上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]fore_on_the_floor 809ポイント810ポイント  (140子コメント)

What can do we do to push ranked choice voting? Does it have to start at local levels, or can it be done at the highest levels to maximize effect?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 450ポイント451ポイント  (100子コメント)

We definitely need to break free from the 2-party trap - this election shows why that is so critical. Ranked choice voting is a key step to doing this. Ranked choice voting lets you to rank your choices so if your first choice doesn’t win, your vote is automatically reassigned to your second choice. The current voting system has people voting out of fear against the candidates they hate, rather than for candidates they really like and agree with. Ranked choice voting would end fear-based voting, and let voters express their true values. Democracy is not a question of who do we hate the most. Democracy needs a moral compass. We must be that moral compass. Ranked choice voting gives us the freedom to do that.

Ranked choice voting is used in cities across America and countries around the world. It is on the ballot as a referendum in the state of Maine for use in statewide elections.

The Democrats are afraid of ranked choice voting, because it takes away the fear they rely on to extort your vote. My campaign had filed a bill with the help of a progressive Democratic legislator to create ranked choice voting in 2002 in Massachusetts when i was running for governor against Mitt Romney. I wanted to be sure there was no "spoiling" of the election. The Democrats refused to let the bill out of committee - and they continued to do that every time the bill was refiled. Why is that? It's because they are taking marching orders from the big banks and fossil fuel giants and war profiteers. They know they cannot win your vote. They have to intimidate you into voting for them. And ranked choice voting would take away their fear mongering. It calls their bluff. They are not on your side. This is why Gov Jerry Brown just vetoed a bill to allow all municipalities to use ranked choice voting in California.

So, the bottom line is we can fix the screwed up voting system. But the political establishment won't do it for us. We need to organize to make it happen. I urge you to work with us after the election. Let's make this a priority, to pass ranked choice voting, including for presidential elections. This can be done at the level of state legislatures. It does not need a congressional bill. Go to jill2016.com to join the team and help make this happen!

[–]BetTheAdmiral 112ポイント113ポイント  (39子コメント)

The voting system you describe is one of many ranked choice systems called instant runoff voting (IRV).

IRV is an improvement. However, if you've gone through the trouble of having ranked ballots, you should consider picking another system, such as Schulze, which vastly improves over the current system and IRV.

My personal favorite is neither plurality nor ranked, but score voting where each voter scores each candidate from 1 to 10 and the highest average wins.

I have been convinced this system is the best. Check it out.

http://www.rangevoting.org

Edit: a link for Schulze also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

And a comparison of performance between several systems

http://rangevoting.org/vsi.html

http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html

Edit 2: If anyone is interested in a unique visual way to look at voting systems check this out

http://rangevoting.org/IEVS/Pictures.html

[–]Stoodinaturd 3278ポイント3279ポイント  (325子コメント)

“What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job layoffs?"

[–]jillstein2016[S] 999ポイント1000ポイント  (183子コメント)

I am calling for an emergency jobs program that will also solve the emergency of climate change. So we will create jobs, not cut them, in the green energy transition. Specifically we call for a Green New Deal, like the New Deal that got us out of the great depression, but this is also a green program, to create clean renewable energy, sustainable food production, and public transportation - as well as essential social services. In fact we call for the creation of 20 million jobs, ensuring everyone has a good wage job, as part of a wartime scale mobilization to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2030. This is the date the science now tells us we must have ended fossil fuel use if we are to prevent runaway climate change. (See for example the recent report by Oil Change International - which says we have 17 years to end fossil fuel use.)

Fortunately, we get so much healthier when we end fossil fuels (which are linked to asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc) that the savings in health care alone is enough to repay the costs of the green energy transition. Also, 100% clean energy makes wars for oil obsolete. So we can also save hundreds of billions of dollars cutting our dangerous bloated military budget, which is making us less secure, not more secure.

[–]StanGibson18 383ポイント384ポイント  (17子コメント)

Thank you Dr Stein, this is the most detailed answer I have ever gotten for my question. I agree with all the points you just made.

