Jill Stein For President

Jill Stein Selects Human Rights Activist Ajamu Baraka as Vice-Presidential Running Mate. 

http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_selects_ajamu_baraka_as_vp

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

Fuck educating them. Make vaccination mandatory, charge them with parental neglect if they refuse.

That's something I personally could support.  I don't think any candidate is proposing this, though.  My understanding is that requirements for vaccinations for school children vary from state to state, with probably the sternest regulation being something like vaccinations must be given unless parents give a valid reason for declining, the reasons being either medical, religious, or philosophical.  So, not mandatory like having a licence to drive, but strongly encouraged.

The two states in the US with the highest vaccination rates, not coincidentally, are the two that allow no religious/philosophical exemption for vaccination. So which states would you guess they are?

Vermont? California? Nope. Mississippi and West Virginia, those well-known cruel oppressors of Christianity.

neither did I, A24, but the world is different now, those kids live in a world where being tech savvy is a benefit. That wi FI has deleterious health effects might not seem a "crazy thing to believe", but the facts don't back the claim. It's demonstrably not true. Hanging on to a claim that has been demonstrated to be untrue is where the crazy sets in.

Quote:

Some people with low intellects like me would think this makes her bat shit crazy but we would be wrong. Being a unabashed warmongering imperialist is nothing compared to believing that WIFI might be dangerous.

Jill Stein might not be a warmongering imperialist.   But she is still nuts on wifi.

Thabo Mbeki was a hero of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.   Unfortunately as president, and much more serious, he was absolutely nuts on HIV/AIDS.   Thousands died as a result of him being nuts on that issue.

People who do some great things are not above criticism.

Quote:

Is that really such a crazy thing to believe anyways?

Yes it is because it distracts from real issues of worker safety.

For instance, the NIMBY folks go nuts every time a cellphone tower goes up.   The real safety issue?   Poorly trained and harnessed workers falling off of those towers.

Or, workers who do work on high powered radio and TV transmitting towers.   These folks are working in close proximity to transmitter towers that are putting out tens of thousands of watts.   There are real cancer issues doing that kind of work.

The typical wifi router puts out about 100 milliwatts of RF power.   And you're not usually even in the same room as the wifi router.

The devices you use that are more likely to be a problem are your mobile phone, or a cordless phone connected to a landline, or a handheld walkie talkie that's operating at UHF or higher frequencies.

Quote:

I wonder how old the video of Stein speaking in the classroom is.

Seems to be from a few months ago, in March.

Quote:

Best to be cautious with new technologies.

How new are radio frequencies?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

How new are radio frequencies?

Radio signals are as old as the universe.   Jupiter's big red spot has been transmitting in the 20-21 MHz. range as long as the big red spot on Jupiter has existed...I'm assuming several billion years.

What's new is generation of radio signals by human beings since the late 19th century.

We started out using low and medium wave frequencies, and gradually moved up to higher frequencies as technology changed and humans figured out that different radio frequencies have different characteristics.    Largely, it was the radio hackers of the day (amateur ham radio operators) who discovered that radio frequencies above 2 Megahertz weren't "useless" as was thought by industry.

Use of microwave radio frequencies has probably been since about the 1970's.    Most microwave radio transmitters are quite low powered.   Some cellphone transmitters might range between 10 and 50 watts on the extreme high end.

A typical cordless or mobile phone might transmit in the 1 watt range.

The typical wifi router?   About 100 milliwatts.

True, but the sneaky little buggers have learned to hide under your burrito and escape when you open the door.

Quote:

This election it is important that the US elects someone who is extremely pro vaccinations and WIFI.

If they're not important, Stein could have said "why are you asking me about silly things that aren't important?  I'm here to talk foreign policy, not wi-fi."

Well, my point was that vaccinations and wi-fi must be important to Stein, or else why flap her gums about it?  When, as you say, there are so many more important things?

Quote:

The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about.

That would be just so much more visible if she weren't talking the K00ky talk.

Quote:

One can assume from your posting history that attacking leftist leaders is your main reason for being here.

u mad about the Venezuela thread, bro?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about.

That would be just so much more visible if she weren't talking the K00ky talk.

Quote:

One can assume from your posting history that attacking leftist leaders is your main reason for being here.

u mad about the Venezuela thread, bro?

Not mad about anything just making comments about posts and posters as I have been for nearly a decade and a half. What's the matter with that? You like to diss it and then you flounce when someone sends a barb your way? I would have thought you had a thicker hide than that.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

New headlines,  "Stein refuses to discuss issues." The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about. 

Shouldn't that be "ignore" rather than "attack"? Stein herself complains that the MSM ignores her.

https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/653705779430555648

1. First they ignore you

2. Then they laugh at you

3. Then they fight you

4. Then you win

I believe the first three steps have been completed.  So assuming Gandhi was right, that's good news for Stein, and America!

That's a very good point.

I guess I was hoping that in the case of The Donald, step #2 would be stretched out all the way to November.

