JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

[miniboes]

But why not use a solar for our energy?

Because it's expensive, unreliable, and takes country-sized facilities in order to provide for a country's energy supply.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837

[ThunderKiss65]

Because it's expensive, unreliable, and takes country-sized facilities in order to provide for a country's energy supply.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837

I and every other FPL user has to pay extra on their Florida Power & Light bill because they use 2% of their energy sources from solar, wind and sun. >:(


Anyone against nuclear energy should really move next to a coal plant.

[Jebus]

Do you have a source for that?

Obviously I don't have any source for a behind the scenes verbal agreement between the president and a potential secretary of defense, but if you are referring to the general US law on the subject its in the NCA:

National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the U.S. Department of Defense to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the Secretary of Defense jointly, or by their duly deputized successors, i.e. the Vice-President and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

“ The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands. The channel of communication for execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) and other time-sensitive operations shall be from the NCA through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the executing commanders. Section 3.1, Department of Defense Directive Number 5100.30 December 2, 1971.[1]

[brimstoneSalad]

Trump's worst nightmare would be going down in history as a weak president. He probably wouldn't mind a legacy as an unpredictable president or a poor policy maker but he would do anything to avoid the label as a weak president.

I don't believe that's true. He has to play the "strength" card to pander to the republican base. It's not clear what he wants or believes. Given his history, he's probably much more egotistically attached to his reputation as a businessman and master of economics than to anything relating to military strength. His worst nightmare is probably going down in history for bad economic policy.
Trump has had few consistent messages, but strong among them has been one of economic protectionism and military isolationism. He's more interested in "building a wall" than attacking other countries.

Given his history any insult from any world leader could have devastating consequences.

That's probably good political rhetoric, and it may help keep people from voting for him, but I don't think it's very realistic. It's also not something any of his supporters will believe, and a stronger argument can be made against Hillary for war mongering than that based on her past. There's no reason to believe a twitter insult during a political campaign equates to launching a nuclear weapon.

A Stein presidency, on the other hand, would be militarily safe,

Stein won't become president. Support for Stein will only help Trump win, since it's taking away from Hillary.
Stein is Trump's best hope of winning. If you want to beat Trump, attacking Stein is your best bet. Like I said, Trump is doing a good enough job of discrediting himself; he's plummeted in the polls.

I don't think there's anything innately dangerous about Trump in terms of using nukes haphazardly, so I don't think that's a meaningful benefit to Stein. The bottom line is that Stein is worse, more ignorant of economics, more deeply rooted in pseudoscience, and her policies would be a disaster.

The worst case for Trump is that he actually believes everything he's hinted at: and even at his worst, he's better than Stein. Chances are he's just pandering and doesn't believe most of that stuff at all.

and would certainly raise awareness on issues like vaccines and GMOs.

It would raise fear mongering about them. That's not a good thing. Hillary will raise awareness in a positive way.

If you are worried about her anti vax opinions, keep in mind that any policy change would have to pass through the barriers of the surgeon general, house of reps, the senate, and/or state governments.

Of course presidents hold less power than most people think, but enforcing is different than its opposite. There is a difference between a policy that can snowball on a downhill slope, and one that's working against economics and human behavior.
It's much easier to allow something than to stop it.

Stein probably can't stop people from vaccinating if they want to (the president can't even stop people from using cocaine if they want to), just as Sanders can't keep money out of politics, but she can open the flood gates for the anti vaxxers to ignore the law.

She can probably also have a huge influence on energy policy in squashing nuclear power and fracking for cleaner natural gas (those are things that need executive help to be advanced) -- she can probably do that, but she won't be able to enforce a carbon tax -- which basically means "long live coal and oil".

When you filter what these candidates say they want to do through a mesh of what they can do, and look at the consequences, Stein is far worse than Trump.

[Jebus]

I don't believe that's true. He has to play the "strength" card to pander to the republican base.

No, this is a behavior tendency that started long before he identified himself as a republican. Take the Marvin Roffman saga as an example. I'm surprised this incident seems to be forgotten in history.

It's not clear what he wants or believes.

I think it's quite clear what he wants. He is on a life long ego trip and the ultimate goal is to be the most powerful man on the planet. His beliefs are largely unimportant.

Given his history, he's probably much more egotistically attached to his reputation as a businessman and master of economics than to anything relating to military strength.