[–]littlefootzz 236ポイント237ポイント  (57子コメント)

But isn't your healthcare policy a single-payer plan? So it would also require investment. How can you use 'savings' from that to pay for green energy?

Edit; people have replied explaining the potential savings of single-payer. I was wrong, sorry.

[–]cbarrister 150ポイント151ポイント  (22子コメント)

20 million jobs

The total US workforce is something like 160 million. How is that sustainable?

[–]pacenossis 272ポイント273ポイント  (37子コメント)

"Fortunately, we get so much healthier when we end fossil fuels (which are linked to asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc) that the savings in health care alone is enough to repay the costs of the green energy transition."

As an atmospheric chemist, I am aware of the tenuous epidemiological links. I have to say that you overstate the potential healthcare/financial benefits of discontinuoing fossil fuel use. With confidence, no less. Which is frightening to me.

[–]sensible_human 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Public transportation! Yes! I am voting for you because you are the ONLY candidate to address the severe problem of automobile dependence in this country. As a transportation planner for a metropolitan planning organization, my career depends on strong federal policies that result in more sustainable and balanced allocation of federal transportation dollars.

[–]RorschachsJ0urnal 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The New Deal (s) did not get us out of the great depression. Unemployment actually increased under them and they failed to produce any improvment in the economy accross nearly a decade of implementation. In fact World War 2 is what ended the great depression because it was a "total war" in which employment was nearly zero.

Edit: Wirld=World

[–]Motha_Effin_Kitty_Yo 1070ポイント1071ポイント  (865子コメント)

In your textbox you say "I plan to cancel student debt"

Can you elaborate on how that would be achieved efficiently and without abuse?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 954ポイント955ポイント  (815子コメント)

Bailing out student debtors from $1.3 trillion in predatory student debt is a top priority for my campaign. If we could bail out the crooks on Wall Street back in 2008, we can bail out their victims - the students who are struggling with largely insecure, part-time, low-wage jobs. The US government has consistently bailed out big banks and financial industry elites, often when they’ve engaged in abusive and illegal activity with disastrous consequences for regular people.

There are many ways we can pay for this debt. We could for example cancel the obsolete F-35 fighter jet program, create a Wall Street transaction tax (where a 0.2% tax would produce over $350 billion per year), or canceling the planned trillion dollar investment in a new generation of nuclear weapons. Unlike weapons programs and tax cuts for the super rich, investing in higher education and freeing millions of Americans from debt will have tremendous benefits for the real economy. If the 43 million Americans locked in student debt come out to vote Green to end that debt - that's a winning plurality of the vote. We could actually make this happen!

[–]GuruMeditationError 135ポイント136ポイント  (58子コメント)

How do you think paying off all or a substantial portion of outstanding student debt would fix the roots of the student debt problem instead of putting a band-aid on it?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 184ポイント185ポイント  (56子コメント)

We must also make public higher education free, as it used to be in many states. We know from the GI bill following WWII that it pays for itself. For every dollar of tax payer money put in to higher education, we recoup $7 dollars in increased revenue and public benefits. We can't afford not to make public higher education free.

[–]Thexzamplez 209ポイント210ポイント  (26子コメント)

I think we should replace this use of "free" with taxpayer-funded. It absolutely seems to be used to deceive the ignorant.

Sort of irrelevant, it just gets on my nerves.

[–]spicelover9876 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's a nice idea to have "free" higher education, but would there be limits on programs that qualify or who would qualify? Should taxpayers really be funding a D-average student to get a degree in Medieval Literature, that is very unlikely to lead to a job? I know plenty of people who got government loans and grants to pursue their hobbies in an undergrad degree and never even considered if they'd ever get a job in the field (a 3-year degree in psych or music is not likely to help one pay off one's debt!) or even if they wanted a job in the field - they took it because they liked it in high school, they had parental pressure to go to school for anything, they always thought it was fun, etc. But not because they always wanted a career in that field, and they certainly don't pursue a career in that field afterwards. Why should taxpayers fund hobbies?

What about a system where students who perform well can get scholarships in programs in areas where there is expected to be a need for trained workers in a few years?

