1. The amount of money to pay off the debt is not in circulation. We don't have the kind of money to pay the debt just running around. We don't have anywhere close to that. As of 2013, the amount of money in circulation was about 1.2 trillion dollars (incidentally, that's about the amount of student debt the government is owed.) That's why we have a debt. We're spending more than our government takes in.
I don't understand why the amount of money in circulation is relevant here. We spend, for example, $1.3 trillion on government pensions every year. If the amount of money in circulation were a limiting factor, how do we manage to pay those pensions?
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.
* 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?
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.
Yes, but that's not really related here. He got one delegate's vote at the Libertarian convention - probably some sort of protest vote by the delegate. That just means he didn't get to be the Libertarian party's nominee. But you don't have to be a party's nominee to be a write-in candidate, you just have to have filled out some paperwork ahead of time. Presumably Vermin Supreme will have done so, although that's just a guess.
True, I may as well right in Mr. T at that point then.
Well, most states require the write-in candidate to have registered, so if you want to feel-good of your vote being counted, you have to at least write in an actual candidate.
Cause she at least has some ideas I agree with (even if she's got a bit of woo going on) and I'm not even sure if I can vote for Vermin Supreme.
Almost all states allow write-in candidates, so you can vote for whoever you want.
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.
I'm seriously considering voting for Stein on the grounds that she's the candidate I dislike the least and because I want to vote without voting for Hillary or Trump. I realizethat might be a bad position to take but at the same time I don't really want to sit out this election.
"The Green Party calls for a complete, thorough, impartial, and independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the role of the administration of George W, Bush, various U.S. based corporations and interests, and other nations and third parties."
Haven't got a clue what to make of that.
This is probably a product of their equally loony toons 2008 nominee Cynthia "Bush did 9/11" McKinney.
Also y'all being against homeopathy obviously don't know what it means, unless you're totally convinced that every ailment or pain whatsoever ought to be cured with a pill. Homeopathy doesn't equal being anti-vax and often just points to corporate interests in and the impersonal nature of our medical system that could use more focused care and less prescriptions.
Homeopathy is the belief that ailments can be cured by taking a small amount of a plant or chemical and repeatedly diluting it in water, often by factors of a trillion or more, to the point where statistically not even a single molecule of the original plant or chemical is likely to remain. Homeopaths believe that the water molecules will form "water memories" of the now-gone substances, which will magically grant the preparation curative properties.
Homeopathy is not a catch-all term for holistic medicine. It's a very specific system of very obviously fraudulent methods. I get the sense from your post here that you don't actually have a clue what it means. I suggest reading the Wikipedia page.
The biodiversity point stands though. There is a risk to having homogeneous plantlife.
But that's completely irrelevant to Stein's anti-science opposition to GMOs. She wants a moratorium "until they're proven safe" - and she isn't talking about the risks of monocultures or patent issues. In a fund-raising email, Stein said:
In addition to climate change and creating an economy that works for the 99%, one of the most important is putting a moratorium on GMO foods and pesticides. Why? Because evidence is now showing that once these foods reach our digestive tract, they can affect our very DNA.
No, I don't think she believes in chemtrails, but she does believe in similarly absurd medical conspiracies. She thinks it's dangerous to be exposing "our kids' brains" to wifi signals. She thinks we need a moratorium on GMOs. Her answers on vaccines and homeopathy are at best evasive dog whistles.
The WHO has said that microwave radiation (emitted by cell phones/wi-fi hot spots/most electronics) is a carcinogen. There's apparently studies to back it up now; but, the level of damage is low enough that if you get a break from it at night, your body can heal; it's more that constant exposure with no break doesn't give your body the time it needs to repair itself. So, even that isn't a step too far.
GMOs pose risks for a reason that has very little to do with their genetic alterations. Which is that they tend to be invasive and create a mono-culture. And mono-cultures make our food stores susceptible to plague, pests and all sorts of other issues. I'm not against GMOs; but there are risks associated with them. So far, no risks have been linked to human health; but, there's certainly a risk to biodiversity and the stability that it creates by creating "fire-walls" between fields.
I haven't seen the material she's relying on or her quotes to know if she's in line with the scientific arguments on both points.
The dog whistling; if she's doing that intentionally is wrong and needs to stop for her to be taken seriously; and I think you do have an argument for that existing.
