these questions, and feel fully obliged to answer them, because that is the rational thing to do
Is Jill Stein anti-vaccine? no, of course not, she is a physician, a graduate from Harvard medical school, and has explained her position on vaccinations http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
Addressing peoples' questions in regards to vaccines is not an issue, or an anti-vaccine approach.. we ought to support vaccines because the information tells us that they are safe and viable for the well being of everyone... but to say we should not even entertain any questions people have about vaccines is not a rational defense of vaccinations, it is a position of zeal
Is Jill Stein anti-vaccine? no, of course not, she is a physician, a graduate from Harvard medical school, and has explained her position on vaccinations http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
Addressing peoples' questions in regards to vaccines is not an issue, or an anti-vaccine approach.. we ought to support vaccines because the information tells us that they are safe and viable for the well being of everyone... but to say we should not even entertain any questions people have about vaccines is not a rational defense of vaccinations, it is a position of zeal
Audioboxer
Member
She can behind closed doors be a tooting rooting scientific bad ass. However do nothing to protect Americans when you're in the spotlight because "muh votes" then you're an immoral charlatan to your supposed scientific background and profession.
Hence you get roasted by people who won't sell out their morals to pander to American voters that need serious help and reform away from dangerous stupidity. Keep leaving that problem for someone else to tackle and the next thing you know the antivax movement has taken over decent chunks of your country. That is embarrassing and every sane American should find it equally worrying and offensive. Especially a damn scientist.
Some of these antivaxers need boxed up and shipped off to live in an African country for 12 months with absolutely no vaccine protection. See if they stand by their supposed wisdom then.
So, I'm confused. When did Hillary Clinton say she would mandate vaccines? We're talking in the context of US politics, so I'm assuming you're saying Jill Stein is not doing as much as another candidate, who I'll also have to assume is Hillary. She tweeted once saying "The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest", but I can't find any statement or platform from her saying she would stop parents from exempting their children, or mandate any/all standard vaccines.
So I'm wondering why Jill Stein is the dangerous one here, when it seems both progressive candidates will be doing almost nothing to change the current vaccination laws if elected. Do you believe Hillary will do more than she's explicitly said? Why? You wouldn't be giving her the benefit of the doubt, would you?
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
titles mean nothing. certainly does explain Ben Carson
Being a doctor is precisely what makes her dog whistling so horrific.
The "doctor" defense also goes completely down the drain given her position on GMOs.
Do you understand that positions are correlated?
Yes, I give Clinton a larger benefit of the doubt, for three VERY major reasons: She's not an MD, she's not for a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides, and she's not dog-whistling to a lunatic base -- which we know for a fact is a base of the Green Party.
It is important that you click the link provided to read about Jill Stein's position on vaccinations. She is not anti-vaccination
Addressing medical questions people have is what all good doctors do
My body my choice. Medical procedures should never be required. Make vaccines free and ban children from public school without them but people should have autonomy over their own body.
Audioboxer
Member
I'm not exactly Mr Pro Hillary for what it is worth. All I can muster is keep Trump out.
What I haven't seen Hilary do is the "real questions need to be addressed/don't know if they all have yet".
Vaccines aren't even mandatory in the UK, but due to education and typically no nonsense from politicans our vaccination levels are very high.
You guys have a problem to sort out where we don't need "questions!". That sort of shit needs stamped out now, so hopefully one day America can be a country like the UK that doesn't need a mandatory enforcement as the population isn't scared of a bogeyman. Mandatory enforcement of anyone to do something is a prickly topic. I'd much rather America starts with the baby steps of first cutting out the bullshit from politicians sowing doubt and misinformation.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Children lack the capacity to make those sorts of decisions until they're 18. How do you square that?
Use or expand existing child endangerment laws as necessary.
Simon Belmont
Banned
So vaccines should be mandatory for children then?
When you refuse to even address the questions people have about vaccines, you are not fighting against the anti-vaccination crowd, you are giving their movement legitimacy. However, when you address all of their concerns, and answer all of their questions, you disarm their movement through information.
Also.. why are people bringing up Africa? inoculation was literally founded in Africa, know your history.
Exactly.
She said:
She did precisely the opposite -- she didn't address medical questions,: She said she doesn't know if all of them have been addressed. They have. There is **ZERO** scientific evidence of "toxic substances being rampant in vaccines". This is what she should have said, as a medical doctor, when addressing the topic of vaccinations.
I can't walk you all the way there, man. She's a politician whistling to her base rather than standing behind her medical formation. It's evidently clear to me with that self-contained paragraph, and it's even more clear once you add the context of her other positions like supporting a blanket moratorium on GMOs and pesticides. If you don't agree, I have no arguments left, to be honest.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Exactly. You can't give her credit for being a doctor and cut her slack for a bad answer on vaccines.
Audioboxer
Member
So what are these unanswered questions about vaccines you speak of? Good luck providing me with one. Thatisthepoint.jpg. These people aren't asking valid questions they're either indoctrinated and repeating gotcha questions they've been trained to, or they're purposefully being like that poster earlier and just meeting everything with "but corrupt government". Something that is not a question, or at least not a question you can ever answer for said person.
