A few Bernie Supporters move to Green Party & Jill Stein to help split democratic vote for Trump - Polidicks

[QUOTE=rilez;50782405]This is the platform language that I [B]just said[/B] was changed. [url]http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=820[/url] Stein herself was never anti-vaxx or pro-homeopathy. She doesn't decide every aspect of the Green Party's platform, either. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] In the AMA you're referencing, she's not arguing for anti-vaxx or pro-homeopathy. She views declining vaccinations as a problem, and part of that problem is public distrust of regulatory committees.[/QUOTE] That's "Politics 101", she'll never say "yea, I'm against vaccinations" straight up. That was a default politician response...

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782433]That's "Politics 101", she'll never say "yea, I'm against vaccinations" straight up. That was a default politician response...[/QUOTE] Thanks for the enlightenment, I guess we should just ignore everything a politician ever says and focus exclusively on their fashion or something.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50782439]Thanks for the enlightenment, I guess we should just ignore everything a politician ever says and focus exclusively on their fashion or something.[/QUOTE] Your sarcasm, is always, much appreciated. We live in the world of politics, you live in the world of adolescent tantrum. The sooner you learn that, the better, bud.

Actually a 4 way race is favorable for Clinton :v: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782452]Your sarcasm, is always, much appreciated. We live in the world of politics, you live in the world of adolescent tantrum. The sooner you learn that, the better, bud.[/QUOTE] Sorry, you're completely right, you had some evidence Jill Stein is an anti-vaxxer ready then?

I'll make it even easier for you, I'll quote her entire response from her AMA. [quote]I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex. Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich. For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.[/quote] Now, read that response carefully, and tell me with a straight face that she's saying something else other than "yes". Then you'll realize, that her response is 50% pandering ('cause she needs those votes) and 50% a typical politician response to a simple question. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] "Vaccines are nice and all, but I don't like the FDA". How does that sound, hm?

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782319]In all fairness, most left-leaning people always gravitates towards that sort of anti-science crap; anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO, anti-vaxxer. There's clearly a pattern.[/QUOTE] what

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782485]I'll make it even easier for you, I'll quote her entire response from her AMA. Now, read that response carefully, and tell me with a straight face that she's saying something else other than "yes". Then you'll realize, that her response is 50% pandering ('cause she needs those votes) and 50% a typical politician response to a simple question.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782485]"Vaccines are nice and all, but I don't like the FDA". How does that sound, hm?[/QUOTE] Which is exactly like I said above: [QUOTE=plunger435;50782369]She's definitely pro-vaxx, just anti-big parhma.[/QUOTE] No where does she say anything about vaccines causing autism, vaccines doing anything bad, that we need to stop vaccine. She even says the vaccine rates are dropping and we need to fix that.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50782499]No where does she say anything about vaccines causing autism, vaccines doing anything bad, etc.[/QUOTE] She's a [I]doctor[/I], she should know better than to say something like that. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] "Huge contribution to public health"? They saved countless lives over the last century. Now *that* is a big red flag, right there.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782503]She's a [I]doctor[/I], she should know better than to say something like that. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] "Huge contribution to public health"? They saved countless lives over the last century. Now *that* is a big red flag, right there.[/QUOTE] Which is why she didn't? I'm not sure what you're getting at now? That her support of vaccines means she's covering up her anti-vaccination sentiments? I can't tell if you're serious, you're complaining that her saying "Huge contribution to public health" means she's anti-vaccination?

If she's pro-vaxx, then she should stop sending such mixed signals in her responses. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] If she's a presidential candidate, and a doctor, she should know better than to fuck around with people's health like that. It's hard to take her seriously.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782511]If she's pro-vaxx, then she should stop sending such mixed signals in her responses. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] If she's a presidential candidate, and a doctor, she should know better than to fuck around with people's health like that. It's hard to take her seriously.[/QUOTE] [quote]Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio.[/quote] [quote] I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.[/quote] [quote]For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe[/quote] Not only has she made it clear vaccines are great, she even proposes that the cause of dropping vaccine rates is a distrust of the medical industry, and by strengthening trust there we can cause a rise in rates again. There is no rhetoric in that entire speech that is negative of vaccines. How dare she, as a doctor, say vaccines are a "Huge contribution to public health" with a straight face! Like how is she even fucking around with peoples health?