[–]leaks1352 33ポイント34ポイント  (55子コメント)

How do you plan to publicize yourself for more voters, and also, how do you plan on nuclear disarmment?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 113ポイント114ポイント  (54子コメント)

I'll be debating Gary Johnson on Tavis Smiley pbs on Nov 1 and 2. Tune in and tell your friends!

There are several ways to move forward on nuclear disarmament. One, we can take up the long standing offer of the Russians to jointly convene a nuclear disarmament process. Second, we can work with the United Nations which has recently adopted an initiative (just getting under way) to make nuclear weapons illegal.

[–]sybban 208ポイント209ポイント  (41子コメント)

I think it would be fascinating to watch two people with social skills of space aliens to debate about topics they are clearly unprepared to discuss.

[–]mtmtm 337ポイント338ポイント  (23子コメント)

I'd just like to make sure that you and any other readers are aware that the bailout of wall street has absolutely nothing to do with what is described here. TARP was a purchase of troubled assets to provide temporary liquidity into the banks when they underwent the stress of asset write downs during a financial market panic. The government believed at the time that the assets they were purchasing were fundamentally sound and as it turned out they were right - the vast majority of TARP investments were repaid.

So the right analogy here would be to say that the government would provide temporary investment to students on the assumption that over time these investments would get repaid - which is exactly what student loans are: highly subsidized lending program that provides student credit at below market rate.

Also the bailout has literally nothing to do with QE which involves lowering interest rates to stimulate the Economy and encourage investment and borrowing. Banks hate QE because it compresses net interest margin which is why all the main banks are experiencing many consecutive quarters or flat or reduced earnings when you control for release of provisions. It is also why whenever the Fed suggests rising rates the bank stock prices go up. Finally QE is good for many consumers as it reduces the interest rates on our loans. In particular, QE helps students with debt.

Anyway if you have any interest in becoming the least bit informed about how our financial institutions and economy work there are many qualified people out there who can help. The above is of course massively over-simplified but at least directionally accurate.

[–]not_lurking_this_tim 387ポイント388ポイント  (39子コメント)

investing in higher education and freeing millions of Americans from debt will have tremendous benefits for the real economy

While I totally agree with this in principle, paying people's student loan debt isn't investing in education. Paying for education that people have yet to receive, or lowering tuition, would be investing in education.

Paying off existing debt does two things. 1) It removes default risk from the loans, which benefits the banks. 2) It gets people out of debt. While that's fine, there are more equitable ways of getting people out of debt than paying off their student loans. You could, for example, give people money if their incomes are low, even if they don't have student loans.

I guess my point is that this plan seems more like a way to sway a specific portion of the voter population, and less like a way of actually educating more Americans or fixing the problem of skyrocketing tuition.

[–]ftxs 1025ポイント1026ポイント  (356子コメント)

The F-35 is not obsolete (that means old and defunct, which the F-35 is not) and is actually more cost effective in the long-run because the aircraft will be the standard in the U.S. air fleet (acting as a replacement for the F-16, F-15, A-10, etc) making training and maintenance for straightforward and in the long run, cheaper. You can cancel the F-35 program (which has been the source of a lot of revenue and research for U.S. institutions involved in its production and design) and be forced to deal with the rising maintenance costs of an aging fighter fleet or continue it and phase out the older fighters. Here is a comment, explaining further in detail the effectiveness of the F-35.

[–]tautologies 562ポイント563ポイント  (68子コメント)

Cancelling the F-35 would lead to the US having to repay the other countries that have been part of footing the bill for the F-35. At this point in time, it will be cheaper to continue for all the reasons you point out.

[–]jillstein2016[S] -111ポイント-110ポイント  (51子コメント)

[–]blueskin 135ポイント136ポイント  (13子コメント)

Yes, we all realise that clearly you don't know what obsolete actually means.

