JILL STEIN IS NOT AGAINST VACCINE!!!

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

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.

But she is not right twice on the issues, she is right 93% of the issues because for I took the isidewith.com quiz and that is what I got, whereas Hillary will say anything to get elected, even if she won't fulfill it, and even if you count those things, I STILL agree with Stein more, that is what the quiz says!!!

[brimstoneSalad]

I STILL agree with Stein more, that is what the quiz says!!!

We already discussed elsewhere why the quiz is terrible. It's missing candidate issues, and doesn't weight them very well at all.

You know the "rock paper scissors" game?
Different issues are interrelated. Stein believes global warming is real, and that would be good, but she opposes the solution to global warming thus negating her environmentalism. She's actually worse than Trump on environmentalism. Even though he questions global warming, he supports the solution to it, which makes him a better candidate.

The quiz will give you wrong results, because it doesn't take into account how the policies interact with each other, and doesn't even have data for many of them. It's not a good quiz.

For example, it told me I should vote libertarian, when I know for a fact based on the policies of the parties and candidates that this is a wrong result. If it had computed my answers correctly, it would have told me to vote for Hillary. Look at the policies yourself, one by one, and use your own brain to figure it out. Don't trust an internet quiz.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

I STILL agree with Stein more, that is what the quiz says!!!

We already discussed elsewhere why the quiz is terrible. It's missing candidate issues, and doesn't weight them very well at all.

You know the "rock paper scissors" game?
Different issues are interrelated. Stein believes global warming is real, and that would be good, but she opposes the solution to global warming thus negating her environmentalism. She's actually worse than Trump on environmentalism. Even though he questions global warming, he supports the solution to it, which makes him a better candidate.

The quiz will give you wrong results, because it doesn't take into account how the policies interact with each other, and doesn't even have data for many of them. It's not a good quiz.

For example, it told me I should vote libertarian, when I know for a fact based on the policies of the parties and candidates that this is a wrong result. If it had computed my answers correctly, it would have told me to vote for Hillary. Look at the policies yourself, one by one, and use your own brain to figure it out. Don't trust an internet quiz.

Why would it matter if it misses a few issues? How does it not weight them well?

Trump does support nuclear power but he also supports to burn fossil fuels which will make a death for the earth!

If you agree with the Democrats on social issues but are more fiscally right-wing then you are probably Libertarian.

Would you like me to look at the policies one by one?

[brimstoneSalad]

Trump does support nuclear power but he also supports to burn fossil fuels which will make a death for the earth!

The best candidate would have a nuclear-only platform. But nobody does.

Jill Stein is the biggest supporter of fossil fuels there is, because she rejects nuclear, and nuclear is the only real competition with fossil fuels.
She basically wants to power the world on Magical unicorn farts instead, but it's a delusion. Unicorn farts aren't real, so they can offer no competition to fossil fuel. Only nuclear can compete.

It is somewhat ironic that despite being touted as the most environmental candidate, she's actually the absolute worst candidate for the environment.

Even if Trump supports fossil fuel too, he supports nuclear, which can compete with fossil fuel and reduce our dependency on them.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Trump does support nuclear power but he also supports to burn fossil fuels which will make a death for the earth!

The best candidate would have a nuclear-only platform. But nobody does.

Jill Stein is the biggest supporter of fossil fuels there is, because she rejects nuclear, and nuclear is the only real competition with fossil fuels.
She basically wants to power the world on Magical unicorn farts instead, but it's a delusion. Unicorn farts aren't real, so they can offer no competition to fossil fuel. Only nuclear can compete.

It is somewhat ironic that despite being touted as the most environmental candidate, she's actually the absolute worst candidate for the environment.

Even if Trump supports fossil fuel too, he supports nuclear, which can compete with fossil fuel and reduce our dependency on them.

Where is your citation that Jill Stein wants to power the world on unicorn farts, I have found no sources on the internet that even claim such a thing so I can only assume that you are making it up in order to make her look bad.

It does not madder if nuclear can compete, because if there is also fossil fuels, it will cause pollution which will either kill the earth or severely damage it.

[EquALLity]

I'm going to give a full response about why I think Stein is better than Trump, but for now I just want to point out that he basically threatened Hillary Clinton with assassination today at a rally.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know... But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Jill Stein might be anti-vax lite and pander to anti-vax people (I still don't really consider her anti-vax in the way Trump is, because she has stated she doesn't believe vaccines cause autism [albeit she definitely panders to people who do], while Trump made up a story of a kid he knew who allegedly got autism from vaccines and says he believes they can cause autism), but she's not unhinged. Trump is a loose canon; he can't be trusted to think things through and be rational in the way Jill Stein would be. He certainly can't be trusted as essentially the single person who has control over America's nuclear weapons.

