In Jill Stein's case, there is a tangible reason for voting for her. If the Green Party can manage 5% of the vote on November 8th, they will receive federal funding. That would be a huge step for the Green Party to be able to step up its game.
That also strikes me as wishful thinking, considering she managed 0.36% last time, despite similar poll numbers leading up to the election. But I suppose it makes more sense than voting for her political positions.
The Greens' positions and the 5% vote kind of go hand in hand, really. There's no reason to vote for the Green Party if one does not feel the positions held by the Greens deserve federal funding. My issue is that I'm not too keen on Jill Stein as a candidate.
Also, Jill is doing better this time already because she's getting more exposure thanks to her active courting of #BernieOrBust. Heck, it's why this thread exists at all. Speaking of exposure...
CNN is hosting a Town Hall Forum for Jill Stein and her VP pick Ajamu Baraka tonight @ 9:00 EST. It'll be interesting to see how that fares for her, and may give us some things to talk about for the next few days.
It's an unfortunate sentiment being echoed. Finding the candidate that you dislike least. That isn't how the presidential race should be really, you should have a more positive opinion on who you vote for I think.
That's exactly how presidential races are supposed to work because to reword your statement, presidential candidates are about finding the candidate you like the most, and there is no rule how high of an opinion candidates hold has to factor into that. The fluke is that Hillary Clinton is (and I say this with no irony) more trusted than Bernie Sanders inside the Democrat Party, while the inverse appears true of the general election, which has a lot more independents.
Why does it matter if Jill Stein has some ideas you agree with? Neither she nor Vermin Supreme are going to be president, their ideas will have an equal impact on the way the country is run.
In Jill Stein's case, there is a tangible reason for voting for her. If the Green Party can manage 5% of the vote on November 8th, they will receive federal funding. That would be a huge step for the Green Party to be able to step up its game.
I think that people should have a positive feeling towards who they vote for, as opposed to the one who generates the least negative one. Does that clarify my stance more? Because it's what I'm talking about. Plenty of people are saying they don't like any of the candidates, they just don't want candidate X to win so they'll vote for Y instead, or vice versa. Which, again, doesn't really seem like how a presidential campaign should go. I didn't her this strong of that sentiment before, it seems like something that is very strong here.
I think that people should have a positive feeling towards who they vote for, as opposed to the one who generates the least negative one. Does that clarify my stance more? Because it's what I'm talking about. Plenty of people are saying they don't like any of the candidates, they just don't want candidate X to win so they'll vote for Y instead, or vice versa. Which, again, doesn't really seem like how a presidential campaign should go.
What do you propose? That all these people who don't have a positive feeling should find one somehow? That they should stay home on the big day if they don't have one? What "should" happen here, and how should we accomplish it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that people should have a positive feeling towards who they vote for, as opposed to the one who generates the least negative one. Does that clarify my stance more? Because it's what I'm talking about. Plenty of people are saying they don't like any of the candidates, they just don't want candidate X to win so they'll vote for Y instead, or vice versa. Which, again, doesn't really seem like how a presidential campaign should go.
What do you propose? That all these people who don't have a positive feeling should find one somehow? That they should stay home on the big day if they don't have one? What "should" happen here, and how should we accomplish it?
I don't think there is a workable solution, I was saying it was disappointing that it's happening. Was brought up by someone earlier in the thread on why they are voting for Jill. I wasn't advocating not voting though. Not sure why you would go there.
CNN is hosting a Town Hall Forum for Jill Stein and her VP pick Ajamu Baraka tonight @ 9:00 EST. It'll be interesting to see how that fares for her, and may give us some things to talk about for the next few days.
So I watched the majority of the town hall, but I had to miss out on the last fifteen minutes or so for work related reasons. Overall, this was definitely a positive for her campaign if for no other reason, it was the candidates themselves rather than reading about them. I'd probably give it a B- though. Off the top of my head from what I did see. *NOTE* I am working from memory and could easily be misinterpreting what I did see or forgetting important information.
She found a way to explain away her vaccine controversy better than comparing it to Barack Obama having to parry away Trump leading the birther charger, although that's sticking around as well. However, since I've been following Dr. Stein since before she became popular enough to need to address her vaccine issues, I know that ultimately that while what she's going with (it turns out her vaccine concerns involving mercury had already been addressed when she looked closer at following up on the issue) will quash the concerns raised against her anti-science stigma she managed to pick up, what I gathered (see Page 1 of this thread) is a much more cynical interpretation of why she went down that road in the first place.
I feel like her answer to the religion question seemed to be the longest way to say "Atheist Jew" I have ever heard. Granted I'm not entirely sure what she ultimately meant, but I only bring it up because religion is something that can limit expanding voter bases, even if it shouldn't.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of her analysis of her ultimate response of her student debt cancelation plan, which is for the Reserve to buy the debt and then forgive it. There were two points that I got out of it. 1. If we can make it up as we went along for Wall Street, we can wing it with student debt, and 2. We've been willing to deficit spend on the military and Wall Street, deficit spending on college debt has a more tangible result for the majority of Americans. On the one hand, I kind of agree with her, but on the other hand, that sounds like a non-experienced answer as well.
So far, I actually kind of like Ajuma Baraka. He definitely came prepared to respond to and defend his statements. There was an undertone of (the reason I said those things that way was because I didn't think I'd ever have to talk about them on national television), but even with that undertone he expressed no remorse about the meaning of those remarks, and dare I say, came across as capable for the White House. Upon further review of the comments via Google, and actually learning the severity of the comments Baraka has chosen to stand by, I see now that this is not something that sounds presidential; it sounds close to Trumpian.
Jill Stein had those moments as well, but the issue with her is she talked more like an activist than a presidential candidate to me.
I think she did hit a nail on the head when she criticized Clinton over the idea of a No-Fly Zone. While maybe that's Stein's RT connections showing *that's a joke*, I've felt uncomfortable with the idea of escalating the conflict in such a way that would put us at military odds with Russia.
One thing to give Stein credit for is she did homework for the price of the things we have done.
Other thoughts? Corrections? Feel free to contribute.
I think that people should have a positive feeling towards who they vote for, as opposed to the one who generates the least negative one. Does that clarify my stance more? Because it's what I'm talking about. Plenty of people are saying they don't like any of the candidates, they just don't want candidate X to win so they'll vote for Y instead, or vice versa. Which, again, doesn't really seem like how a presidential campaign should go.
What do you propose? That all these people who don't have a positive feeling should find one somehow? That they should stay home on the big day if they don't have one? What "should" happen here, and how should we accomplish it?
I don't think there is a workable solution, I was saying it was disappointing that it's happening. Was brought up by someone earlier in the thread on why they are voting for Jill. I wasn't advocating not voting though. Not sure why you would go there.
I'm not sure either, but the issue when bringing "Likability" into a job is first, likability is subjective. Second, likability does not necessarily translate to good for the job.
* Perhaps the thing I liked most was when she was talking about how Trump was indeed awful, but that doesn't excuse how awful Clinton is, and that people need to stop living in fear of the Democrats vs Republicans. By doing so, you are effectively admitting you don't believe our system can ever get any better and that we should accept getting screwed over regardless of who's doing it.
This is delusional. The reason the Greens usually can't scrape together even one percent of the vote isn't that people are "living in fear". It's that their platform is radical and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them. Most people's political positions fall roughly within the scope of one of the two major parties.
Look at what the Libertarian party did - they found two guys who have enough electability to have won state-level elections, and whose positions, while not exactly mainstream, are moderate compared to the party at large. They've got other obstacles (many of their own making) in their way, but at least they're making a serious go at it. The Greens meanwhile have chosen to re-nominate someone whose only electoral experience is getting demolished in every real election she's been a candidate in. It's a complete joke. These people can't even competently mount a presidential campaign, and they're the ones you want running the country?
Not to mention the Green Party's candidate is a doctor who doesn't even understand how medicine works.
Hell, at least Ben Carson was qualified at something, even if it wasn't politics.
For a former neurosurgeon, Carson seems to have a shockingly poor understanding of modern science. He has qualifications, but I certainly wouldn't put much trust in his knowledge.
For a former neurosurgeon, Carson seems to have a shockingly poor understanding of modern science. He has qualifications, but I certainly wouldn't put much trust in his knowledge.
Did he say something anti-medical? I don't remember. The only thing I can recall was the statement that the Pyramids were granaries, which, yes, was ignorant as hell, but at least it wasn't within his field. Any medical doctor who makes even an vaguely anti-vaxxer comment should be fired... preferably into the sun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
For a former neurosurgeon, Carson seems to have a shockingly poor understanding of modern science. He has qualifications, but I certainly wouldn't put much trust in his knowledge.
Did he say something anti-medical? I don't remember. The only thing I can recall was the statement that the Pyramids were granaries, which, yes, was ignorant as hell, but at least it wasn't within his field. Any medical doctor who makes even an vaguely anti-vaxxer comment should be fired... preferably into the sun.
Didn't he deny man made climate change and evolution? Not exactly medical related but things any person of science understands as fact.
Carson got in trouble at one point for arguing that we're giving kids "way too many [vaccines] in too short a time". It's not full-on anti-vaxxer/autism stuff, but it's still pretty dangerous advice.
Carson got in trouble at one point for arguing that we're giving kids "way too many [vaccines] in too short a time". It's not full-on anti-vaxxer/autism stuff, but it's still pretty dangerous advice.
Spreading out vaccines leaves the child unprotected for longer. There's no evidence of any sort of benefit or improved safety from delaying vaccination, so you're trading time unprotected from these diseases for no gain.
Carson got in trouble at one point for arguing that we're giving kids "way too many [vaccines] in too short a time". It's not full-on anti-vaxxer/autism stuff, but it's still pretty dangerous advice.
Actually, "too many, too soon" is their new favorite canard. Mostly because at this point, mercury scares are something like
Never mind that you're exposed to more unique strains of bacteria while going through the ******.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
"As much as the 'Sandernistas' attempt to disarticulate Sanders 'progressive' domestic policies from his documented support for empire," Baraka said. "It should be obvious that his campaign is an ideological prop—albeit from a center/left position—of the logic and interests of the capitalist-imperialist settler state."
Could someone unpack this for me? What does this mean, why do I get the feeling it's just "Arabs hijacking indigenous issues yet again", and why the hell do the Greens think insulting Bernie Sanders is a good way to get his supporters?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
An interesting thing about Dr. Ben Carson coming up in this thread is that in real life I've taken to calling Dr. Jill Stein the "Ben Carson of the left." One aside is that between the two, I'd vote for Jill Stein before Ben Carson.
Will update with my responses as I have them:
10 minutes: The argument that they've made for the first 10 minutes is just that the system is rigged. I want to hear what these people stand for.
16 minutes:
VP stands behind calling Obama an "Uncle Tom", saying he squandered his policy to become enforce a liberal view of the world. What?
They go on to talk about being inclusive and breaking down hatred; but I still haven't heard anything that they're going to do.
20 minutes:
Jill stein makes the argument that Democratic party doesn't represent Bernie's views. The platform argues otherwise, though. And it's also not clear though Jill says she supports and continues Bernie's work what they actually agree on. She doesn't seem to actually agree with Sanders so much as trying to create a camp based on platitudes.
VP is very oriented around is constituency, almost to exclusivity... and he's not giving reasons for his positions.
26 minutes:
Jill Stein says Isis is not a threat.
Pivoting towards isolationism.
War begets violence argument...
Claims we're giving weapons to all sides of the fighting in Mid-East
We should embargo all of the Mid-East countries because countries like
Jill Stein claims we should close all foreign bases. (There are only 30 foreign bases for all other countries)
Half of our income tax goes towards the military industrial complex
Wants to shut down the industrial military complex & nuclear weapon generation
30 Minutes
VP claims our policy in the middle east is responsible for the growth of terror.
Jill Stein claims to be extremely religious in response to questions; reform jewish background
Her background comes from the old estimate and faith
She's in a mixed family now and doesn't actively practice; I can relate with this, it's kind of where I am and have been.
Basically, personal religion, I have no problem with it. It's kind of a meh question.