If you mean "it's weaker than the F-22", the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, not carrier-based, far fewer in numbers (which means less operational capacity; fighters aren't like passenger airliners; you need to do a lot more than just turn them around, refuel and reload weapons before they're ready again), more expensive per unit, and far less suited for ground attack; you can't compare the two in any meaningful way. The F-35 is largely to replace the F-15 and F-16, which are ageing airframes and 4th-generation fighters that are arguably outclassed by the Eurofighter and Tornado right now and will easily be by China and Russia within 10 years.

[–]jbillzz33 73ポイント74ポイント  (9子コメント)

So an article from four years ago is relevant to the fact that it's too late to cancel it? You're running for President, but you really do make arguments like a shitty internet commenter who cherry picks what parts of the comment to respond to

[–]Bigliest 62ポイント63ポイント  (1子コメント)

Characterizing Wall Street as crooks and students as victims polarizes the issue and confuses people as to what the bail out really was.

The bail out of Wall Street entailed buying their existing assets in order to allow them to have more cash in hand to be able to spend it. If you're suggesting a similar system for students, would it be to buy their books and bicycles and cars so that they have the cash to pay off their loans?

John Oliver's segment has brought more light to this issue. So, if you are to be taken seriously as a candidate, you're going to have your policies go under more scrutiny.

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you're saying. Could you elaborate on how paying off student loans is in any way similar to the bank bailout? Just because the word "bailout" is used doesn't mean that the banks got money for nothing. They got money for the assets that they were holding and then those assets were taken away from them. Are you suggesting we seize the assets of students and pay them cash for those assets? Because that's what the government did with the bailout of banks. The cash then allowed them to invest in other things.

They could have done this for themselves if there were other banks that had cash to buy their assets. But since no other banks had cash to do this, the government had to step in and start the ball rolling by giving banks the cash so that they could go out and buy up other banks' assets. But it wasn't "giving banks cash" any more than buying a carton of milk is "giving" the store cash. They bought it from them, fair and square. (Well, that's debatable, sure, but this is already far more nuance than you've shown in your public policy disclosures on this topic, which makes me sad and suspicious of your divisive rhetoric as shown above.)

Granted, the banks did get us into the mess. But sometimes large institutions are not too smart in how to do things. So, that happened with banks. Should we punish them for something they couldn't foresee while also punishing ourselves? Isn't it reasonable to unjam their gears so that the rest of us aren't hurt by their machinery getting broken by their own bad judgement?

[–]January1st1900 566ポイント567ポイント  (126子コメント)

Could you outline these ideas on your website? One of the reasons I've chosen not to vote for you is this is one of the main platforms you are running on but I couldn't find a detailed proposal on how this could be done on your website.

[–]barktreep 37ポイント38ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wal Street paid back the bail out and then some. And even the bailout cost less than 1.3 trillion up front.

As someone who has six figures in student loan debt: even I don't think your plan makes any sort of financial sense, as much as I'd like it to be true.

We need to focus on tightening our standards for what colleges are eligible to receive federal money, reducing defaults, and then on reducing interest rates so that students get a good value out of their education.

[–]jeffwulf 37ポイント38ポイント  (7子コメント)

Bailing out student debtors from $1.3 trillion in predatory student debt is a top priority for my campaign. If we could bail out the crooks on Wall Street back in 2008, we can bail out their victims

The wall street bail outs were in the form of loans that were repaid with interest, and the US taxpayers made money on the bailout. The programs wouldn't be comparable at all.

[–]KarlMalownz 31ポイント32ポイント  (2子コメント)

How would you approach our actual Congress, which may or may not look significantly different in a few months, about authorizing such an expenditure?

[–]SherlockBrolmes 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like when you answered that you would cancel student debt via quantitative easing, got called out for how ridiculous that answer was by John Oliver, issued a rebuttal to John Oliver on your website, but included within the rebuttal an article that refuted your exact policy.

Oh well, at least you've walked back on your stupid initial policy proposal by giving a simplistic, hella vague policy proposal.

[–]screen317 74ポイント75ポイント  (37子コメント)

We could for example cancel the obsolete F-35 fighter jet program, create a Wall Street transaction tax (where a 0.2% tax would produce over $350 billion per year), or canceling the planned trillion dollar investment in a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Dear God I'm glad she's polling so awfully.

