Jill Stein Insanity

[AFTT47]

[SteelCurtain]

I'm not a fan.

I get her skepticism of the FDA and its processes.

To extrapolate that to proven medicine, as a doctor, is worrisome.

[Esquilax]

So the choices we have are: she's either deeply, troublingly unaware of easily researched medical science... while also being a doctor.

Or she's willing to throw away her principles in order to court the anti-vaxx, science denialist vote, in which case she's attempting to parasitize Trump's voting bloc as well as Bernie's.

Neither of those make for a good candidate.

[Minimalist]

She's the modern-day Harold Stassen:  A perennial candidate.  As Barney Frank noted on Real Time last night, between elections she goes away and does nothing to advance progressive causes.

[AFTT47]

She doesn't sound like much of a "vote your conscience" candidate to me.

[Aroura]

I read her entire reddit chat, and she actually said she thinks vaccine rates are too low, and that she personally believes vaccines are important.

I think this is a strange rumor from taking a few bits of her chat out of context. She is not skeptical of vaccines, though she is skeptical of big pharmacy motives in some things.

You should read the whole chat and make up your own mind about what she said, instead of reading articles with sensational headlines that include only a few snippets.

[Jackalope]

I read her entire reddit chat, and she actually said she thinks vaccine rates are too low, and that she personally believes vaccines are important.

I think this is a strange rumor from taking a few bits of her chat out of context. She is not skeptical of vaccines, though she is skeptical of big pharmacy motives in some things.

You should read the whole chat and make up your own mind about what she said, instead of reading articles with sensational headlines that include only a few snippets.

I don't know what I would find more less surprising - that people post shit without vetting their sources, or that a politician was taken out of context.

In this case, it's probably the former. I'm surprised someone would bother to go to the trouble for a candidate who might get 3% of the vote.

[Esquilax]

I read her entire reddit chat, and she actually said she thinks vaccine rates are too low, and that she personally believes vaccines are important.

I think this is a strange rumor from taking a few bits of her chat out of context. She is not skeptical of vaccines, though she is skeptical of big pharmacy motives in some things.

You should read the whole chat and make up your own mind about what she said, instead of reading articles with sensational headlines that include only a few snippets.

I'm aware, though the overall language she tends to use is problematic enough that Stein's not in the clear either. For example, she uses the oft-debunked argument about the toxicity of vaccines despite the lack of truth to it, makes vague assertions about Monsanto running the show, and foments distrust of the regulatory agencies involved based on the circular premise that people distrust those agencies, therefore that distrust is both worth looking into, and founded. When a person can sit there and act concerned about corporate interests driving vaccine regulations, despite the fact that the majority of members on that advisory board work in academia or medical research and not drug companies, it doesn't matter that there are worse positions she could be taking.

Being slightly less wrong is not a selling point.

[Tiberius]

[account_inactive]

Vote Trump.