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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I had read a while back that this was not uncommon in France because some people "needed" medication too often. Doctors would resort to a placebo to keep from overmedicating patients for issues they really didn't need medication for.

The problem in America is that people want to use placebos to treat / cure actual disease.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

i am actually more concerned about her stance against GMO's.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And how much respect for international law and human rights does Moscow have?

And how much collaboration?

And how much diplomacy?

And the US is pure, vivid green in comparison to Moscow.

And Moscow has attacked virtually every neighbor they have.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Unfortunately, some doctors are nutcases. She's one.

 

[barbos]

And how much respect for international law and human rights does Moscow have?

And how much collaboration?

And how much diplomacy?

And the US is pure, vivid green in comparison to Moscow.

And Moscow has attacked virtually every neighbor they have.

As opposed to US who attacked virtually every non-neighbor they have. And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world (Middle East, Central America, South America,....)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how much respect for international law and human rights does Moscow have?

And how much collaboration?

And how much diplomacy?

And the US is pure, vivid green in comparison to Moscow.

And Moscow has attacked virtually every neighbor they have.

As opposed to US who attacked virtually every non-neighbor they have. And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world (Middle East, Central America, South America,....)

Terrorists aim at civilians. Supporting them is the Russian MO, not ours.

 

[barbos]

As opposed to US who attacked virtually every non-neighbor they have. And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world (Middle East, Central America, South America,....)

Terrorists aim at civilians. Supporting them is the Russian MO, not ours.

I guess Al-Qaeda in Syria is not aiming civilians, and death squads in Central America were not either.

 

[untermensche]

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.

And how much respect for international law and human rights does Moscow have?

And how much collaboration?

And how much diplomacy?

And the US is pure, vivid green in comparison to Moscow.

And Moscow has attacked virtually every neighbor they have.

There was Stalinist Russia that behaved somewhat like the US behaved in Vietnam and Iraq.

True.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terrorists aim at civilians. Supporting them is the Russian MO, not ours.

I guess Al-Qaeda in Syria is not aiming civilians, and death squads in Central America were not either.

Al-Qaeda? Where is your evidence of the US supporting them?

Are you perhaps falling for the left wing crap out of Afghanistan--we supported those fighting the Russians. After the war was over Pakistan stepped in and backed some of those fighters into becoming Al-Qaeda.

Central America--we weren't supporting death squads.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Loren,

I think you overstate your case.
Putin's MO seems to be not caring (other than for PR reasons, perhaps) whether the people they support aim at civilians. Other Russian governments in the past often supported terrorists, and it's unclear to me how much they cared (if anything).
America's MO is nuanced (though it depends on the President to some extent), but sometimes the US also has engaged in support of terrorism, or directly in terrorism (e.g., Hiroshima). You could argue that that was long ago, and more recent American governments care more about civilians. Generally, that is true, but still, sometimes they do support terrorists, even if the fact that they're terrorists is counted against supporting them, aside from PR considerations.
For example, the US militarily supports Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi regime surely targets peaceful opponents, imprisoning and flogging them, and perhaps sometimes killing them. Is that not terrorism?
They target civilians and use force (even if usually non-lethal, but still force) against them, in order to instill fear in them and in other civilians, so that they don't do the same and refrain from criticizing the government in the future.
Is state terrorism not terrorism as well?
In addition, there is the issue of whether Saudi Arabia has been targeting civilians in Yemen, or only failing to take proper measures to prevent massive casualties among them.
The US also supports the Egyptian regime to some extent, as well as Erdogan's (even if grudgingly, but Turkey remains a NATO member, and as such, an ally of the US). Yes, Putin (at this moment) also seems to support Erdogan, against the US. Moreover, Erdogan engages in absurde anti-American propaganda. It's a complicated mess, but the military alliance with Turkey goes on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren,

I think you overstate your case.
Putin's MO seems to be not caring (other than for PR reasons, perhaps) whether the people they support aim at civilians. Other Russian governments in the past often supported terrorists, and it's unclear to me how much they cared (if anything).

Agreed--it's indifference, not intentional malice. That doesn't change the fact they know what's happening and do it anyway.

America's MO is nuanced (though it depends on the President to some extent), but sometimes the US also has engaged in support of terrorism, or directly in terrorism (e.g., Hiroshima). You could argue that that was long ago, and more recent American governments care more about civilians. Generally, that is true, but still, sometimes they do support terrorists, even if the fact that they're terrorists is counted against supporting them, aside from PR considerations.

I do not consider Hiroshima to be terrorism. Hiroshima was a valid target that would have been destroyed whether or not the bomb existed--just like every other Japanese city of any size. There were no high value targets left, we were in the process of basically flattening the country to destroy it's war production. The only reason it wasn't bombed before it that it was being held back as an a-bomb target.

For example, the US militarily supports Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi regime surely targets peaceful opponents, imprisoning and flogging them, and perhaps sometimes killing them. Is that not terrorism?

1) We get along reasonably well with the Saudi government, I'm not aware of any appreciable financial support (beyond the buying of oil.)