Also it's not up to me to train and re-educate people, but politicians sure as shit play a role in doing that.
Lastly, I'm bringing up Africa because there are poor underprivileged people there in the millions who cannot get access to a vaccine/medical help for diseases we've been free of in our countries for quite a while. Or at least we can cure if some cases crop up. They literally sit around dying whilst begging/being at the mercy of aid being able to be administered before they die. People in privileged countries/positions make a mockery of their deaths spreading bullshit about vaccines.
Of course not. Require them for public school and charged parents if unvaccinated children get sick or die. Not vaccinating yourself or your children is reckless. But plenty of reckless things are legal.
foodtaster
Banned
the argument against vaccines is pretty simple: people don't want their government forcing them to take substances. that being said, things generally don't look good when you stop taking ur meds.
Audioboxer
Member
To a point sure, but parents have a duty to take care of their children and ignoring medical help fully, or ignoring what a doctor tells you if you do end up going in favour of water mixed with grass is thankfully a punishable crime. Murder charges through death, and possibly your child being taken by social services if reported when sick.
The other issue with anti-vax nonsense is it usually spreads to ALL medicines. So children not only die of preventable stuff from the "middle ages", but also the common fucking cold. Child goes to doctor, doctor says anti-biotics are needed, parents refuse, give child celery, childs young immune system fails after carrying a cold for weeks and they die.
That's a past tense remark, she said that mercury used to be rampant in vaccines(Thimerosal is no longer used in child vaccines), furthermore, you're taking a single paragraph from a single remark she made over an issue she has spent an entire career answering questions on. It's not rational, you can read Stein's full position on vaccines elsewhere, all she is doing here is saying we need to address the questions people have about vaccines
Which is not an anti-vaccine or anti-science position, it is an obligation for the position of science to address questions.
I could say the same thing about doctors who attend church. But I don't because it would be a gross simplification, and doctors learn information based on their specialization. Once again I don't think you guys know much about the Green Party or what Jill Stein the person's positions are in comparison to their platform. If you're supporting Hillary you must know you're throwing stones from a glass house, so I once again question the cherry picking.
She gave a politician's answer. Apparently one that generates emotional reasoning from many of GAF. Recall that she was one of the principal authors of this? I just don't believe most of the people in this thread have looked into her or her platform independently. Given the air of authority which people have responded with in this thread, I find it discouraging.
Frozenprince
Banned
Maybe her and her party should be fighting tooth and nail to actually get seats in a fucking state legislature first before that then.
The third party candidates kvetching about the Dems and Reps while doing basically nothing to further themselves beyond the presidential race every 4 years really bugs me.
Her proposed solution isn't necessary, because if she wants her party to be viable, she needs to start getting asses in seats in the statehouses.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Charging the parent after the child is sick doesn't help the child. This is a health issue, not a criminal justice one.
Audioboxer
Member
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.
I never said they were unanswered, you are putting words in my mouth to make your point. I said that Jill Stein is addressing that people have questions about vaccines.. and somehow she is being condemned for the mere acknowledgment of these concerns that people have
Opening up to the questions and concerns people have is not an anti-science position, acknowledging and addressing the questions people have is what scientists were made for
Believe it or not, there are Green candidates running all over the place, mostly in urban areas. I feel like Dan Savage really missed missed it with his bit about Jill Stein on the Savage Lovecast. And I say that as a magnum subscriber who usually agrees with him. Getting federal funding is a goal worth striving for.
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).
Audioboxer
Member
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?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
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.
TestOfTide
Banned
So what do we do about the fact that the unvaccinated kids will inevitably interact with vaccinated kids, likely putting those vaccinated kids in danger.
This isn't an issue of "well everyone should be allowed to be reckless"; it's an issue of "the recklessness of these dipshit parents is endangering the kids of non-reckless parents".
Audioboxer
Member
Well of course not. We already have those rigorous studies and testing. We've had them for quite a long time as well.
whyamihere
Banned
Of course The Intercept did an interview with Jill Stein.
I don't really buy that Trump is a softball. A recent Ohio poll had a hypothetical matchup with Obama-Trump with Obama only up by 4 points, and he's a popular president who isn't running for reelection. What does it say about Obama that even with 50+ approval ratings, he can barely beat Trump in a key swing state? Our partisanship has made it so there are no real softball presidential candidates anymore, and I think that's sort of where we're headed going forward.
Arrowgigantic
Member
If she's willing to pander to the anti-vaccination crowd, then it calls the main bent of the Green party's platform, ecological science, into question. Like, can we trust her not to shut down all the nuclear power plants or to slap some ridiculous regulations on other alternative energies based on woo woo conspiracy pseudoscience. No, we cannot. It really just speaks to her problem-solving abilities on a fundamental level. And it's reinforced with her "idea" that Bill and Hillary are the root cause of fascism in America.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked