• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Creepy Jill Stein: Gushes over Putin and Russian support for human rights in video from Red Square in Moscow

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Qhx2ON8RE&sns=tw[/youtube]

WTF, is she serious?
 
What is creepy is people find this creepy.

I can only say they have been indoctrinated to the point of uselessness.

The things this woman is talking about are the only things that will save us.

Respect for international law and human rights.

Collaboration.

Diplomacy.

A green economy.

The end of US exceptionalism and US aggression.
 
What is creepy is people find this creepy.

I can only say they have been indoctrinated to the point of uselessness.

The things this woman is talking about are the only things that will save us.

Respect for international law and human rights.

Collaboration.

Diplomacy.

A green economy.

The end of US exceptionalism and US aggression.

You think helping Trump get elected will lead to green economy and less US aggression? Respect for internatinal law?
 
Last edited:
What is creepy is people find this creepy.

I can only say they have been indoctrinated to the point of uselessness.

The things this woman is talking about are the only things that will save us.

Respect for international law and human rights.

Collaboration.

Diplomacy.

A green economy.

The end of US exceptionalism and US aggression.

You think helping Trum get elected will lead to green economy and less US aggression? Respect for internatinal law?

Non sequitur.
 
You think helping Trum get elected will lead to green economy and less US aggression? Respect for internatinal law?

Non sequitur.

What is it about my argument that makes it invalid? I only hear the green party attacking democrats. Stein specifically attacks Hillary on a daily basis. What the hell has she done for the environment or world peace. She's nothing more than a quack doctor trying to get attention. Her actions help Trump.
 
Non sequitur.

What is it about my argument that makes it invalid? I only hear the green party attacking democrats. Stein specifically attacks Hillary on a daily basis. What the hell has she done for the environment or world peace. She's nothing more than a quack doctor trying to get attention. Her actions help Trump.

It has nothing to do with the content of my post.

Everything does not reduce to the charades we call elections.
 
I didn't hear her "gush over Putin". I heard her say she was talking with Russian officials. And yes, if we're going to get anywhere with reducing conflict with other nations, diplomacy is going to have to happen somewhere down the line. Not sure what's so controversial about that.
 
That was creepy. Stein is a total nutball. She's anti-vaccine who advocates homeopathy rather than medicine.

Is that true? Source? I thought she was a doctor?
As far as I know, she doesn't seem to imply that people should use homeopathy rather than medicine, but her party's platform does in some instances (chronic illnesses) imply "alternative medicines" including homeopathy are better. I'm not sure how much that counts, but in any case, her own stance on homeopathy is plain wrong.
Also, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say she's an anti-vaccine, but her position on the matter, while less extreme as far as I've read, is still anti-science.
That said, it may well be Harry read something more extreme from her.
Moreover, she seems to be considerably anti-science on other issues, like GMO and nuclear energy.

Some sources:

http://www.jill2016.com/platform
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...science-how-jill-stein-lost-my-vote-for-good/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...tein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/
http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare
 
What is creepy is people find this creepy.

I can only say they have been indoctrinated to the point of uselessness.

The things this woman is talking about are the only things that will save us.

Respect for international law and human rights.

Collaboration.

Diplomacy.

A green economy.

The end of US exceptionalism and US aggression.

You think helping Trump get elected will lead to green economy and less US aggression? Respect for internatinal law?

She's standing for the Green Party, so I don't see how this will help Trump get elected.
 
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Qhx2ON8RE&sns=tw[/youtube]

WTF, is she serious?

Where is her support for Putin as such? She is the Green Party Candidate, who dislikes both Trump and Clinton

http://time.com/4425748/jill-stein-green-party-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Stein says the choice between Trump and Clinton is not really a choice at all. “There are differences between the two candidates and the parties. But those differences aren’t enough to save your job,” Stein said in the interview. “They’re not enough to save your life.” She says that Trump is dangerous, but argues Clinton’s career is also “horrific.”
 
You think helping Trump get elected will lead to green economy and less US aggression? Respect for internatinal law?

She's standing for the Green Party, so I don't see how this will help Trump get elected.

She is pulling votes from HRC. Both the Greens and the libertarian party are pulling more votes from HRC than from Trump.
 