Give me a break. The WHO absolutely does not say that Wifi is dangerous, and they especially don't say it poses a cancer risk. Here's what their fact sheet says:
Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause.
Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.
...
Conclusions
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
Jill Stein, as far as I can tell is not actually an anti-vaxxer; and she doesn't care about chem trails. She did, unfortunately, say something that sounded like it could be a dog whistle. The actual text was that she believed our regulatory committees needed to be transparent and gain the trust of the people; and I think that's fair, but I think it also implied that they shouldn't have the trust of the people, and she was so vague that I can't say what grounds she thought she was standing on.
That said; if you look at the green platform (which I did), it's on the whole not bad. It's more in line with my vision of what america should be than maybe any other party; and I'll have to may more attention to them in local elections.
They're focused pretty strongly on environmental issues, and as much as that should make them well grounded in science; the reality is that there's a long history of pseudo science and panic in that area of concern. That doesn't apply to wanting green energy or to get ourselves off of oil; however; which is the main part of the platform. That and ending the military industrial complex while making sure that the government provides a fair and level playing field. They also want to create public options for banking, so that you can get a decent interest rate on your savings and put your money in a place that isn't designed to profit off of you.
So, slightly left of the Democratic party and on the whole less governmental experience, but not the crazy people that people in this thread are making them out to be. There's no voting for Jill in this election though. Any sort of protest vote or voting 3rd party is simply too dangerous, imo, while Trump sits on the ballot. If the GOP were acting in a sane and rational manner my vote would be open for this party though; or if the GOP died off completely I could see myself switching to supporting this party more often.
No, I don't think she believes in chemtrails, but she does believe in similarly absurd medical conspiracies. She thinks it's dangerous to be exposing "our kids' brains" to wifi signals. She thinks we need a moratorium on GMOs. Her answers on vaccines and homeopathy are at best evasive dog whistles.
Voting for Jill Stein is like voting for the crazy lady at your homeowners' association who won't shut up about how the chemtrails are poisoning her children. She has the same amount of actual political experience, and believes in the same amount of pseudoscience idiocy. She's a complete joke.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't understand why the amount of money in circulation is relevant here. We spend, for example, $1.3 trillion on government pensions every year. If the amount of money in circulation were a limiting factor, how do we manage to pay those pensions?
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
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?
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.
Yes, but that's not really related here. He got one delegate's vote at the Libertarian convention - probably some sort of protest vote by the delegate. That just means he didn't get to be the Libertarian party's nominee. But you don't have to be a party's nominee to be a write-in candidate, you just have to have filled out some paperwork ahead of time. Presumably Vermin Supreme will have done so, although that's just a guess.
Well, most states require the write-in candidate to have registered, so if you want to feel-good of your vote being counted, you have to at least write in an actual candidate.
Almost all states allow write-in candidates, so you can vote for whoever you want.
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.
Why Jill Stein and not Vermin Supreme?
This is probably a product of their equally loony toons 2008 nominee Cynthia "Bush did 9/11" McKinney.
Homeopathy is the belief that ailments can be cured by taking a small amount of a plant or chemical and repeatedly diluting it in water, often by factors of a trillion or more, to the point where statistically not even a single molecule of the original plant or chemical is likely to remain. Homeopaths believe that the water molecules will form "water memories" of the now-gone substances, which will magically grant the preparation curative properties.
Homeopathy is not a catch-all term for holistic medicine. It's a very specific system of very obviously fraudulent methods. I get the sense from your post here that you don't actually have a clue what it means. I suggest reading the Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
But that's completely irrelevant to Stein's anti-science opposition to GMOs. She wants a moratorium "until they're proven safe" - and she isn't talking about the risks of monocultures or patent issues. In a fund-raising email, Stein said:
Give me a break. The WHO absolutely does not say that Wifi is dangerous, and they especially don't say it poses a cancer risk. Here's what their fact sheet says:
You're just as bad as she is.
No, I don't think she believes in chemtrails, but she does believe in similarly absurd medical conspiracies. She thinks it's dangerous to be exposing "our kids' brains" to wifi signals. She thinks we need a moratorium on GMOs. Her answers on vaccines and homeopathy are at best evasive dog whistles.