35 Minutes - Vaxxer Comments
She brought up Thymericol & mercury; says they were legitimate complaints at the time and that it's now out of the vaccine regimen.
She says she doesn't appose vaccines
She says read her books, which are free on the internet and says that they're part of the proof that she's a scientist
She says everyone should feel comfortable asking questions and it's part of being a scientist
40 Minutes - Feminism & Foreign Policy
Women are care takers of children & community; and that's the height of feminism; that taking care of your own family isn't enough. There's a responsibility for making sure all mothers can deliver a just future for their children.
Claims Clintons destroyed the social safety net and destroyed the economy with deregulation in the 90s
Claims Clinton is a war monger abroad, and responsible for many wars
And that violates her view of feminism by impinging on the rights of other mothers to raise their children in the best way possible.
Jill Stein will have trouble sleeping no matter who is elected: Trump or Clinton
Trump is an awful person, but Clinton has killed a million "black and brown" people. Which is a dog whistle, imo, to claiming the Democratic party is racist. It's not the first time they've used this terminology.
Raised concerns about deportations.
Claiming clinton is risking an air war with Russia.
Doesn't like politics of fear "voting for the lesser of 2 evils"
As an aside at this point, I just haven't heard a lot of what she's going to do.
45 Minutes - Student Loans
Argues that she can win by promising to forgive all student loan debt. Needs 43 million people with student loans to flip to her. Long shot.
Declining birthrate shows there's no winning for anyone here.
The federal reserve should buy all of the student loan debt and forgive it; basically bailing out the populace as well as the banks at the same time.
VP talking about Quantitative Easing to help loans going out.
Ultimately, they're talking about how the Federal Reserve could do this without congress's support.
From my view, this is the only argument they've made that has any weight to it.
50 Minutes - Israel
Won't give Israel 8 million dollars a day unless it conforms to international law
But, also won't support Egypt or Saudia Arabia
Would boycott all wrong doers, not just israel
Jill Stein feels a connection to israel, but feels our policies make it a target of hostilities
Thinks the current administration is bad for the country
Doesn't like U.S. money in Israel
Unwilling to elevate Israel above others, because everyone is "special"
Ultimately, she can't get behind the violent history of the Israeli government
55 Minutes - BLM
Every death at the hands of police needs to be investigated
They want a reconciliation like what South Africa did after Aparthide
Reconciliation will allow the country to come together as a community by letting everyone understand and empathize
60 Minutes - Is bad policing taking too much of the focus? Aren't there other issues?
VP the real issue is systematic oppression
There's a war being waged against black, brown, and native people in this country
The police are the front line of that oppression
The police are behaving like a military face
He claims the system does this: The black people are a problem people; superfluous. Police them, incarcerate them & kill them.
So, the only thing I agree on is the student loan bit; but it's not enough for me to vote for these people. Based on what I heard, even though there are points I agree with them on; my views aren't in line with them and I don't believe they put forward a positive actionable progressive argument for how the country moves forward.
I didn't hear much from them that was anti-science; but there's certainly a lot of baggage that's not going to help them grow their tent. And they're preaching a world view that isn't popular in the states.
You know, I might do something like this down the line, and thanks for the updated link.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
An interesting thing about Dr. Ben Carson coming up in this thread is that in real life I've taken to calling Dr. Jill Stein the "Ben Carson of the left."
Which is not even remotely an endorsement.
Ben Carson's presidential campaign was defined by Carson being:
1. A neurosurgeon
2. Clueless
On this count, yes, Jill Stein being the "Ben Carson of the left" fits, but that's not a compliment.
((Double Posting because enough time has passed and this is an update))
Jill Stein had two major appearances... by Green Party standards... this week that I think are worth mentioning.
First, Jill Stein made a few headlines when she went to the Baton Rouge to the floods. After the trip, she held a Press Conference.
Second appearance, Jill Stein was a guest on PBS Newshour for an interview and to answer user submitted questions. Could someone find the Q&A section of the interview? I saw part of it, but not all of it. Things I noted:
I think that while she is courting #JillNotHill, her answer to the Hillary or Trump question makes me think that she's not #JillorBust. I really hope that if this continual slew of attacks on Clinton falsely equivocating her to Trump starts to matter to Trump's benefit, that she backs away from them.