What "reputation as a businessman". He must certainly be hurt by the fact that none of the big finance publications such as Forbes have given him any respect as a businessman. However, he identifies himself as a strong alpha male and this would most likely extend to his decision maker as commander in chief.

His worst nightmare is probably going down in history for bad economic policy.

I dont think so as this is something that can always be blamed at outside forces and or the federal reserve chairman. This would be a subjective call and he would simply rest content on the side of his supporters. Whether or not, he were a strong president on the other hand, would not be subjective (at least not in his own opinion).

Trump has had few consistent messages, but strong among them has been one of economic protectionism and military isolationism. He's more interested in "building a wall" than attacking other countries.

How do you think he would respond if you publicly asked him how he would react to aggression from Iran or North Korea?

That's probably good political rhetoric, and it may help keep people from voting for him, but I don't think it's very realistic. It's also not something any of his supporters will believe, and a stronger argument can be made against Hillary for war mongering than that based on her past. There's no reason to believe a twitter insult during a political campaign equates to launching a nuclear weapon.

The step from devoting your whole life to humiliating one single person to launching a nuclear weapon is indeed a big one. However, past behavior is the only factor we have in judging future behavior. I also don't think it's likely that Trump would launch a nuclear attack because of a personal vendetta but this is not a possibility that I would rule out completely. The potential risks of a Trump presidency certainly outweighs the risks of any his opponents.

Stein won't become president. Support for Stein will only help Trump win, since it's taking away from Hillary.
Stein is Trump's best hope of winning. If you want to beat Trump, attacking Stein is your best bet. Like I said, Trump is doing a good enough job of discrediting himself; he's plummeted in the polls.

I assumed the discussion was purely hypothetical.

I don't think there's anything innately dangerous about Trump in terms of using nukes haphazardly,

This is where you lose me. Kindly note any US presidential candidate (present or past) that you can think of that would hold a higher risk of using nukes haphazardly.

The bottom line is that Stein is worse, more ignorant of economics

More ignorant in economics??? How is that even possible.

It would raise fear mongering about them.

Fear mongering is already in the fringes. Unscientific claims (outside of religion) should dissipate once discussed on a large scale.

Of course presidents hold less power than most people think, but enforcing is different than its opposite. There is a difference between a policy that can snowball on a downhill slope, and one that's working against economics and human behavior.
It's much easier to allow something than to stop it.

I dont follow you here. If something is already allowed its easier to keep it that way then to disallow it. If something is already forbidden its more easy to keep it that way than to legalize it.

Stein probably can't stop people from vaccinating if they want to (the president can't even stop people from using cocaine if they want to), just as Sanders can't keep money out of politics, but she can open the flood gates for the anti vaxxers to ignore the law.

How so? By identifying herself as a person who disagrees with the current law? Anti vaxxers would still have to face the consequences of the law which is the main motivator in place.

She can probably also have a huge influence on energy policy in squashing nuclear power and fracking for cleaner natural gas (those are things that need executive help to be advanced) -- she can probably do that, but she won't be able to enforce a carbon tax -- which basically means "long live coal and oil".

The fact that she identifies herself as an environmentalist is to me very reassuring. Even though she may be a complete halfwit, this shows me that her intentions are correct. The fact that she is less intelligent would probably make her more apt to listen to the scientists and other experts around her. Unfortunately, this is not something I can write about Trump.

[brimstoneSalad]

No, this is a behavior tendency that started long before he identified himself as a republican. Take the Marvin Roffman saga as an example. I'm surprised this incident seems to be forgotten in history.

You know Roffman probably plans to vote for Trump over Hillary, right?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-marvin-roffman-casino-lawsuit-213855

Election 2016, though, has spit out an odd, unexpected mixture of options. It has put Roffman in a position that would have been unthinkable for most of the last quarter-century.
“Trump is sort of like a breath of fresh air,” Roffman told me. “He’s not like normal politicians. He doesn’t say things that are politically correct.”
Was Roffman, a registered Republican, saying he would vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton in that prospective general-election matchup in November?
“I actually think Trump would be so much better than Hillary. No question in my mind. None,” he said. “This is really serious stuff here. If Hillary gets elected, it’s really like Obama’s third term, and I’m not happy with where the country is headed.”

Yes, he got the man fired and slandered him to ruin his reputation; it's because he was discouraging investors that Trump needed to save his ass on a failing casino in an impossible market. He needed better investment terms to make the Taj viable again.