[–]YNot1989 21ポイント22ポイント  (15子コメント)

canceling the planned trillion dollar investment in a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Aren't you a little concerned about Russia's development of next-generation ICBMs like the RS-28 Sarmat missile, and the risk of a capabilities gap on the part of the US?

[–]ohlookawildtaco 175ポイント176ポイント  (124子コメント)

I have heard one of your plans if elected is to disarm the police. How do you plan to accomplish that? (Serious)

[–]jillstein2016[S] 305ポイント306ポイント  (90子コメント)

I have not proposed disarming the police. Some countries have done this and found the police are actually safer when they're not carrying weapons. (England, Australia). This is a non starter in this country at this time. What i have proposed is de-militarizing police. We should stop recycling military equipment to our police, making them an occupying force. We must train police in de-escalation techniques, and end the confrontational "broken windows" policing that has been such a disaster. We must also be sure that mental health professionals are available to intervene in mental health emergencies, which have been a tragic part of so many police shootings. Gail McLaughlin, the Green mayor of Richmond, CA, made these kinds of changes in their police force and dramatically reduced crime and police violence. Specifically homicides are down 70% over the past decade. https://richmondconfidential.org/2014/10/29/richmond-police-stats-show-decline-in-homicides-interactive-map/

[–]for_shaaame 179ポイント180ポイント  (55子コメント)

British police officer here - we were never disarmed. Rather we were founded in 1829 as an unarmed service and experiments with arming in the early 20th Century never caught on. But we have a society which is effectively unarmed, which gives us one of the lowest police mortality rates in the world - sixteen police officers have been murdered in the UK this century; by contrast, the US has seen more than sixteen murders of LEOs this year alone.

Wouldn't a safer solution be to take guns out of the hands of criminals first by imposing common-sense gun control measures before trying to disarm the police?

[–]dave_SGNL_05 183ポイント184ポイント  (21子コメント)

I'm from Australia and have never seen a police officer without a firearm.

[–]DeanOnFire 124ポイント125ポイント  (194子コメント)

What would you say to people who are voting for Gary Johnson over you, strictly to make sure at least one third party candidate reaches that 5% threshold for federal funding?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 25ポイント26ポイント  (171子コメント)

My campaign is the only presidential campaign that doesn't take money from - and is not corrupted by - lobbyists, corporate interests and superpacs. I alone have the liberty to stand up for what the American people are clamoring for: an emergency jobs program to solve the emergency of climate change, a bailout for student debtors, free public higher education, health care as a human rights, and an end to the catastrophic wars that are costing over HALF of our discretionary budget, while creating failed states, mass refugee migrations and worse terrorist threats.

Gary Johnson supports Citizens United and the buy out it enables of our political system by the economic elite. He supports the TransPacific Partnership, "NAFTA on steroids" which will continue offshoring of our jobs and which allows multinational corporations to override our democratically created laws and regulations. He supports privatizing social security. He does not support bailing out students or free public higher education. He does not have a solution to the jobs crisis, and he believes there's no point solving the climate crisis because the sun will eventually explode and encompass the earth anyhow.

The Libertarian Party was founded, among others, by David Koch who was one of its first vice presidential candidates. It represents big business interests on steroids. It advocates getting rid of government in order to turn corporate predators loose without the minimal restraint they currently have.

I think it's important that we have a truly alternative political party, that is of by and for the people. The Libertarians unfortunately represent the abuses of the existing corporate parties but even worse.

Getting the Libertarians federal funding will provide more of the same. The Greens are the only national alternative party. Your vote can make all the difference in getting that alternative to 5%, and ensuring we have a strong voice in the next election. As the political house of cards continues to fall down, we must build the alternative for an America and a world that works for us all. And we must start now!