Quote:

Some wrong beliefs, like vaccines cause autism or that HIV is not the cause of AIDS are dangerous, and have serious consequences if they are acted on. Would the consequences of acting on the belief that wifi causes cancer really be that harmful?

Would banning microwave ovens "because of the radiation and the cancer" be that harmful?

I remember a world before microwave ovens.  We heated stuff on the stove and we liked it.  But we can't just slap a moratorium on things we use because "why not?".

What about cell phones?  Don't they emit this "radiation" that we fear?

Quote:

The real issue is this idea that being wrong on wifi is such a big deal that it should disqualify her from being President when we have 2 candidates who are prepared to start wars with any country they don't like.

1) she's not "disqualified".  The simpleminded folk who fear wifi will probably make a special point of voting for her.

2) if a basic, scientific understanding of how radio waves work is the biggest obstacle to her becoming President then she's always welcome to say "whoops, I misspoke" -- as I noted above, if it's "important" for us to discuss, it's only because it was evidently important for her to discuss.  Nobody's asking Trump how he feels about wi-fi in homes and classrooms because nobody who's considering voting for Trump has a bee in their bonnet about wi-fi.  But potential Stein supporters want to know she's got their back on wi-fi and vaccines, and probably microwave ovens and chemtrails too.

Quote:

Does that make her as evil as neo-liberal war mongering Clinton or neo-fascist Trump?   Not at all.  

Just that Stein isn't by any means perfect.

I agree.

But I would add:  if wi-fi is "just a distraction" from the real and important things, why doesn't Stein just walk it back?  And devote all her microphone time to the important things?

I know that kropotkin took a run at this in #125, but Stein "refusing to discuss issues" can't be an issue if those issues aren't really issues.

So she can solve Fermat's last theorem, but the ratio of the square of the hypoteneuse to the sum of the squares of the other two sides is a mystery.

Glad to hear she's got the real truth about everything but.

Sure.

It's a shame that she can get all the difficult-to-impossible stuff right, but can't seem to wrap her head around the easy stuff.

Evidently my metaphors are a piece of coal on a horse's back.

Green Party's Jill Stein: U.S. Should Stop Funding Israel & Saudi Arabia

quote:

AMY GOODMAN: How has your message, Dr. Jill Stein, on Israel-Palestine and what you’re demanding, the planks in the Green Party platform, been covered and received?

DR. JILL STEIN: Well, really, none of our planks have been covered and received, not only our position on Israel-Palestine, our position on foreign policy, our position on jobs and climate and student debt. We’ve basically been disappeared from the mainstream conversation. But I have to say, you know, in terms of our own outreach and our—you know, the reach of our social media and our campaign and the independent media, like yourself, that actually does its job responsibly, the reception has been incredible.

And we’ve been able to put Israel-Palestine into a much broader human rights framework, actually, because one of the big criticisms that’s always been leveled against, for example, the BDS campaign, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against this occupying force, this military force—one of the criticisms is that, "Oh, you’re singling out Israel." So, we’ve made it a point to say we’re not singling out anybody; this is a general standard of international law and human rights that our administration, our Green administration, would apply to all countries. So, we are saying, if countries are in violation of international law and humaquote:n rights, as Israel is for its occupations, its home demolitions, its assassinations and so on, that we will not support you. And right now we’re supporting Israel to the tune of $8 million a day. But we’ll say the same thing to the Saudis. We should not be selling weapons or otherwise supporting the Saudis—and, as you pointed out on this show, $110 billion in the last decade, and rising, despite the human rights abuses and the war crimes being committed by the Saudis, with U.S. assistance, in fact. You know, this is one of many issues that I think people are really clamoring to hear more about....

Cody87 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

But that's Amerikkka. It's a very Conservative country and most Americans can't give you a coherent reason why. They've all been conditioned and conned into believing certain buzzwords equal death and Satan and whatever...They are not politically savvy and are blissfully fact free.

Genuine question. Are a plurality of Americans conservative?

I'm not asking about American politicians, or political establishments, which are certainly right leaning. By Canadian standards, the U.S. is like if you had a vote but only between the P.C.'s and Reform.

But my question is, if in a parallel universe in 2020 they suddenly had the options of Reform, P.C.'s, Liberals, and N.D.P., with no pre-existing party biases or baggage and no influence from the media or old establishment, would P.C.'s still win?

I mean, nobody would say Canadians are conservative even though we "chose" to enjoy the rule of Stephen Harper for a decade. Americans don't really have a choice, and if it wasn't clear before, this election should make it painfully clear that the establishment will force it's agenda on the populace.

Plurality is an odd question. This would depend on how many you place in the centre and what you define as centre, conservative and left. If you define the left widely then it may be a close third with the middle as the second and the right the plurality.

Or if you define the centre widely then it may be the plurality.

Naturally if you define the right widely then it is the plurality.

This is a continuum and as such you cannot establish any agreement on what group has a plurality without defining the edges of each group -- something I think is impossible and not valuable. And you can move the boundaries to get any answer you like.

Wrong thread?