Investment is speculative, and very much driven by public opinion. It's kind of a con game: convince people something is valuable and promising, and they'll invest in it, and that added value can be leveraged to create some actual returns. Or, in the least, Trump could sell his shares and dump the failing business on somebody else.

This was financial, probably much more so than personal. Roffman was in Trump's way. Roffman's article hurt Trump, and what he did in return was a pretty well calculated attack to discredit the credible advise against investing in his business.

Trump is certainly an asshole, but he didn't have the guy assassinated or anything, and there were clear business reasons for his aggressive behavior. I'm not defending it, but I understand it. And so does Roffman. He made out very well in the end, as Trump overplayed his hand. Has Trump done anything against Roffman since then to demonstrate real ongoing malice?

Anyway, probably not a good idea to publicize the whole Roffman thing on the off chance that backfires when and if he endorses Trump.

I think it's quite clear what he wants. He is on a life long ego trip and the ultimate goal is to be the most powerful man on the planet. His beliefs are largely unimportant.

Plausible, but I don't think that involves starting World War III. Trump is a bully, but he takes on people who are weaker than he is. The way he gains and keeps power now is through public adoration; he has to defend his brand.

It may be good rhetoric, but it's too much of a stretch for me to believe he would be a threat based on his past behavior.

I dont think so as this is something that can always be blamed at outside forces and or the federal reserve chairman. This would be a subjective call and he would simply rest content on the side of his supporters. Whether or not, he were a strong president on the other hand, would not be subjective (at least not in his own opinion).

Kind of seems like special pleading. If we accept delusional supporters for one, I'd think we should accept that as validating the other too.

How do you think he would respond if you publicly asked him how he would react to aggression from Iran or North Korea?

Aggression? I think he would bomb them into oblivion.

What would the consequences of this be?

China isn't going to defend North Korea if it's the aggressor. South Korea and Japan will stay out of it. Russia will stay out of it. Trump may end up having the best diplomatic relations with Russia in history, since he seems keen on Putin.

North Korea would just be gone with nobody too keen on avenging it.
The North Korean government is basically sane, though, and I don't think they'd initiate aggression.

Iran is a more complicated issue. Would this invigorate Islamic extremists? Not sure. I don't think we'd have problems with Pakistan or Turkey as long as Iran was the aggressor, but it's hard to say. Turkey has seen problems as of late, and Pakistan's people are very anti-U.S..

I think it's unlikely we'd see aggression from Iran, though.
I don't think it's a serious threat, but if it did happen, frankly, I think Trump would handle it better than Stein who would wave the white flag of surrender and declare the U.S. an Islamic state and implement Sharia law to please the terrorists. (OK, maybe not that bad)
Hillary would be better of course.

The step from devoting your whole life to humiliating one single person to launching a nuclear weapon is indeed a big one.

Not sure what you're talking about here.

The potential risks of a Trump presidency certainly outweighs the risks of any his opponents.

How, when we compare the policies of Stein and see how harmful they would be if she obtained political power? The only thing she would be less likely to do is nuke an aggressor. In fact, she may be completely unwilling to do so even if the U.S. is directly attacked, throwing out entirely the protection offered by mutually assured destruction. Even Pakistan might attack the U.S. under those circumstances.

Did you read ISIS' recent press release? They hate the West because we do not submit to Islam. Everything else is window dressing, and they will not stop.

I don't necessarily agree with Trump's heavy handed policies, but going too far in the other direction could be harmful too. If the Islamists see weakness, they will seize the opportunity to prove our politically correct views about Islam wrong.

This is where you lose me. Kindly note any US presidential candidate (present or past) that you can think of that would hold a higher risk of using nukes haphazardly.

There are past US presidents who were more dangerous. Nixon, for one. The recent George Bush was another; he was apparently suffering from pre-senile dementia and as a born again fundamentalist Christian who believed in Biblical literalism, he was one vision from Jesus away from starting World War III.

Among candidates, they are legion, particularly among Republicans. Where do you draw the line on who counts?

Even McCain, relatively sane and stable, joked, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran".

Trump is possible the least interventionist Republican in decades.

Also, we make a big deal of nukes, but the U.S. now has (and for a long time has had) conventional explosives that are just as devastating.