[QUOTE=bitches;50781936]it's sad how much bernie talked about the broken political system we live in, only for his previous supporters to undermine themselves with a third party candidate to split the vote[/QUOTE] Voting for Clinton won't fix the system.

[QUOTE=download;50782413]You would think that in the age of digital media they would update their platform in days or hours instead of waiting more than three months, particularly during election season.[/QUOTE]Doesn't stop the mentally retarded sheep bleat and baa about "hurr wut about roads???" and the EPA when Johnson comes up, (hilarious especially since he specifically pointed to the EPA as "government doing something good") so I don't imagine it will save Stein from the same bullshit. Even if it was updated in seconds the fact that it existed once, at any point in time, is all the "damning evidence" required for political shit-slinging. [QUOTE]It's wishy-washy language to avoid pissing off her naturapath nutjob voters.[/QUOTE]Welcome to politics.

How do presidential elections in USA work; is the winner the one with most votes no matter how many, or the one with over 50% of all votes ?

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50782772]How do presidential elections in USA work; is the winner the one with most votes no matter how many, or the one with over 50% of all votes ?[/QUOTE] theoretically, we vote for our candidates state-by-state, then the electoral college of those states casts their vote on whoever wins their state election however, electoral college can vote whoever they want. so also in theory, a candidate that won the overall vote can still lose if the electoral college voted for the other guy its rare though, its only happened 4 times IIRC. most recent being al gore being screwed out. but yeah, whoever gets the most votes.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50782683]Doesn't stop the mentally retarded sheep bleat and baa about [I]"hurr wut about roads???" [/I]and the EPA when Johnson comes up, (hilarious especially since he specifically pointed to the EPA as "government doing something good") so I don't imagine it will save Stein from the same bullshit. Even if it was updated in seconds the fact that it existed once, at any point in time, is all the "damning evidence" required for political shit-slinging. Welcome to politics.[/QUOTE] Jesus, that sound like my dad. Every time Libertarians are brought up within earshot of him he keeps going on about "who will build roads???". He seems unable to discern libertarians from anarchists. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] He brought up the Tea Party last week.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50782799]theoretically, [U]we vote for our candidates state-by-state, then the electoral college of those states casts their vote on whoever wins their state election[/U] however, electoral college can vote whoever they want. so also in theory, a candidate that won the overall vote can still lose if the electoral college voted for the other guy its rare though, its only happened 4 times IIRC. most recent being al gore being screwed out. [U]but yeah, whoever gets the most votes[/U].[/QUOTE] Thanks, but this doesn't explain it. The total number of votes doesn't seem to matter if it is state-by-state, or ? Do you then have to win more than 25 states, or do different states with larger or smaller population contribute differently in final "score" or how do you call it ? Here the one who passes the 50% mark wins, as simple as that. Everything in USA seems over-complicated in politics.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50782825]Thanks, but this doesn't explain it. The total number of votes doesn't seem to matter if it is state-by-state, or ? Do you then have to win more than 25 states, or do different states with larger or smaller population contribute differently in final "score" or how do you call it ? Here the one who passes the 50% mark wins, as simple as that. Everything in USA seems over-complicated in politics.[/QUOTE] The persons with the largest vote in that state takes every electoral college seat in that state.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50782825]Thanks, but this doesn't explain it. The total number of votes doesn't seem to matter if it is state-by-state, or ? Do you then have to win more than 25 states, or do different states with larger or smaller population contribute differently in final "score" or how do you call it ? Here the one who passes the 50% mark wins, as simple as that. Everything in USA seems over-complicated in politics.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.c-spanclassroom.org/Images/2016ECMapLarge.jpg[/IMG] this is the electoral college map each state votes for their candidate the electoral college of that state looks at which of the candidates got the most vote from their statesmen then they vote accordingly to the result which is the only one that matters, but they can override their people's vote and vote for whoever they want. so theoretically, a candidate can win by overall vote by all voters, but still be shifted by electoral college voters cause their the only ones that matter in the end one candidate has to get least 270 of those votes if they dont get that magic number, its voted by congress. each member of house of rep has one vote to select their president each member of the senate has one vote to select their vice president