In the Q&A vaccines came up, and she's walking that annoying and dangerous line again that vaccines are fine, just not the corrupt agencies and corporations behind them.
In the Q&A vaccines came up, and she's walking that annoying line again that vaccines are fine, just not the corrupt agencies and corporations behind them.
I still find such comments quite concerning, because anything that could encourage people not to vaccinate or impair people's access to vaccines is still an unacceptable affront to the wellbeing of the people. I mean, this is something that could feasibly result in the death of literal billions if it aids in the superbug problem getting out of hand. We NEED to be careful. We NEED people to be willing to trust the medical system.
As long as there's any real reasons to suspect Stein would take action against vaccines, I can't offer any support for her.
At least this is a potentially promising sign of her walking back the whole thing. Here's hoping.
In the Q&A vaccines came up, and she's walking that annoying line again that vaccines are fine, just not the corrupt agencies and corporations behind them.
I still find such comments quite concerning, because anything that could encourage people not to vaccinate or impair people's access to vaccines is still an unacceptable affront to the wellbeing of the people. I mean, this is something that could feasibly result in the death of literal billions if it aids in the superbug problem getting out of hand. We NEED to be careful. We NEED people to be willing to trust the medical system.
As long as there's any real reasons to suspect Stein would take action against vaccines, I can't offer any support for her.
At least this is a potentially promising sign of her walking back the whole thing. Here's hoping.
I agree. At this point there is only one reason I am musing the idea of voting for Jill Stein: vote Green solely on the grounds that it'll help the Party reach the 5% threshold for federal funding and that maybe they can get their act together enough to build state/local ground game(s) and find a better candidate than Jill Stein in future elections. I said it before: to me dog whistling anti-vaxx is in the same group of political sins as denying climate change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I agree. At this point there is only one reason I am musing the idea of voting for Jill Stein: vote Green solely on the grounds that it'll help the Party reach the 5% threshold for federal funding and that maybe they can get their act together enough to build state/local ground game(s) and find a better candidate than Jill Stein in future elections.
You're counting on your giving them positive reinforcement for what they're doing being an impetus for them to change what they're doing?
I agree. At this point there is only one reason I am musing the idea of voting for Jill Stein: vote Green solely on the grounds that it'll help the Party reach the 5% threshold for federal funding and that maybe they can get their act together enough to build state/local ground game(s) and find a better candidate than Jill Stein in future elections.
You're counting on your giving them positive reinforcement for what they're doing being an impetus for them to change what they're doing?
No. That would constitute a protest vote or blind faith in ideological purity, which is the only vote they've sought since Ralph Nader (meaning ever). If I voted Green I would join the party and either work to clean out their ranks so this is at the least brought back down to earth along with a more rigorous platform... or get kicked out of the party for spreading ideological impurity.
The Greens' positions and the 5% vote kind of go hand in hand, really. There's no reason to vote for the Green Party if one does not feel the positions held by the Greens deserve federal funding. My issue is that I'm not too keen on Jill Stein as a candidate.
Also, Jill is doing better this time already because she's getting more exposure thanks to her active courting of #BernieOrBust. Heck, it's why this thread exists at all. Speaking of exposure...
CNN is hosting a Town Hall Forum for Jill Stein and her VP pick Ajamu Baraka tonight @ 9:00 EST. It'll be interesting to see how that fares for her, and may give us some things to talk about for the next few days.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I think that people should have a positive feeling towards who they vote for, as opposed to the one who generates the least negative one. Does that clarify my stance more? Because it's what I'm talking about. Plenty of people are saying they don't like any of the candidates, they just don't want candidate X to win so they'll vote for Y instead, or vice versa. Which, again, doesn't really seem like how a presidential campaign should go. I didn't her this strong of that sentiment before, it seems like something that is very strong here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think there is a workable solution, I was saying it was disappointing that it's happening. Was brought up by someone earlier in the thread on why they are voting for Jill. I wasn't advocating not voting though. Not sure why you would go there.