Of declassified weapons, this one is Russian, but the U.S. likely has similar items in its arsenal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs

According to General Alexander Rushkin, the Russian deputy chief of staff, the new bomb is smaller than the MOAB but much deadlier because the temperature at the centre of the blast is twice as high.[4][8][9] He says the bomb's capabilities are comparable to nuclear weapons, but unlike nuclear weaponry known for its radioactive fallout, use of the weapon does not damage or pollute the environment beyond the blast radius.[5]

In comparison, the MOAB produces the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT from 8 tons of high explosive. The blast radius of the FOAB is 300 meters, almost double that of the MOAB, and the temperature produced is twice as high.[7]

Whether something is nuclear or not doesn't necessarily say much about its potential. We can destroy a city or country pretty easily without using nuclear weapons. And that we might do, to prevent the fallout from annoying neighbors.

As long as Trump isn't worried about civilian casualties, he has no reason to use nuclear weapons to destroy a country.

More ignorant in economics??? How is that even possible.

I don't think Trump is anywhere nearly as dumb as he pretends to be on economics. But Stein is a demonstrable moron. Look at her ideas for canceling student loan debt.

I linked this earlier, or in another thread: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_for.html

Mercifully, dying pollinators, GMOs, and vaccines aren't at the core of Stein's campaign. But she doesn't fare much better on other issues. During a June interview with Cenk Uygur, Stein explained her strategy for wooing voters more or less boiled down to promising them she would forgive their student loans. “There are 43 million young people, and going into middle age and beyond, who are trapped in predatory student loan debt,” she said. “They happen to be very well-networked. They're really good at self-organizing on the internet. There’s only one place that they can put their votes in order to cancel their debt.”
This, it should be noted, is not a very progressive idea, despite its popularity among the collegiate left. A disproportionate amount of student debt is held by comfortably paid professionals who went to private colleges or graduate school. Forgiving their loans in a mass jubilee would not be the greatest use of limited resources if you're interested in fighting inequality. But forget all that for the moment.
Instead, focus on the specifics of Stein's plan, which are based on a shockingly poor understanding of recent economic history. “My campaign is the only one that will do for young people what our misleaders saw fit to do for Wall Street not that long ago,” she told Uygur, echoing one of Elizabeth Warren's more misleading arguments. Then, she got into the utterly misguided details. Student loans, Stein explained, “should be canceled in the same way that the debt of Wall Street was canceled, essentially writing it off as a digital 'hat trick,' which is done in the form of quantitative easing.”
Wait, write off student loans through quantitative easing? What? Is that really what she's saying? Yes, that is what she's saying. Here is Stein describing her understanding of the Wall Street bailout and explaining how it relates to her student loan plan:

[The bailout involved] about $17 trillion if you include the free loans. And the free loans largely got paid back. ... Forget about the free loans and just consider the debt that was canceled. That was $4 trillion in the form of quantitative easing. So that’s not money that was transferred to them. It’s simply a debt that was bought up by the U.S. government, and then essentially zeroed out, canceled. So it didn’t put money in their pockets so to speak. But it rid them of all that debt that they would otherwise have to pay. So that’s exactly what we are calling for here, a quantitative easing which is not money in their pocket. It’s essentially that the government has bought up that loan and it tears up the contract. It’s over.

This is wrong. Flat wrong. Quantitative easing was an unconventional monetary policy tool the Federal Reserve used to try and revive the economy after the financial crisis once it had emptied its normal bag of tricks. There have been vigorous debates about whether it was wise, or whether it worked. But it did not involve buying and canceling debt owed by the banks. Quite the opposite—it involved buying and holding onto debts owned by the banks (or other investors, for that matter), such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
This might sound like a small distinction if you're not a monetary policy obsessive. But it's absolutely essential to understanding what the Fed was doing, and the rationale behind it. (Among other things, holding onto the debts, rather than canceling them, was a key part of how the Fed planned to contain inflation down the line.) Stein's description is so far off, it's as if someone asked Stein how to play basketball, and she answered that teams scored points by kicking the ball off the backboard.

She's painfully ignorant, and on topics she aught to know quite a bit more about if this is a pivotal part of her campaign promise. Or maybe she's just a slimy liar and has no intention of following through on this massive subsidy of the college educated Middle class to buy votes for herself at the expense of the country once elected.

It would raise fear mongering about them.

Fear mongering is already in the fringes. Unscientific claims (outside of religion) should dissipate once discussed on a large scale.