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50782847][U]then they vote accordingly to the result which is the only one that matters, but they can override their people's vote and vote for whoever they want[/U]. so theoretically, a candidate can win by overall vote by all voters, but still be shifted by electoral college voters cause their the only ones that matter in the end[/QUOTE] Thanks, but why this middle step, it makes no sense to me that someone can override people's votes, it doesn't sound like democracy at all ? Is that in case there are like 5 candidates and the one with most votes only has like 30%, and someone [U]MUST[/U] be pronounced winner, because you can't repeat the elections(there is no second round in USA) ? I already said here you need over 50% of votes, so if there are more than two candidates in first election round and nobody has over 50%, the top two go to second round of elections, and one over 50% wins.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782503]She's a [I]doctor[/I], she should know better than to say something like that. [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] "Huge contribution to public health"? They saved countless lives over the last century. Now *that* is a big red flag, right there.[/QUOTE] how the fuck you can look at the statement [quote] "Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them." [/quote] and think "anti-vax" is a complete fucking mystery to reading comprehension literally nothing she said is even remotely controversial - vaccines should be treated like medical procedures, and they should be regulated by parties that don't have a financial interest in them - thus meaning they won't be allowed through on financial merit like, how can you possibly derive anti-vax from that [editline]27th July 2016[/editline] sure a lot of it is written in political-ese, but nothing about it is even remotely disagreeable

[QUOTE=plunger435;50782439]Thanks for the enlightenment, I guess we should just ignore everything a politician ever says and focus exclusively on their fashion or something.[/QUOTE] The real metric is whether or not you could have a beer with them.

Doesn't green party believe in holistic medicine as part of its platform

[QUOTE=OvB;50783084]The real metric is whether or not you could have a beer with them.[/QUOTE] When do they all start debating their favorite microbrews.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782319] In all fairness, most left-leaning people always gravitates towards that sort of anti-science crap; anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO, anti-vaxxer. There's clearly a pattern.[/QUOTE] So Trump saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy isn't anti-science crap? The vast majority of GOP members voting against stem cell research, evolution in schools, basic funding for education, etc., that's not the same? Nice try

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50782990]Thanks, but why this middle step, it makes no sense to me that someone can override people's votes, it doesn't sound like democracy at all ? Is that in case there are like 5 candidates and the one with most votes only has like 30%, and someone [U]MUST[/U] be pronounced winner, because you can't repeat the elections(there is no second round in USA) ? I already said here you need over 50% of votes, so if there are more than two candidates in first election round and nobody has over 50%, the top two go to second round of elections, and one over 50% wins.[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/media]

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;50782496]what[/QUOTE] I can see it in the sense that people on the left-wing will tend to view large corporations (such as big pharma) more negatively. People on the right-wing do the exact same, though, but maybe because of a distrust in (big) government (chemtrails etc.).

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50782990]Thanks, but why this middle step, it makes no sense to me that someone can override people's votes, it doesn't sound like democracy at all ? Is that in case there are like 5 candidates and the one with most votes only has like 30%, and someone [U]MUST[/U] be pronounced winner, because you can't repeat the elections(there is no second round in USA) ? I already said here you need over 50% of votes, so if there are more than two candidates in first election round and nobody has over 50%, the top two go to second round of elections, and one over 50% wins.[/QUOTE] i could be wrong, but iirc its just tradition thing from the past. plus, its beneficial to both parties when it suits them; if the popular vote is against you in this election, you can rely on swing states to win it for you our founding fathers loved democracy, but in the other hand hated democracy they wanted people to make decisions, but saw that mobs tend to be retards i.e. the uneducated masses would want something incredibly destructive or stupid because they think its a good idea, so they vote for it. but the electoral college who tended to be educated and more sensible said "no, go home you're all drunk"

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50782319] In all fairness, most left-leaning people always gravitates towards that sort of anti-science crap; anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO, anti-vaxxer. There's clearly a pattern.[/QUOTE] It's fringe people on both sides that have this problem, and as of right now the Republican candidate is the only one currently holding a clear stance against vaccinations.