Jill Stein for President

^^^ probably not but we can try!

JC29856 said:

Ues

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

polaris_x said:

the reality is that the majority of people can vote for jill stein without any real consequence ... only the people in swing states need to decide if voting strategically is something they want to do ...

That makes sense.

Either way, I'm so disgusted with the whole mess. Trump is a joke. Clinton is almost as bad. I'm voting for Stein.

Doesn't look like you are alone.
https://youtu.be/nUOtnHcQ7FI

That looks like a strong women to me!

She is! And smart, intelligent, passionate, energetic. And her support is growing- far more than the major media outlets are willing to admit.

JC29856 said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

polaris_x said:

the reality is that the majority of people can vote for jill stein without any real consequence ... only the people in swing states need to decide if voting strategically is something they want to do ...

That makes sense.

Either way, I'm so disgusted with the whole mess. Trump is a joke. Clinton is almost as bad. I'm voting for Stein.

Doesn't look like you are alone.
https://youtu.be/nUOtnHcQ7FI

Stein just wants Americans to know if their nutrition is GMO. Since Monsanto says we try to sell as much as possible, it's the FDAs job to say it's unhealthy. FDA is of course made up of Agri-business insiders.


http://www.jill2016.com/fb_ad_gmos

Yes, labeling is a very reasonable request and such a simple thing to do. Weird that we can't have that information on our food labels.

And of course Stein is about much more than just the GMO issue.

Free said:

brianlux said:

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/jill-stein-insists-trump-is-less-dangerous-than-clinton-and-attacks-bernie-sanders-as-a-dc-insider/

Some interesting things to consider here:

While she [Stein] describes Trump as a danger she also believes he’s nothing more than a moron who has destroyed the GOP. Clinton, on the other hand, she considers a greater threat.

“Donald Trump, I think, will have a lot of trouble moving things through Congress,” Stein says. “Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, won’t … Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars, faster to pass her fracking disastrous climate program, much more easily than Donald Trump could do his.”

So true Brian. While the circus over on mass media wants us to believe a phony clownish character is out to get us or destroy us, while instituting their establishment monster, who actually does want the job of POTUS, so more wars are waged, more big banks and corps rule, more big pharma companies are allowed to rip us off.

Yeah, this important stuff to look at. I'm not saying I like the idea of having Trump as president but like the article says, he would have a very difficult time getting things passed through congress, and yet Hillary would have little trouble doing so-- like fracking and more war, not things that are in our own best interest.

And maybe if Trump wins we as a nation will be so humiliated, so chided, denounced and rebuked by the rest of the world for not being able to nominate a few worthy candidates that perhaps next time we will take our political system more seriously. As it stands, we are the butt of our own bad joke. It's a bit nauseating.

unsung said:

What's her 2A stance?

Is that a draft deferment? LOL

Bonus question: For 2 points, Is "2A" and acronym or an initialism?

unsung said:

2nd Amendment

"We certainly need an assault weapons ban, but we need more than that. There are some 260 people every day who are injured or killed by gun violence, so it's very important that we ban assault weapons, for starters, but there are other steps that need to be taken quickly. Local communities need to be able to regulate guns, as needed, to deal with their violence. So, we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We need background checks, so that the mentally ill are not possessing and using guns. And we need to end the gun show loopholes, as well, because there's far too much violence from guns, which is not needed."

Q: How do you feel about personal gun ownership?

A: It is more dangerous to the occupants of a home to have a gun than not. It's more likely that you'll be injured by your own gun than that you'll be defended against some intruder with that gun. It's an enormous public health problem in our cities--there are tragedies every day where young people are being shot, as victims of gun crimes. It's tragic. We're not arguing that nobody should have a gun--but public safety should factor into constraints.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Jill_Stein_Gun_Control.htm

unsung said:

Well then, nevermind.

You probably had already surmised her stand and we know you are "very pro gun", so why ask?

unsung said:

I honestly did not know her stance. I don't know much about her at all.

In that case, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. If by any chance you decide to vote again, check her out. She's straight ahead, honest, forthright, passionate about doing good things, a no bullshit lady with a lot of guts and strengths.