(August 31, 2016 at 4:38 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 30, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Losty Wrote: I like Jill Stein. If not for Trump, I might even vote for Jill Stein

I dunno, spewing anti-vaxxer and pro-homeopathy horseshit would put me off voting a candidate as much as the candidate shouting "abortion is killing baybeeeeees", or "you need god to be moral".

Everything I have read says the rumors about being antivaxxer are false. Do you have any credible sources?

(August 31, 2016 at 4:38 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 30, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Losty Wrote: I like Jill Stein. If not for Trump, I might even vote for Jill Stein

I dunno, spewing anti-vaxxer and pro-homeopathy horseshit would put me off voting a candidate as much as the candidate shouting "abortion is killing baybeeeeees", or "you need god to be moral".

And you couldn't be more wrong.

(August 31, 2016 at 4:43 am)Losty Wrote:

(August 31, 2016 at 4:38 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: I dunno, spewing anti-vaxxer and pro-homeopathy horseshit would put me off voting a candidate as much as the candidate shouting "abortion is killing baybeeeeees", or "you need god to be moral".

Everything I have read says the rumors about being antivaxxer are false. Do you have any credible sources?

You can read this Salon article for starters (http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_ste...ion_crowd/), and then there is also this one from orac at ScienceBlogs ( http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/0...-whistles/), which whows exactly what she is doing to pander to the anti-vaccination movement. She is using the "sow doubt about the research" developed by fag manufacturers in the 50's when the scientific evidence became overwhelming that their products caused most lung cancers. While she personally may not be anti-vax, she's like the fag company exec who won't smoke because of the science yet happy to go on the radio to thrash the same science.

Oh look.


http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-can...i-vaccine/

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/7...wsrc%5Etfw

(August 31, 2016 at 5:31 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Oh look.

http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-can...i-vaccine/

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/7...wsrc%5Etfw

I really don't understand why more people don't check Snopes first about their pet rumors. It will put a lot of it to rest.

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_ste...ion_crowd/

This was an interesting read yu single hornedid tazzy D:
Thanks for sharing it but I'm still skerd you will eat me fer yer dinner. D:

(August 30, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I somewhat agree with you, sure they may not stand a chance at winning but supporters should vote for them anyway. It sends a clear message that people are sick of having to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans. I was just stating a fact.

The problem isn't the democrats and republicans, it's the first-past-the-post voting system. Voting for the candidate you most support doesn't send a clear message--it just disenfranchises you.

(August 31, 2016 at 5:49 am)Jesster Wrote:

(August 31, 2016 at 5:31 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Oh look.

http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-can...i-vaccine/

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/7...wsrc%5Etfw

I really don't understand why more people don't check Snopes first about their pet rumors. It will put a lot of it to rest.

I'm sorry, but an article which solely uses a politicians word after she got slated in the media for using dog whistle terms on vaccination doesn't cut the mustard. Please note that the snopes article admits that Stein uses dog whistle terms to pander to anti-vaxxer terms but proclaims her not a one because... reasons. The article does nothing to refute the fact that she used arguments lik "vaccines are not safe because big pharma controls the FDA (a long refuted but often repeated antu-vaxxer lie)" it just simply asserts that she's not anti-vaccination because she said so in response to media backlash to her original anti-vaxxer pandering. By the same metric we'd have to accept that Trump isn't racist or that Hitler knew nothing of the holocaust.

The snopes article is stupidly wrong.

Edit: Oh, Bella you should have read both articles before posting the snopes link. They both go into good detail, and point to other resources, showing how wrong the conclusion posted in the snopes article is. It doesn't do your argument any good when you say "lookit X" after ut is hown that X is wrong.

(August 31, 2016 at 6:01 am)Losty Wrote: http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_ste...ion_crowd/

This was an interesting read yu single hornedid tazzy D:
Thanks for sharing it but I'm still skerd you will eat me fer yer dinner. D:

Why would I eat a beautiful young lady like yourself? I'd anger the turtle, not a good idea.

"It's wrong because I like my source instead"

Okay  

Go on believing the rumor-mill. We can't stop you.