Quit arguing that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump!

[Bucky]

mathematically, it's only half a vote for Trump.

The correct argument is: "a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jenny McCarthy"

[apcalc]

1. Can you explain?

[Bucky]

5. Stein, like McCarthy is an anti-vaxxer. The math about half a vote for Trump is... math

More horribly, she's a DOCTOR who says in public not to trust CDC approved vaccines. She's dangerous.

If you meant the "half a vote" argument, that's just straight up math.

If you have 100 people voting in a state like this:

Clinton 51
Trump 45
Stein 4

...then Clinton wins by 6. Trump would have to flip 3 voters from Clinton to tie, 4 votes to win.

But if one of those would-be Clinton votes goes to Stein, then it looks like this:

Clinton 50
Trump 45
Stein 5

Clinton is winning by 5 now. Trump would only have to flip 3 votes to win.

if you average all that vote-flipping over the millions of people voting in the country, then mathematically each vote that goes to Stein gets Trump one half of a vote closer to beating Clinton.

[womanofthehills]

14. Why if you have any questions about vaccines are you called an anti-vaxxer? Not that I like her.

If the federal government vaccine compensation program still pays out billions of dollars for vaccine injury, why can't anyone discuss this problem without being called anti-vaxxser.

Stein -

"We have a real compelling need for vaccinations," Stein said. "It requires an agency that we can trust to sort through all of those concerns. To assure the American public, whether it’s vaccinations, whether it’s administering estrogen to, you know, treat symptoms of menopause, or at one point it was the solution to prevent Alzheimer's and then it was discovered — oh, my goodness — it may actually contribute to Alzheimer's — it's really important that the American public have confidence in our regulatory boards so that all of our medical treatments and medications actually are approved by people who do not have a vested interest in their promotion. In my experience, this is not a radical idea. This is basic common sense."

"I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. No, people using anti-vax rhetoric and pushing their cause are anti-vaxxers.

Jill Stein falls under that umbrella. The whole "regulatory board we can trust" is a bullshit meme. Vaccines are more regulated than most medicines. And pushing the "big pharma" narrative further increases the bullshit factor. Vaccines are cheap. "Big Pharma" hardly makes anything off of them compared to other preventative medicine.

[womanofthehills]

33. So $24 billion dollars is hardly anything for big pharma - $61 billion by 2020

Big Pharma and Big Profits: The Multibillion Dollar Vaccine Market
New Report says “Vaccine Market” Worth $61 Billion by 2020

The business of vaccines is soon to become a major source of profits for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations. A press release (Business Wire, January 21st 2016) published by marketwatch.com says that Technavio, one of the leading technology research and advisory companies in the world predicts that pharmaceutical corporations who produce vaccines will reach an estimated $61 billion in profits by 2020.


Today the vaccine market is worth close to $24 billion. The report titled ‘Global Human Vaccines Market 2016-2020’ gives an “in-depth analysis” of the possible revenues and “emerging market trends” globally.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-and-big-profits-the-multibillion-dollar-vaccine-market/5503945

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. Why do you insist on posting bullshit from anti-science sites when discussing science?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

If you want to have a serious discussion, post something from a serious site.

[GoneOffShore]

44. The anti-vaxx always comes out, with no rebuttal to the science.

[Major Nikon]

66. Kinda like when you parrot out batshit crazy anti-vax sites, then claim not to be anti-vax

It's just not that believable.

“Depopulation Vaccine” in Kenya and Beyond

http://www.globalresearch.ca/depopulation-vaccine-in-kenya-and-beyond/5413445

[bananakabob]

52. Same with Rand.

I never understood how people who are doctors can hold such dangerous and unethical positions.

[get the red out]

2. No thanks

Won't quit, without Ralph Nader, Bush would have had a harder time stealing the Whitehouse.

[Bucky]

3. I love it when people don't bother to think about the punchline

[cleveramerican]

4. Does a wasted vote offend you less??

[Bucky]

6. Again, my argument is based on math, not obnoxiousness.

A vote for Stein that otherwise might have gone to Clinton is, mathematically speaking, one half a vote for Trump and one half a vote for wastedness.

I prefer the poetry of just saying it's a vote for McCarthy.