[–]jbillzz33 127ポイント128ポイント  (67子コメント)

Do you seriously think you're going to get 5%? You keep coming up in polls lower than joke responses. I mean what even makes you qualified to be President? The Libertarians have plenty of problems, but at least Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have experience with governing. I'd argue that even Donald Trump is more qualified than you to be President based solely on his shitty argument that running a company is like running the country. You have no qualifications, you say outlandish things, and you have no business being in this election. This election gave a real chance to third parties to show the country what they could be, and you failed spectacularly. No third party candidate will ever again have the opportunity you had in this election and you squandered it completely. Shame on you

[–]thatpj 70ポイント71ポイント  (8子コメント)

I alone have the liberty to stand up for what the American people are clamoring fo

Is that you Donald Trump?

[–]JackMcJerk 144ポイント145ポイント  (165子コメント)

Do you have a backup plan to affect all of these changes if you don't win the presidency? I'd love to see all these things happen but, given the current political climate, it seems we get the choice of idiot right and corrupt left.

[–]jillstein2016[S] 296ポイント297ポイント  (152子コメント)

Here's the good news. We are very close (according to recent polls) to reaching 5% of the vote. So YOUR VOTE COUNTS! If we can reach 5% of the vote, the Green Party then qualifies for $10 million in federal matching funds for the 2020 presidential election. AND we get automatic ballot access in most states. That means we can be a full powered people's campaign in 2020. And that means we will come out of this election with the momentum we need to build a real opposition party. As the Republican party falls apart, and Democrats and Republicans merge in Hillary Clinton's campaign, we need a political alternative more than ever - that stands for people, planet and peace, and all those being thrown under the bus by the corporate sponsored political establishment. This election is just the beginning. The crises caused by Democrats and Republicans is not getting better by itself. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Go to jill2016.com and join the team - for an America and a world that works for all of us.

[–]sotonohito 92ポイント93ポイント  (6子コメント)

The focus on the presidency is my main problem with the Green Party, and I used to be a Green Party county party chair.

The current Green Party basically does nothing but run someone for president every four years. In between the GP might as well not exist and that's a path to nothing but forever losing.

What is your plan to make the Green Party viable in local and state elections? What is your plan to reform the Green Party so that it is an actual viable party running candidates at sub-Presidential level so you can actually build up the political capital necessary to eventually make a successful run at the Presidency?

If your plan is "hope to get to 5% and maybe then we can magically win the Presidency in 2020" I can't see any point in supporting the Greens.

[–]CommentsRarely 177ポイント178ポイント  (25子コメント)

If you make a push for office in 2020, I hope that as a medical professional, you will come out decisively to ensure supporters and onlookers that you know vaccines do not cause autism. I know from polling crosstabs that anti-vaxxers make up a large part of your support base but you are harming people by feeding into their misinformed fantasies and the way you've dodged the issue is irresponsible.

[–]laowai_shuo_shenme 57ポイント58ポイント  (13子コメント)

In what world are the Democrats and Republicans merging? Support for Donald Trump is still in the 30s at least and congressional Republicans are already murmuring about obstructing a president Clinton even more than they did Obama.

More importantly, the green party is quite a bit to the left of the Democrats, meaning that no one on the right and few people somewhere left of center would approve of your policies. By what avenue do you see gathering 51% of the total electorate any time soon?

[–]contrappasso 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

That doesn't answer the question that /u/JackMcJerk asked. They and the rest of us want to know what you will actually do after the election--or do you just plan to sit on your hands and whine about funding (again) for another four years?

[–]FoxyThePirateMeme 66ポイント67ポイント  (60子コメント)

What would you say to the former Bernie supporters who have turned their support to Donald Trump?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 187ポイント188ポイント  (31子コメント)

I think many of them are angry about how the Democratic Party treated Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I would say to them that the best strategy for continuing the political revolution is to build a revolutionary political party. We won’t get political revolution by supporting a member of the billionaire class (trump) or a servant of the billionaire class (clinton). We need an independent party for the 99%, and the Green Party is fighting against all the same forces Bernie faced to build that party. Trump won’t save us, and neither will Clinton, so the best use of your vote is to invest it in building the Green Party. The two-party system is in a downward spiral, as we see with Clinton and Trump, and we have to break free from it - starting now. With each passing election, both parties become more corporatist, militarist and imperialist. It's not going to get better by itself. We have to stand up and start working for the world we want - and this is within our reach.