[brimstoneSalad]

for now I just want to point out that he basically threatened Hillary Clinton with assassination today at a rally.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know... But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Sounds like he's referring to revolution, possibly referencing ideas ascribed to Jefferson that every generation needs a violent revolution.

I'm going to give a full response about why I think Stein is better than Trump,

To make it productive, please keep it about the issues alone, and not ad hominem. Trump is probably playing a character to get media attention and get elected.

Jill Stein might be anti-vax lite and pander to anti-vax people (I still don't really consider her anti-vax in the way Trump is, because she has stated she doesn't believe vaccines cause autism [albeit she definitely panders to people who do], while Trump made up a story of a kid he knew who allegedly got autism from vaccines and says he believes they can cause autism), but she's not unhinged.

Trump vaccinated his own children. He believes in the "scheduling" myth, "too many too soon". He believes vaccines work and that they're important to prevent disease.
One believes in a scheduling myth, another believes in a grand conspiracy where corrupt pharmaceutical companies control the government to sell more vaccines. Stein is at least as bad, and probably worse since she actually has medical training, so has less of an excuse to be such a lunatic. Pandering to anti-vaxxers in spite of being a doctor makes her a million times worse in terms of character from my perspective. It's the difference between ignorance and willful malevolence.

Trump is a loose canon; he can't be trusted to think things through and be rational in the way Jill Stein would be.

How is there any evidence that Stein is more rational? She's a lunatic too, with less of an excuse to believe what she does. And unlike Trump, she's probably not just playing a character.

Her policies are actually worse -- can we focus on those?

[miniboes]

Sounds like he's referring to revolution, possibly referencing ideas ascribed to Jefferson that every generation needs a violent revolution.

Excuse me for my terrible source, but I have equally terrible internet in my hotel. I heard on the radio Trump stated that he was not calling for an assassination, but was referring to the power of the gun lobby.

Her policies are actually worse -- can we focus on those?

I doubt this. And the reason I doubt this is not so much that I dispute what you've stated about the problems with Stein's positions, but that I just don't know how we can be sure about any of Trump's position. It seems like a huge gamble to rely on the man that you presume to be behind the character. Gambling with who holds one of the most powerful political offices on earth is quite dangerous.

Then again, I guess Stein is guaranteed to be bad, and therefore gambling with Trump, who might turn out to be decent, could be better.

[brimstoneSalad]

Excuse me for my terrible source, but I have equally terrible internet in my hotel. I heard on the radio Trump stated that he was not calling for an assassination, but was referring to the power of the gun lobby.

That's possible. He did say it would be terrible. I think he may have made anti-gun noises in the past.

I doubt this. And the reason I doubt this is not so much that I dispute what you've stated about the problems with Stein's positions, but that I just don't know how we can be sure about any of Trump's position.

I mean the articulated policies, if we take them all at face value. E.g. putting "build a wall" and "register all Muslims" against banning nuclear power and putting an indefinite moratorium on all GMO and pesticide use.

It seems like a huge gamble to rely on the man that you presume to be behind the character. Gambling with who holds one of the most powerful political offices on earth is quite dangerous.

Then again, I guess Stein is guaranteed to be bad, and therefore gambling with Trump, who might turn out to be decent, could be better.

I agree with this. I see even in the worst case that Trump is actually serious about all of his policies, Stein is still worse. If Trump is lying about some substantial part of it, chances are he can only be better still. At a certain point, you can only go up.

[viddy9]

Some reasons to oppose some of what has been said on this thread:

On global warming, I'd argue that Stein is still better than Trump. Trump wants to increase reliance on fossil fuels and, most importantly, would tear up international agreements on climate change, which would have ripple effects across the world. Stein may not support nuclear energy, but there's still a lot of room to increase renewable energy. Purely judging on climate change, Stein is likely to reduce emissions more than Trump, but will also do so at a cost to the US economy. In terms of reducing global emissions, Stein is much better.

On economic terms, I can see the argument for Trump being somewhat better than Stein. Both invariably have ridiculous anti-free trade views. Trump's tax plan, though, is incredibly costly, and will increase inequality significantly. Stein's spending plans are also costly, though, and will also harm growth.

Trump is much more of a domestic threat than Clinton in terms of civil liberties, the economy, and so on, although both candidates are terrible on foreign policy. So, Clinton over Trump. I would have preferred Sanders to Clinton, as his economic plans weren't significantly worse and he was completely right on things like infrastructure investment (plus he would have invariably moderated his stance on certain issues or made them more practical), but his foreign policy was substantially better.

Overall, though, I'd prefer an Obama third term to any of the above candidates. On domestic and foreign policy, he's been rational and level-headed.