3rd party johnson or Stein? (poll and debate)
- Thread starter Andre Dia
- Start date
I would absolutely choose Stein over Johnson. Johnson is, at his roots, a true republican. His views and beliefs are more traditional republican than any of Trump's. Dr. Stein is a champion for science, an advocate for animal rights and climate change awareness. She emphasizes the importance of vaccinations and consumer awareness and those are just some things I love about her as a candidate. I'm thoroughly upset with the two-party system because, in a perfect world, Dr. Stein would actually have a chance at becoming the next president. If I had any confidence in her ability to win the election, I would give her my vote. However, because I know this country and the way it works, I know she has no chance, which is why I'm with Hillary come November. 
I mean she's not wrong about people having questions about vaccines. She thinks that vaccines should be tested by third-party scientists who aren't being paid off by big pharma to say there's nothing wrong with them. I'm also pretty sure that she isn't anti-GMO, just pro-GMO-labeling. And nuclear energy is dangerous and expensive and should be replaced with safer, cleaner alternatives, such as wind and solar energy. And physicians are scientists. They go through science education the way scientists do, except theirs are focused on the human anatomy rather than physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
I won't vote for anyone who claims to be a scientist yet spouts off as much pseudoscience as Jill Stein. Spouting off science terms does not a scientist make. Physicians are not scientists, they are physicians. At most, they have an undergraduate degree in a science field, and some don't have even that. Medical school teaches very very little science, it teaches medicine. Hence why you get a "Doctor of Medicine" not a Ph.D at the end of medical school.
Anyone who doesn't trust vaccines after they've been used to successfully eradicate multiple illnesses over hundreds of years is, in my opinion, a quack. Even if there are side effects, even if they contain compounds otherwise claimed to be dangerous (both of these things are patently false), the benefit far, far, far outweighs the risk. The vast majority of adverse affects reported with vaccines are a) previously unknown allergies to a component or b) known allergies to a component that were not reported to the person administering vaccine.
Nuclear energy is not any more dangerous than driving a car is. In fact, nuclear energy is safer than driving a car. I don't see you pushing for cars to be replaced with a safer alternative. Solar and wind power are expensive, are limited in their spacial extent by the sun/wind patterns, and fail frequently when abnormal events occur. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, takes up a lot less space, provides a lot more energy, and overall is more reliable than either of the other two.
Just some stats on energy:
Yeah, I'll take nuclear over solar and wind anyday. Also, think about this: "In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants." So is it really safer? We've produced more kWh of energy with nuclear than we have with solar in this country, yet more people have died installing solar power in the country. We've used nuclear for over 50 years, and there have been a grand total of five direct deaths due to installation, repairs, or inspection of nuclear power plants, with an additional 3 deaths due to improper use of an experimental reactor.
Just some food for thought. If you're going to vote for someone because they're a scientist, please actually check if their "science" is actual science or pseudoscience. Thanks.[DOUBLEPOST=1470581301][/DOUBLEPOST] Much agree. GMOs are not harmful. People use GMO and "genetically modified" to fearmonger people into thinking they're by default bad, yet many medicines (insulin, monoclonal antibodies, immunosuppresants, etc.) are from genetically modified organisms, yet nobody questions those. If you went to someone with diabetes and told them "would you keep using insulin if you knew it was from a GMO" I can all but guarantee you they'll say yes because there is no harm in them. It's like saying "hey let me put high octane gas in my car this time". No harm. But there may be a little bit of benefit.
Anyone who doesn't trust vaccines after they've been used to successfully eradicate multiple illnesses over hundreds of years is, in my opinion, a quack. Even if there are side effects, even if they contain compounds otherwise claimed to be dangerous (both of these things are patently false), the benefit far, far, far outweighs the risk. The vast majority of adverse affects reported with vaccines are a) previously unknown allergies to a component or b) known allergies to a component that were not reported to the person administering vaccine.
Nuclear energy is not any more dangerous than driving a car is. In fact, nuclear energy is safer than driving a car. I don't see you pushing for cars to be replaced with a safer alternative. Solar and wind power are expensive, are limited in their spacial extent by the sun/wind patterns, and fail frequently when abnormal events occur. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, takes up a lot less space, provides a lot more energy, and overall is more reliable than either of the other two.
Just some stats on energy:
Yeah, I'll take nuclear over solar and wind anyday. Also, think about this: "In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants." So is it really safer? We've produced more kWh of energy with nuclear than we have with solar in this country, yet more people have died installing solar power in the country. We've used nuclear for over 50 years, and there have been a grand total of five direct deaths due to installation, repairs, or inspection of nuclear power plants, with an additional 3 deaths due to improper use of an experimental reactor.
Just some food for thought. If you're going to vote for someone because they're a scientist, please actually check if their "science" is actual science or pseudoscience. Thanks.[DOUBLEPOST=1470581301][/DOUBLEPOST] Much agree. GMOs are not harmful. People use GMO and "genetically modified" to fearmonger people into thinking they're by default bad, yet many medicines (insulin, monoclonal antibodies, immunosuppresants, etc.) are from genetically modified organisms, yet nobody questions those. If you went to someone with diabetes and told them "would you keep using insulin if you knew it was from a GMO" I can all but guarantee you they'll say yes because there is no harm in them. It's like saying "hey let me put high octane gas in my car this time". No harm. But there may be a little bit of benefit.
To go back on nuclear energy if we are 100% serious and I mean serious about reducing our carbon footprint on earth then nuclear is the way to go. The environmental impact of radioactive material can be and has been controlled. Producing Solar panels have more of a carbon impact than nuclear energy. Also, we can use waste heat from the power plants to desalinate sea water. Gmo labeling doesn't do much to inform a consumer. What gene was inserted using what process? why was the gene inserted and did the gene produce desired results? All a consumer will see is GMO. There are awesome GMO's such as golden rice which has Vitamin A compared not having it. So people in countries without much variety in food can get that nutrient and not go blind. There also could be bad ones but good luck selling them. I guess if we wanted to produce a cross between lettuce and poison Ivy we could easily do it. I mean no one is going to want to consume it.
I'm all for GMOs. I wrote a paper and gave a speech on why we should accept GMOs as part of our daily nutrients. I just know a lot of people who would like to see something labeled "non-GMO" so they know to buy it to their personal preference. Americans do have a right to know what's going in their body at the end of the day, which is why having real scientists that aren't in big pharma's pockets testing vaccines is such a big deal. You really can't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a CEO of some big corporation, especially when it has to do with your health.[DOUBLEPOST=1470593288][/DOUBLEPOST]
I just finished a bioethics course and both mandatory vaccines and GMO labeling were debate topics, so I've got lots of info for both sides fresh in my mind. 