2) What you describe is not terrorism. While those targeted are not combatants they are engaged in acts hostile to the state. Just because it's a lack of freedom that we find oppressive doesn't make it terrorism.

In addition, there is the issue of whether Saudi Arabia has been targeting civilians in Yemen, or only failing to take proper measures to prevent massive casualties among them.

I see no reason to think they are targeting civilians. It's just they aren't behaving up to our standards on targeting.

The US also supports the Egyptian regime to some extent, as well as Erdogan's (even if grudgingly, but Turkey remains a NATO member, and as such, an ally of the US). Yes, Putin (at this moment) also seems to support Erdogan, against the US. Moreover, Erdogan engages in absurde anti-American propaganda. It's a complicated mess, but the military alliance with Turkey goes on.

1) A military alliance is not aid.

2) Our alliance is with Turkey, not with Erdogan. If he keeps up his insanity eventually they'll get kicked out of NATO.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I do not consider Hiroshima to be terrorism. Hiroshima was a valid target that would have been destroyed whether or not the bomb existed--just like every other Japanese city of any size. There were no high value targets left, we were in the process of basically flattening the country to destroy it's war production. The only reason it wasn't bombed before it that it was being held back as an a-bomb target.

But fire-bombing it would have been terrorism as well, if you go by the definition that it's the targeting of civilians in order to achieve a political goal.
If you add also that there has to require instilling fear on civilians, then the nuclear bomb seems to count as well, since the psychological effect on the Japanese population was taken into consideration as a factor in support of using a nuke.
The fact that it would have been bombed anyway doesn't make it not an act of terrorism.

1) We get along reasonably well with the Saudi government, I'm not aware of any appreciable financial support (beyond the buying of oil.)

There is military support, even if they had to pay for it. Not any country can get the same weapons from the US.
In any event, the claim you were originally replying to (by barbos) was "And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world...", so that would count too.

2) What you describe is not terrorism. While those targeted are not combatants they are engaged in acts hostile to the state. Just because it's a lack of freedom that we find oppressive doesn't make it terrorism.

Peacefully criticizing the government counts as "acts hostile to the state", and is enough to block the categorization of "terrorism" under your definition of "terrorism" in cases in which a regime tortures people who peacefully criticize the government, as a means to silence them and the rest of the population?
If so, then this may just be a case of miscommunication. I don't understand what you mean by "terrorism". I also think you and barbos may be talking past each other. But I admit different people seem to use the word so differently, that it may be that your usage is more or less common. Could you explain what you mean by "terrorism", please?

1) A military alliance is not aid.

2) Our alliance is with Turkey, not with Erdogan. If he keeps up his insanity eventually they'll get kicked out of NATO.

First, the claim you were originally replying to (by barbos) was "And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world...".
Second, in your reply to barbos, you talked about "supporting" terrorists. A military alliance is military support, regardless of whether you count that as "aid".
Third, the point is that the Turkish regime targets civilians. Erdogan is in charge, sure, but for that matter, you could always deny the charge of supporting terrorists by saying the alliance is with a country, rather than with its terrorist leaders, but that's not persuasive at all.
Fourth, there's also the case of Egypt. In that case, there is even military aid.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Homeopathy is a psychological disorder of people who belong in a home.

 

[barbos]

I guess Al-Qaeda in Syria is not aiming civilians, and death squads in Central America were not either.

Al-Qaeda? Where is your evidence of the US supporting them?

US supports so-called moderate rebels in Sysria among which are Al Nusra which is Al-Qeda outfit there.

Are you perhaps falling for the left wing crap out of Afghanistan--we supported those fighting the Russians.

Yes, you drew russians in and then supported terrorists to kill russians. That was your plan there. That seems to be thought process of many current CIA critters.

After the war was over US ally Pakistan stepped in and backed some of those fighters into becoming Al-Qaeda.

Fixed for you.

Central America--we weren't supporting death squads.

Really? Iran-Contras is already forgotten?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

The platform says "Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine."
That's surely anti-science.
It also says "We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches."; doing research is fine, but the stance they are taking is at odds with science (that said, if you have any studies in support of TCM that I can check, I'd appreciate the links; regardless, even assuming TCM works sometimes and they have evidence for it, they're supporting an assortment of other things).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Homeopathy is a psychological disorder of people who belong in a home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But fire-bombing it would have been terrorism as well, if you go by the definition that it's the targeting of civilians in order to achieve a political goal.
If you add also that there has to require instilling fear on civilians, then the nuclear bomb seems to count as well, since the psychological effect on the Japanese population was taken into consideration as a factor in support of using a nuke.
The fact that it would have been bombed anyway doesn't make it not an act of terrorism.

The firebombing wasn't terrorism, either. While it did harm civilians the purpose was to destroy the Japanese war production. It was too decentralized to bomb directly, all we could do is burn out the cities it was in.

And the bomb wasn't about creating fear in the people--Japan was not a democracy, fear in the people wouldn't accomplish much. The bomb was about creating the illusion that we could utterly destroy them with impunity. They fell for it and surrendered.