[womanofthehills]

23. FiveThirtyEight does not even factor in Stein - she is not a factor

Johnson has way more support than Stein and 538 has his effect on electoral votes as 0.4%

[randr]

7. A votevfor JS

is a thoughtless waste of a sacred privilege.

[davidn3600]

13. Not really...

If you put yourself in the shoes of a person who sees both Trump and Hillary as completely unacceptable for the office....then to that person, it feels like a wasted vote to vote for one of them. They are voting for someone they hate and feel will be terrible.

If someone is going out to vote, and they vote for 3rd party, to say they are wasting their vote is incredibly selfish of you. Because you are trying to push your agenda on to them.

I know people who are voting for Stein. I refuse to attack them or try to twist their arm. People have a right to vote however they want.

[stevenleser]

35. No one with a brain cell in their head would consider Trump and Hillary equally problematic

One wants to know why he can't just use nuclear weapons against anyone who annoys him since he would be the President.

And that is just the start of his dangerous idiocy.

I never thought someone would make me pine for Romney, McCain or W as our opponent. And it has nothing to do with relative "beat-ability" it has to do with someone not taking the use of nuclear weapons seriously.

[whatthehey]

62. Nobody challenges the right. Just the sense

It doesn't matter if you think Trump is Hitler and Hillary is Stalin and that Stein is a paragon of political savvy and executive vision who combines the wisdom of Solomon with the intellect of Einstein and the charisma of Rasputin, only one of the first two will be appointing judges, submitting budgets, commanding the military and vetoing bills next year. If you (generic as following) deny that you are living in a dreamworld. If you cannot differentiate between them you are too stupid to work out how to vote. If you cannot decide which is worse (and I fully realize that decision for some people will be Clinton), you either haven't paid a moment's attention or you lack the smallest degree of wisdom, and if you don't think it matters which is worse you are a solipsistic sociopath without a moment's concern for universalized ethical agency.

Everybody has the right to vote for Stein or Mickey Mouse. The rest of us have the right to call them misguided fools.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. Exercising ones right to vote is a "thoughtless waste"

if their vote is not acceptable to others...? Really?

[stevenleser]

36. Yes. A vote for Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or various others was a thoughtless waste.

Still arguing the point?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. I see you've voted for Godwin.

Nice work if you can get it.

[stevenleser]

54. Nope, that's not Godwin. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

57. LOL! It sho is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

[stevenleser]

59. Nope, it sho isn't!

Godwin involves accusing the poster or something they posted of being Nazi-like or Hitler-esque.

So you read the words but didn't understand what Godwin was about.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

61. LOL! Godwin even states that rule is open to interpretation...

"First of all, I don’t claim to have any authority over what Godwin’s Law means or how it’s used. On a weekly basis, people ask me, “Is this an incidence of Godwin’s Law?” And I just say, “Well, it doesn’t feel like it to me,” but Godwin’s Law is like having a child: It’s now more than 21 years old; it’s out of my control."



And BTW: you were the one using the Hitler comparison WRT voting. Deal with it.

But to get back to the point; no, exercising one's right to vote it is not a thoughtless waste.

[randr]

17. History is the final judgement of our collective wisdom

We all have the freedom to choose as we "feel" fit and future generations will pay the price for our possible mistakes. A Trump presidency will be an enormous mistake, a negative impact on the entire human race. Those who allowed it to happen will be held accountable.
The right to vote has been payed for in countless lives and we need to evaluate what that sacrifice was intended for and how to honor it.
Was it just so we may exercise our freedom of choice or was it payed in the belief that the greatness of our nation will never allow intolerance, hatred, or political/religious ideology to rule over us?
This is not just about freedom of "choice"; it is all about doing the right thing.

[stevenleser]

37. Agreed, but I reserve the right to judge others on their choices now.

And in this election, as you noted, the choice is so clear you have to be willfully ignoring reality not to see it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

50. Or tragically ignorant to be blind to their POV.

[stevenleser]

55. Nope, just like I don't inaccurately apply Godwin's law. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

58. LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8100898

[stevenleser]

60. LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8101023

[Generic Brad]

8. Wouldn't it just be a vote for Jill Stein?

The people who would support her would be very unlikely to vote for a major party candidate in the first place. So it is not really a vote for or against Trump or Clinton.

[Bucky]

10. Obviously if you want to be literal & truthful about it.

But in my particular experience, a LOT of people are voting for Stein (or are saying so now) who would have voted Democratic, had we had another nominee. The current average of major national polls taken since August 1st (in other words, facts) bears this out.