Is that true? Source? I thought she was a doctor?
As far as I know, she doesn't seem to imply that people should use homeopathy rather than medicine, but her party's platform does in some instances (chronic illnesses) imply "alternative medicines" including homeopathy are better. I'm not sure how much that counts, but in any case, her own stance on homeopathy is plain wrong.
Also, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say she's an anti-vaccine, but her position on the matter, while less extreme as far as I've read, is still anti-science.
That said, it may well be Harry read something more extreme from her.
Moreover, she seems to be considerably anti-science on other issues, like GMO and nuclear energy.

Some sources:

http://www.jill2016.com/platform
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...science-how-jill-stein-lost-my-vote-for-good/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...tein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/
http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare

Thanks for the links. That is very disappointing. I like much of other things she has to say.
 
She's standing for the Green Party, so I don't see how this will help Trump get elected.

She is pulling votes from HRC. Both the Greens and the libertarian party are pulling more votes from HRC than from Trump.

This could affect the vote where one of the main parties has a marginal lead.
 
She is pulling votes from HRC. Both the Greens and the libertarian party are pulling more votes from HRC than from Trump.

This could affect the vote where one of the main parties has a marginal lead.

It is insanity when doing the right thing and supporting the right person isn't done because the system is set up to only allow a certain kind of tainted individual a chance.

It is insane because it is top-down.

It is not insane to the people with wealth forcing it onto everyone else.
 
Is that true? Source? I thought she was a doctor?
As far as I know, she doesn't seem to imply that people should use homeopathy rather than medicine, but her party's platform does in some instances (chronic illnesses) imply "alternative medicines" including homeopathy are better. I'm not sure how much that counts, but in any case, her own stance on homeopathy is plain wrong.
Also, I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say she's an anti-vaccine, but her position on the matter, while less extreme as far as I've read, is still anti-science.
That said, it may well be Harry read something more extreme from her.
Moreover, she seems to be considerably anti-science on other issues, like GMO and nuclear energy.

Some sources:

http://www.jill2016.com/platform
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...science-how-jill-stein-lost-my-vote-for-good/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...tein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/
http://www.gp.org/social_justice/#sjHealthCare

The British Medical Association has already accepted the use of Acupuncture (British Medical Acupuncturist Association) though seen differently. If people prefer to use these systems then let them use them. I don't see any advantage or logic behind homeopathy. The WHO has been conducting trials into TCM for some years. Mao wanted to eradicate TCM but while it is not popular for some there is a wide demand. In TCM they understood anatomy, blood circulation and holistic medicine long before we did so in the West.

If you want to test TCM. Ask someone to have a medical with an experienced TCM doctor then have a medical with modern doctors in the health system. Then if there is something wrong, compare the results. They also don't tell the respective doctors of this. When I witnessed this the results were the same.
There is of course a lot of untested nonsense in alternative medicines but it does not mean we should not try to test them through clinical trials despite the difficulties.
 
Homeopathy is treatment by placebo effect.

So are anti-depressants for many people.
 
Homeopathy is treatment by placebo effect.

So are anti-depressants for many people.

Why stick to homeopathy and anti depressants?

British doctors have been doing this for years.

http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/featureprescribing-placebos-uk-doctors-fake-drugs/

New research has revealed that an astonishing number of UK doctors prescribe placebos to their patients on a regular basis. In a national survey carried out by Dr Jeremy Howick of the Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, at Oxford University, as many as 97% of 783 primary care general practitioners (GPs) admitted to prescribing placebos at least once in their career.

The study leaves no doubt as to whether or not placebo prescriptions are common in the UK, but provides little insight into whether this is something we should be concerned about. Since its publication, the study has created much speculation over the possible benefits versus ethical concerns involved in the prescription of placebos.


AND
At first sight, statistics from the PLOS ONE study raise alarm bells. However, the Royal College of GPs has asserted that there is a place for placebos in medicine. Indeed, if placebos adhere to a GP's medical duty of nonmaleficence - to first do no harm - then is there really a problem? After all, a number of studies have confirmed that placebos can be just as effective as active medication. This has been found for asthma, pain and mental health issues, such as depression, with some studies claiming that 50-60% of participants given placebos report recovery or improvement in a matter of weeks.

I guess if the Placebo works then continue the treatment.
 
Back
Top Bottom