General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 406

I hope she was taken to a hospital. That looked pretty bad.

 

Damn

 

and Hillary panders to corporate interests and Donald panders to racists, pandering is the name of the game. sure stein could pick a group better than the anti vaxxers to pander to but she's a third party she'll take what she can get

 

Hillary also said that we need to look into the connection between autism and vaccines. Also, Hillary believes in a personal God, so it seems like we are picking and choosing what constitutes "ridiculous" beliefs/anti-science knowledge.

 

And she supports/supported fracking and I'm pretty sure there's some science that says fracking is bad

 

Uhh pretty sure this was in 2008 before the internet helped widely discredit this theory in ways that it hadn't been discredited to that point. Stein's doing it in 2016.

Her "support" for fracking, especially in America, is overblown. She was one of the 30 or so that voted against the 2005 Energy act that exempted fracking from the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. If she were that much of a shill for fracking, she wouldn't have thought twice about voting for that. That's not say she's going to push to ban fracking outright day 1 in office, but let's stop acting like she's anti-climate when it comes to fracking.

 

She is absolutely anti-climate when it comes to fracking, regardless of rhetoric. She has pushed for it both globally and domestically. If we're talking about science, lets be honest: Jill Stein is the only candidate who has a policy consistent with climate change science.

 

Stein is also the only candidate with a plan, however unrealistic, that could save the planet from imminent climate doom

 

Stein never said there was a connection between autism and vaccinations. She was actually referring to whether or not the usage of chemicals, such as Mercury, within vaccines has been resolved. As to Clinton, I'm fairly certain there was a unanimous understanding among doctors that the link didn't exist at that point. By 2008, the report that propagated a link had been retracted by Lancet. I would guess that she merely offered that up to appease what was looking like a popular belief at the time. That simply raises other questions.

 

Stein clearly has flaws. I find the wifi and gmo stuff to be overblown and of little consequence. However, the support of Assange while dismissing his rape accusations was gross. She isn't a good politician, and I mean that in a bad way--she's often bad at delivering her message in a way that gets people to rally around her even though her underlying point is often correct. This makes her a flawed candidate imo but if I'm being consistent with my beliefs she is still miles and miles and miles better than the other 3 candidates.

 

Voting isn't rhetoric, it's actual action on a bill on whether to deregulate fracking or not.

No, she is not anti-climate when it comes to fracking.

 

One of my favorite memories during the primaries was during the democratic debate when Sanders said he would ban fracking and Hillary couldn't do it.

 

Yes, she is. She pushes for it in de-regulated countries. That's a fact. And she can regulate it while also supporting it--which she has done. The regulations aren't nearly what they should be, especially in the extraction aspect of it--which is where most of the greenhouse gas emissions come from.

 

I think it's absurd and truly telling of where we are in this election that the republican media's argument against hillary has basically been reduced to "she might die." Can't align your morals with your own candidate? Make it seem like the other one is knocking on the gates of death.

 

David, what people are arguing is, given where we are in terms of our effect on the climate, Hillary's policies are not sufficient. She wants to regulate fracking. The issue is that fracking, regulated or otherwise, is detrimental to the environment and puts people in danger by triggering earthquakes, for example.

 

Compared to the horse's ass who regularly conjugates non-words and thinks Phyllis Schlafly was a suffragist? Or the war criminal who claims that she carries hot sauce in her purse and claims to be a humanitarian while treating Muslims like human turds? No, Jill is pretty gosh darn tame.

 

Everyone knows that people are incapable of compromise in office. If the GOP agreed to reduce non-renewable energy by 50%, she'd surely leave the table for having been denied the whole pie.

And yes, my how your tune has changed in the past three months. Feel the bern, bro.

 

tbh they're just following Bernie's lead

 

The thing I really changed was my views on third party and opinion on Clinton, which is pretty big I suppose. But my views on policy and issues is all the same. I still very much support Bernie's platform.

 

What Jill Stein doesn't understand about Bernie Sanders' endorsement

"It's naivete, ignorance or zealotry to minimize the differences between Clinton and Trump and to imagine that the value of a symbolic vote this November will outweigh the costs to progressive constituencies of a Trump victory. Bernie understands that. Stein and her "Jill not Hill!" chanting supporters do not."

 

How can you change your opinion on Clinton while maintaining the same views on policy and issues? The major issues brought forth by Sanders are held by Stein and at best patronized by Clinton. If you realize the need for corporate and financial regulation, aggressive environmental protection, criminal justice reform, foreign policy reform, and even campaign finance reform, Clinton should still be a pretty despicable candidate.

Not saying you shouldn't vote for Clinton: by all means do. But supporting Sanders and then deriding Stein so as to support Clinton is pretty damn phony. Clinton is at best a necessary evil and a concession to political corruption.

 

Clinton is obviously not a good candidate, I agree with that. Someone asked me last month on here if you take out the fact that Trump is running, would I vote Stein or Hillary. I had said, yes, I'd like to think I would, as I definitely do agree with Jill more. But again, I don't think she would make a good president. In fact, she would probably be a terrible president. Nothing would get done for the fact that her plans are unrealistic and she would not be able to work with congress to do anything, even if democrats took it back, in my opinion. There certainly are many things I dislike about Hillary, but she is still 100 times better than Trump and is by far the most qualified candidate in the race. So yeah, I do believe I can change my opinion on voting for Clinton while keeping the same views on the issues.

 

Hillary Clinton being treated for pneumonia, campaign says

 

Woman campaigns with pneumonia and she's the one being painted as not having stamina. Can't make up how stupid 2016 is.