Clinton - 44.0 || Trump - 37.6 || Johnson - 8.3 || Stein - 3.0

When was the last time a Green Party candidate got 3%? Their high water mark was Ralph Nader at 2.7%

[jcgoldie]

32. That's just anti-Clinton BS

I mean you qualified the statement with your "particular experience" so whatever, but in the electorate as a whole there are absolutely not A LOT of people voting for Stein relatively speaking and most of those who are would not have voted democratic otherwise.

[stevenleser]

38. That's just willfully ignoring the truth, just like folks did with Nader in 2000.

And just like it was with Nader, when Stein voters are polled, you are going to see if there was no Green candidate, an overwhelming number of those who would have still voted would have voted Democratic.

[jcgoldie]

45. The claim was...

"A LOT" of voters who would have supported another democratic candidate besides HRC are supporting Stein. The reality is that 93% of democrats say they will support Clinton. It's an attempt to paint Clinton as a weak candidate which is simply not true.

[kcr]

9. It's a vote for Trump McCarthy.

There. That will scare anyone away from voting for her.

[Bucky]

11. !!

Scares even Trump & McCarthy

[MohRokTah]

12. A vote for Stein is a vote for whatever everybody else decides.

There are three choices this election:

1) Hillary Clinton
2) Donald Trump
3) Whatever everybody else decides

[FLPanhandle]

16. It's a full vote for stupidity

The stupidity is shared by Trump and anti-vax idiots.

[womanofthehills]

18. So democratics must all stand in a straight line

anyone who veers according to you is stupid.

[FLPanhandle]

20. Anyone who is an anti-science, anti-vaxxer is stupid

Republican or Democrat.

Anyone who supports Trump is stupid.

Republican or Democrat.

Period.

[dembotoz]

21. Party loyalty seems straight and narrow these days

[Dr Hobbitstein]

22. Are you sticking up for Trump supporters or anti-vaxxers?

Both are fucking dangerous idiots that have no place in civilized society.

[womanofthehills]

24. Actually, I'm a big Bernie fan - 100% behind Hillary

Last edited Sun Aug 14, 2016, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I am also pro-vaccine for childhood vaccines (not flu), but how is wanting to make the program safer being anti-vax? Look at all these babies whose parents were compensated by the Health & Human Services Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in just a three month period - mostly the flu vaccine. Childhood vaccines have been around longer and have a good safety record, but the flu vaccine does not get the rigorous testing of childhood vaccines. These are just the cases that were settled in a 3 month period - not including cases not settled during this time period. According to many on DU, we are not able to discuss any problems having to do with vaccines. According to many on DU, we cannot hold our government accountable to improve the program. So according to you, people who question why babies are getting Guillain-Barre in increasing numbers after the flu vaccines are "fucking idiots." AND, "that bitch", Jill Stein better not address this. A big deal is made of the Zeta virus but why is this not being addressed. Also, this is just the childhood vaccine injury list, the adult list is longer. More and more adults getting Guillain-Barre after flu vaccine too!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

25. Key words in that rather small list.

"Alleged Injury". Alleged is the operative word.

Flu vaccine is just as safe, not sure what nonsense about it being untested.

Anyone opposing vaccines is a fucking idiot.

[womanofthehills]

31. I guess the government pays for "alledged vaccine injury"

More adults have vaccine injurys than children - mostly people over 50. Since 2005, most vaccine injuries are adults (flu shots). The majority of the injuries - Guillain - Barre syndrome.

[stevenleser]

39. That is silly. Every single medication has at least a small percentage of adverse reactions.

There is no 100% safe medication. What you posted is nothing new and is in the literature that accompanies every vaccine.

[jberryhill]

26. Request denied

A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump

[Thinkingabout]

27. Perhaps stop asking those who say a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump would be

A better choice on DU, we are about electing Democrats, we are not here to promote Green Party candidates.

[GvilleDem]

28. I was Green Party since I was 18

When I registered to vote, I went Green Party, because, above everything else, I believed combating climate change was our biggest priority.

But I'm blue this year, because I wanted to vote in the primaries.
And I'll be blue until something dramatic changes me, because I see that the Green Party doesn't actually give a damn about climate change.