I understand the idea "Truth always wins", and "just get the bad ideas out there, they'll defeat themselves", but I don't have your faith in people's competence. Human idiocy is profound, and fear mongering can be far more simple and far more powerful than the scientific facts which are more complicated and hard for the ignorant masses to understand.

The truth will probably win in the end, but perhaps only after millions have died from a new plague, or worse.

How so? By identifying herself as a person who disagrees with the current law? Anti vaxxers would still have to face the consequences of the law which is the main motivator in place.

I think this would empower their civil disobedience, and fuel it. It's a law that's very hard to enforce. We'll see increasing subversion of the law by fraud, and even families fleeing across state lines to escape criminal liability, and when and if they run afoul of federal law, Stein may pardon them. She could even issue an executive order, which would make things very difficult in enforcing the law.

It's very dangerous to have an anti-vaxxer in that position, since that's something individuals can do to harm others on a large scale.

The fact that she identifies herself as an environmentalist is to me very reassuring.

Have you seen the documentary, "Pandora's Promise"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM
A must-watch.

An environmentalist who rejects nuclear is a joke.
It doesn't matter if she identifies as an environmentalist or a magical tap dancing cat, it doesn't make it so.

Even though she may be a complete halfwit, this shows me that her intentions are correct.

The road to hell is paved with what? She's delusional, having good intentions doesn't mean you're going to be able to do good.

The fact that she is less intelligent would probably make her more apt to listen to the scientists and other experts around her. Unfortunately, this is not something I can write about Trump.

Unfortunately, that's not at all the case for Stein or anybody in the Green party. If it were, the overwhelming evidence for nuclear power would have already swayed them. They might as well be flat Earthers or young Earth creationists for the degree to which they arrogantly dismiss the science, substituting their own dogma instead. This should not inspire faith in her future competence.

Trump may pretend to question the extent of involvement of human action in Global Warming, but he recognizes at least that it is a real thing, and he strongly supports nuclear power which is our best tool to combat it (for economic reasons, and reasons of energy independence, but still).

Recognizing a threat is meaningless if you refuse to do what's necessary to act against it. And even if Trump denied global warming entirely, his support of nuclear power could accidentally do more good for the world than Stein could ever do on purpose.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

But why not use a solar for our energy?

Because it's expensive, unreliable, and takes country-sized facilities in order to provide for a country's energy supply.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837

But you are in favour of nuclear power which is also expensive and dangerous.

[miniboes]

But why not use a solar for our energy?

Because it's expensive, unreliable, and takes country-sized facilities in order to provide for a country's energy supply.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837

But you are in favour of nuclear power which is also expensive and dangerous.

It is neither. It is more expensive than fossil fuels, but far less expensive than renewables. It is capital intensive, which means building a nuclear plant is expensive, but once the plant is built costs are extremely low. Nuclear power is the safest power source we have; it has the least deaths per produced unit of energy. Nuclear meltdowns are not a risk in modern, well-built reactors (in contrast to the old, poorly built reactor of Chernobyl).

You could read the topic I linked. You could also watch the documentary Pandora's Promise, it's an excellent overview.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Because it's expensive, unreliable, and takes country-sized facilities in order to provide for a country's energy supply.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1837

But you are in favour of nuclear power which is also expensive and dangerous.

It is neither. It is more expensive than fossil fuels, but far less expensive than renewables. It is capital intensive, which means building a nuclear plant is expensive, but once the plant is built costs are extremely low. Nuclear power is the safest power source we have; it has the least deaths per produced unit of energy. Nuclear meltdowns are not a risk in modern, well-built reactors (in contrast to the old, poorly built reactor of Chernobyl).

You could read the topic I linked. You could also watch the documentary Pandora's Promise, it's an excellent overview.

You are very right. I now think it is best because for your arguments to use Nuclear power. However, I still endorse Jill Stein despite this because for her other positions.

[brimstoneSalad]

You are very right. I now think it is best because for your arguments to use Nuclear power. However, I still endorse Jill Stein despite this because for her other positions.

Did you watch Pandora's Promise?

Jill Stein may be the only candidate who isn't willing to support the current regime and settlements in Israel, and that's pretty amazing, but consider this: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Being right on a couple issues doesn't make a good president. Even Trump has a few good positions. You have to weigh the good against the bad, and Stein and Trump have more bad positions than good ones. Hillary has slightly more good positions than bad ones. In politics, it's all about choosing the least of evils.