1) We get along reasonably well with the Saudi government, I'm not aware of any appreciable financial support (beyond the buying of oil.)

There is military support, even if they had to pay for it. Not any country can get the same weapons from the US.

Being willing to sell them weapons isn't the same as military support or aid.

2) What you describe is not terrorism. While those targeted are not combatants they are engaged in acts hostile to the state. Just because it's a lack of freedom that we find oppressive doesn't make it terrorism.

Peacefully criticizing the government counts as "acts hostile to the state", and is enough to block the categorization of "terrorism" under your definition of "terrorism" in cases in which a regime tortures people who peacefully criticize the government, as a means to silence them and the rest of the population?
If so, then this may just be a case of miscommunication. I don't understand what you mean by "terrorism". I also think you and barbos may be talking past each other. But I admit different people seem to use the word so differently, that it may be that your usage is more or less common. Could you explain what you mean by "terrorism", please?

By your definition the entire criminal justice system is terrorism as much of it's purpose is to deter people from committing crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, you drew russians in and then supported terrorists to kill russians. That was your plan there. That seems to be thought process of many current CIA critters.

We didn't draw the Russians in. They went in entirely on their own.

- - - Updated - - -

The platform says "Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine."
That's surely anti-science.
It also says "We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches."; doing research is fine, but the stance they are taking is at odds with science (that said, if you have any studies in support of TCM that I can check, I'd appreciate the links; regardless, even assuming TCM works sometimes and they have evidence for it, they're supporting an assortment of other things).

Note that chronic conditions are ones for which western medicine has no cure. Sometimes TCM can help--it doesn't take a lot of effectiveness to be light-years ahead of zero.

 

[barbos]

Yes, you drew russians in and then supported terrorists to kill russians. That was your plan there. That seems to be thought process of many current CIA critters.

We didn't draw the Russians in. They went in entirely on their own.

Zbigniew disagrees with you, but you already knew that.

 

[ronburgundy]

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 trying to convince people not to do the only thing that can possibly prevent a Trump presidency, vote for Hillary.

Voting for Hillary is a vote against Trump. Near 100% of the voters she is trying to appeal to prefer Hillary to Trump. Thus, voting for heris a vote against Hillary and thus a vote against the only method of stopping Trump.

Who she like and dislikes is irrelevant to the objective causal impact of the action (voting for her) that she is advocating.

She is advocating something that will cause a Trump presidency. This makes her and anyone who supports her as causally responsible for a Trump presidency as a people who blow up a damn are responsible for the downstream flood, despite not being the one's who put the damn or the water behind it there in the first place.

 

[Ford]

Near 100% of the voters she is trying to appeal to prefer Hillary to Trump.

Trying to appeal to. Stein has been polling at 2-5 percent nationally. Not exactly setting the world on fire.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The firebombing wasn't terrorism, either. While it did harm civilians the purpose was to destroy the Japanese war production. It was too decentralized to bomb directly, all we could do is burn out the cities it was in.

So, are you saying that neither the fire bombing nor the nuclear bombing targeted civilians?
Please clarify.

And the bomb wasn't about creating fear in the people--Japan was not a democracy, fear in the people wouldn't accomplish much. The bomb was about creating the illusion that we could utterly destroy them with impunity. They fell for it and surrendered.

It seems to me that plenty of terrorist attacks intent on creating fear (among other goals) have been carried out against civilians in non-democratic countries in the Middle East.
Also, it's not clear that they surrendered because of the atomic bombs.
But regardless, granting for the sake of the argument that the US didn't intend to create fear, do you also deny that the bombs targeted civilians?
I still do not know whether instilling fear is a requirement under your concept of terrorism, or whether targeting civilians is enough. Could you clarify that, please?

Being willing to sell them weapons isn't the same as military support or aid.

Being willing to sell them weapons and train their forces, and if necessary defend them (from Saddam in the past) looks like support to me. But if it doesn't under your use of "support", then I will point out that the claim you were originally replying to (by barbos) was "And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world...". Why did you reply to that with a statement about support, requiring all sorts of conditions for something to count as support?
Regardless, the fact remains that the Egyptian regime receives military aid from the US. Does the Sisi regime not engage in terrorism?

Peacefully criticizing the government counts as "acts hostile to the state", and is enough to block the categorization of "terrorism" under your definition of "terrorism" in cases in which a regime tortures people who peacefully criticize the government, as a means to silence them and the rest of the population?
If so, then this may just be a case of miscommunication. I don't understand what you mean by "terrorism". I also think you and barbos may be talking past each other. But I admit different people seem to use the word so differently, that it may be that your usage is more or less common. Could you explain what you mean by "terrorism", please?

By your definition the entire criminal justice system is terrorism as much of it's purpose is to deter people from committing crime.

Actually, I have not even given a definition, or implied something like that. Why do you think I did?
What does a government has to do for their actions to be considered state terrorism, under your definition?
Torturing peaceful critics is not enough, it seems. Is there anything at all that would count?