Maybe they do, somewhere...
I'm sure its on the bottom of Jill Steins list of priorities. Its well under hijacking Bernie's movement, and abandoning her morals to grab up anti-vaccine votes. Jill Stein wants to win this election or, at the very least, make as big a power grab as she possibly can.

She isn't talking about how dangerous Trump is. She isn't talking about Johnson's position on allowing the Free Market to fix climate change. I wanted to fact check myself really quick.
Here's her latest post 22 minutes ago..
All the media attention for Trump's wall has distracted people from the inhumane, even brutal treatment of immigrants by Democrats like Clinton.

20 hours ago...
Are you or your loved ones trapped in student debt? We'll cancel that debt.

Unemployed? We'll guarantee living wage jobs for all.

Uninsured? We'll make health care a right.

We CAN have an economy that works for us all, not just the 1%.


Her Stance on Climate Change....
Yeah. I'm still looking.

I'm sorry Jill. I joined the Green Party because I didn't care about Party Politics. I cared about the environment. But the Green Party today, with Jill Stein. Its all about political power and getting votes. Once a month I've sent her nasty messages on FB because I still get Green Party links on my page. I can't stand her. I hate her. I hate that I was ever a part of that party. The Green Party is a lie and for the first time I can actually see it for what it is. Just another group of power hungry politicians taking advantage of the political landscape for their own personal gain.

[womanofthehills]

30. Just check out her "on the issues"

Type in Jill Stein on the Environment - climate change is her thing - I don't know where you are coming from. Did you really join the Green Party knowing so little about it?

I don't like that she is not talking about how dangerous Trump is.

[GvilleDem]

42. If its her thing she would talk about it

If climate change was her thing she wouldn't be poaching votes from Hillary would she?
Its all about the greater good. Doing whats best for the planet.
That']s not her priority right now. She's not even talking about the environment. All she is doing is attacking Hillary and the DNC while trying to imitate Bernie's movement. Any real environmentalist knows what a republican victory means. She should be an ally, but she's not.

She just wants to get elected.

Also, I was 18. I was actively protesting the Iraq war and all that, but lets be serious. Are you really faulting an 18 year old for not knowing much about the party system? I'm not ashamed. I was doing everything I could to be politically active, but I was just a kid. I went to school in a heavily-republican part of PA where protesting the Iraq war automatically got me labeled as a delinquent.

Side story on my home town. My dad went to our neighbors funeral. His death wish was "Vote Trump". I kid you not. My dad is pretty bent up over it.

[bananakabob]

53. She can talk about it all she wants.

But until the Green Party changes from being a "once every four years" spoiler party and actually runs for local offices across the country, nothing will come of it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. It's not even half a vote for Trump; it's functionally equivalent to a non-vote.

Defining votes as Clinton 0, no vote -1/2, Trump -1 is right up to an affine transformation, but rescaling to Clinton +1, other 0, Trump -1 is much clearer.

Voting for Stein is no better, but also no worse, than not voting and expressing indifference to the outcome of the election.

[womanofthehills]

34. Agreed!!

[lovemydog]

40. I get your joke.

I'm sorry some here are giving you a rather hard time.

Happens I suppose when people read things more literally than for their humor.

Have a good evening!

[Bucky]

46. Thanks.

The snarky must stick together and make the world safe for snark

[lovemydog]

47. Haha!

For sure.

[Rustyeye77]

48. Where is Ralph Nader when you need him ?

lol

[kentuck]

63. Jill Stein is no Ralph Nader.

Make no mistake.

[bananakabob]

51. Let's be honest.

A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein's ego.

[Bucky]

56. Is that her running mate?

(entre nous, I don't know of any presidential candidate since Calvin Coolidge who didn't have an outsized ego. I think the trick lies in deserving it)

[hamsterjill]

65. A vote for Jill Stein is one less vote for Hillary.

That's the way I see it. Same with Gary Johnson, which some of my Republican co-workers are now touting.

[Bucky]

67. I've seen some polls in which Johnson is hurting Clinton

Enough moderate Republicans are turned off to Trump that their order of preference is Johnson (1), Clinton (2), and don't vote at all (3). I expect with that Breitbart idiot taking over the Ugly Train, that number's only going to get bigger.

Normally by September you start seeing 3rd parties lose their support. This year September might actually see a Johnson resurgence.

(perhaps I should rephrase)