I’m sorry, you’re stretching to a huge extent just to support some rhetorical comparison between Stein and Clinton that is neither accurate nor fair with regards to Hillary’s vaccine views. Here is a fairly good summary:
As far as the Snopes debunking, it’s pretty piss-poor at best (“her original quote is open to interpretation and we asked her and she said ‘no’”). Here is at least an entertaining response:
At least it should be noted that Snopes isn’t police of internet facts. While they claim they follow a scientific procedure, I, as a scientist, find their strong “False” score to be weakly unsupported.
Now, I know you’re a pretty passionate Stein fan. But really it really would do your candidate a lot more justice if you didn’t cherry pick or name call. It certainly doesn’t make Jill look any better to see her supporters behave in this way 
Not quite; it also influences who’s on the ballot and, most importantly, what happens after the election.
Replying to @Brainspore but quoting me? Tricky.
(a) It’s not a game and (b) Clinton didn’t cheat, she built relationships over decades then they paid off. (The party leadership all over the country didn’t support HRC from even before the campaign began because they liked her fashion sense!) You could argue that Wasserman-Schultz ‘cheated’ - a better description would be ‘didn’t do her job properly’ - and I fully support people who donated to her opponents or went to Florida to work to try to unseat her, or who got involved in the Party to try to get the progressive caucus back in control, which is how party politics works.
My statement above - that Stein didn’t “make strong statements rejecting this link when first pressed (or even without being pressed)” is not debunked by this article. Oh, and here’s the Snopes article “debunked.”
As for Hillary, the Lancet did not retract until many years after the scientific consensus was clear.
The consensus was clear before Wakefield published anything. HRC, not a doctor, made a vague statement about autism (not primarily about vaccines, and expressing no explicit doubts about vaccines or the industry); this was made not only before the 2010 Lancet retraction, but also before the big 2009 Sunday Times article that brought the controversy to the public. Stein of course should have known about this long before. By early 2015 HRC was making definitive public statements favoring vaccines. When did Dr. Stein join that bandwagon?
Yes, Clinton has support from flakes like some Hollywood anti-vaxxers, but they don’t support her for her policy on vaccines. I’m personally more concerned with her support from war criminal Henry Kissinger; that is more analogous to the David Duke endorsement of Trump. And Stein’s appointment of hatemonger Ajamu Baraku as her running mate is awfully similar to Trump’s appointment of hatemonger Bannon to run his campaign.
I would love to hear which group of terrible people support Hillary Clinton. A group comparable to the KKK? please enlighten me.
Internet commenters
(j/k)
No, she colluded with the DNC in contradiction to the DNC’s stated governing rules, and then she & the DNC lied about it when confronted by Sanders. There is nothing to argue here - thats how it went down.
I agree she worked her network well, and its likely she would have won without doing so. But that does not matter, because she cheated anyway - its her nature. And that nature along with her email and her health, all giving the Republicans more ammunition to undermine her. This is why she is a poor candidate, because she is vulnerable to attack, and thats exactly where we find ourselves to all our peril.
Again, the election is not a game, so “cheating” is not a word that makes sense. However, which specific rules that apply to candidates are you claiming that HRC broke?
Here’s the thing, though.
On bOINGbOING I’ve been respectful of other people’s political views and seriously responded to questions and concerns about Green candidates that people have brought forward. Check out the threads or my post history.
Meanwhile, Clinton supporters here are posting lies which they admit are lies. Their rationale and method is familiar; we’ve heard it before. “Muslims don’t condemn terrorism strongly enough, or in the exact words I want, therefore all Muslims support terrorism” and “Jerry Brown can’t be supported because dirty hippies - hippies, people, hippies!”. It’s the open disregard for truth of people who don’t care about anything but winning- it’s a form of discourse that rejects ethics and integrity in the name of utilitarianism.
The only real distinction between Jill Stein’s views on vaccination and those of Hillary Clinton is this: Dr. Stein is aware of the corruption of the FDA, and wants to fix it. The Libertarian solution is to dismantle the FDA, the Republican/Democratic solution is to continue to let corporations overrule doctors and scientists in the name of profits, only the Greens want to reform the FDA and subjugate corporate profits to public health.
If Clinton’s supporters think they have something to gain by slandering the Greens with flat-out lies - and let’s be clear, the statement being made is a flat lie, Jill Stein is not an antivaxxer and she doesn’t pander to them more than Clinton does - then I aim to misbehave.
I thought Ill was a good thing? Is this pandering to the B-Boys/B-Girls vote?
Fun fact, I just learned Eleanor was more closely related to Teddy than FDR was.
Teddy was her uncle, and FDR’s fifth cousin. Fifth cousins mean that they have one or two great-great-great-great grandparents in common. It’s like the relationship between me and some random person in Europe, South America, Australia… hell, probably anywhere.
Hilary, at least, is capable of anticipating likely consequences of her actions. She won’t spontaneously and accidentally plunge the world into war on a whim.
Sadly, we’re still human and prone to tribalism, regardless of what ideals the tribe claims to hold.
The basis of your question that “cheating” only can occur in “games” is incorrect and ridiculous. In fact “cheating” is a generous way to describe what they were doing.
The rules that were broken have been widely reported, so I am not sure why you would insist that I recount this. There was bias from the DNC and the Clinton campaign was actively participating in actions emerging on that bias. Case closed.
The first button should probably read “Nuke, then Tweet”.
I really hate to play sea lion here, but I really am curious on whether there is evidence of specific instances in which the Clinton campaign participated in what you call cheating. I’ve heard this trumpeted quite a bit, to the extent that the rhetoric that she’s a “liar” and a “cheat” is rather strong (cue captioned images on social media), in addition to that she wouldn’t have won the primary unless. I’ve tried quite a bit to find strong supporting evidence (such as from the DNC leaks) and have failed to find anything that doesn’t help support the feeling that those things are true if the reader already wants to believe so.
That was the general consensus when Bush was running against Gore. While Gore likely would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, I really don’t believe he would have dragged the nation into war with Iraq.
Heh, you have to admit that that viewpoint is pretty reminiscent of a rightwing view of illness and responsibility
That does not follow.