So far, I actually kind of like Ajuma Baraka. He definitely came prepared to respond to and defend his statements. There was an undertone of (the reason I said those things that way was because I didn't think I'd ever have to talk about them on national television), but even with that undertone he expressed no remorse about the meaning of those remarks, and dare I say, came across as capable for the White House.Upon further review of the comments via Google, and actually learning the severity of the comments Baraka has chosen to stand by, I see now that this is not something that sounds presidential; it sounds close to Trumpian.Other thoughts? Corrections? Feel free to contribute.
I'm not sure either, but the issue when bringing "Likability" into a job is first, likability is subjective. Second, likability does not necessarily translate to good for the job.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This is delusional. The reason the Greens usually can't scrape together even one percent of the vote isn't that people are "living in fear". It's that their platform is radical and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them. Most people's political positions fall roughly within the scope of one of the two major parties.
Look at what the Libertarian party did - they found two guys who have enough electability to have won state-level elections, and whose positions, while not exactly mainstream, are moderate compared to the party at large. They've got other obstacles (many of their own making) in their way, but at least they're making a serious go at it. The Greens meanwhile have chosen to re-nominate someone whose only electoral experience is getting demolished in every real election she's been a candidate in. It's a complete joke. These people can't even competently mount a presidential campaign, and they're the ones you want running the country?
Hell, at least Ben Carson was qualified at something, even if it wasn't politics.
Link
I'll probably give it a second listen this weekend so I can give a more detailed and informed reaction than my initial one.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
For a former neurosurgeon, Carson seems to have a shockingly poor understanding of modern science. He has qualifications, but I certainly wouldn't put much trust in his knowledge.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why is it dangerous advice?
Spreading out vaccines leaves the child unprotected for longer. There's no evidence of any sort of benefit or improved safety from delaying vaccination, so you're trading time unprotected from these diseases for no gain.
https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/Documents/Vaccineschedule.pdf
Actually, "too many, too soon" is their new favorite canard. Mostly because at this point, mercury scares are something like
Never mind that you're exposed to more unique strains of bacteria while going through the ******.
On phasing:
"As much as the 'Sandernistas' attempt to disarticulate Sanders 'progressive' domestic policies from his documented support for empire," Baraka said. "It should be obvious that his campaign is an ideological prop—albeit from a center/left position—of the logic and interests of the capitalist-imperialist settler state."
Could someone unpack this for me? What does this mean, why do I get the feeling it's just "Arabs hijacking indigenous issues yet again", and why the hell do the Greens think insulting Bernie Sanders is a good way to get his supporters?
On phasing:
You know, I might do something like this down the line, and thanks for the updated link.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Ben Carson's presidential campaign was defined by Carson being:
1. A neurosurgeon
2. Clueless
On this count, yes, Jill Stein being the "Ben Carson of the left" fits, but that's not a compliment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Jill Stein had two major appearances... by Green Party standards... this week that I think are worth mentioning.
First, Jill Stein made a few headlines when she went to the Baton Rouge to the floods. After the trip, she held a Press Conference.
Second appearance, Jill Stein was a guest on PBS Newshour for an interview and to answer user submitted questions. Could someone find the Q&A section of the interview? I saw part of it, but not all of it. Things I noted:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I still find such comments quite concerning, because anything that could encourage people not to vaccinate or impair people's access to vaccines is still an unacceptable affront to the wellbeing of the people. I mean, this is something that could feasibly result in the death of literal billions if it aids in the superbug problem getting out of hand. We NEED to be careful. We NEED people to be willing to trust the medical system.
As long as there's any real reasons to suspect Stein would take action against vaccines, I can't offer any support for her.
At least this is a potentially promising sign of her walking back the whole thing. Here's hoping.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I agree. At this point there is only one reason I am musing the idea of voting for Jill Stein: vote Green solely on the grounds that it'll help the Party reach the 5% threshold for federal funding and that maybe they can get their act together enough to build state/local ground game(s) and find a better candidate than Jill Stein in future elections. I said it before: to me dog whistling anti-vaxx is in the same group of political sins as denying climate change.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~