[–]thatpj 72ポイント73ポイント  (8子コメント)

We won’t get political revolution by supporting a member of the billionaire class (trump) or a servant of the billionaire class (clinton).

Bernie Sanders defined his political revolution as people rising up to vote for progressive up and down the ballot. How will that be accomplished by focusing on the Presidential race?

[–]Tsobaphomet 27ポイント28ポイント  (26子コメント)

How can we get more than two parties to participate in debates?

I honestly did not even know there was a Green party in this country until this year. They bury and censor anyone that isn't Democrat or Republican. Even Bernie Sanders faced a lot of heat for being a slightly different sort of democrat.

If 3rd party candidates were invited to debates as they should be, then people would know they exist and that they are a real option.

[–]jillstein2016[S] 42ポイント43ポイント  (20子コメント)

The presidential debates have been controlled for 3 decades by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. The CPD is set up to exclude other voices from the debates because they want to keep the 2-party stranglehold and prevent other parties from being seen as viable by the public. Debate exclusion happens in down-ballot races as well. Why do we allow the establishment parties to control the debates? We need to fight this undemocratic system, but the corporate media has manufactured consensus that somehow it’s normal for the dominant parties to be able to lock out their competition from being heard.

We need to support independent, non-corporate media. The corporate media has been key to propping up the 2-party system by insisting that we only have two choices, while ignoring or marginalizing the other choices on the ballot. 76% of Americans wanted 4-party debates, yet the media allowed the Democrats and Republicans to lock me and Gary Johnson out. And Wikileaks has shown just how cozy the media establishment is with the political establishment. Thankfully there is a growing movement of independent media that isn’t beholden to corporations that has been much more interested in reporting the full story, rather than repeating talking points from the political establishment. We need to support those media organizations and help them grow. The most important way you can help our voice get heard is to join the Green Party and help us build the revolution from the grassroots up! This is a people-powered movement that is committed to creating real multi-party democracy in the United States. 57% of Americans say the 2-party system has failed and we need a new major party. Getting us to 5% on November 8th will help, but no matter what we will keep building to win. We need a party that puts people, planet and peace over profit - our lives and our future depend on it.

[–]lily-mama 25ポイント26ポイント  (27子コメント)

Would you get us out of all these stupid wars. Since it seems like the choices are a warmonger and someone with a temper of a toddler?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 123ポイント124ポイント  (21子コメント)

Yes! These wars have made us less safe, not more safe The avg household will have paid $50K for war on terror by the time we've paid for the health care for our wounded vets. (And we should be providing much better care for our vets - including housing, drug rehab and jobs!) Results: failed states, mass refugee migrations, worse terrorist threats We need a new offensive in the Middle East - a PEACE OFFENSIVE, staring with a weapons embargo to the Middle East and a freeze on the bank accounts of the countries - like Saudi Arabia - that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises. In general, we need a foreign policy based on international law, human rights and diplomacy - not on military and economic domination!

[–]thehulk0560 56ポイント57ポイント  (18子コメント)

staring with a weapons embargo to the Middle East

That would be interesting. How do you enforce an embargo without military force?

[–]orangejulius 1542ポイント1543ポイント  (688子コメント)

Why are you opposed to nuclear energy?

[–]jillstein2016[S] -1744ポイント-1743ポイント  (491子コメント)

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete. First of all, it is toxic from the beginning of the production chain to the very end. Uranium mining has sickened countless numbers of people, many of them Native Americans whose land is still contaminated with abandoned mines. No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste, which remains deadly to all forms of life for much longer than all of recorded history. And the depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East.

Nuclear power is dangerous. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima create contaminated zones unfit for human settlement. They said Chernobyl was a fluke, until Fukushima happened just 5 years ago. What’s next - the aging Indian Point reactor 25 miles from New York City? After the terrorist attack in Brussels, we learned that terrorists had considered infiltrating Belgian nuclear plants for a future attack. And as sea levels rise, we could see more Fukushima-type situations with coastal nuke plants.

Finally, nuclear power is obsolete. It’s already more expensive per unit of energy than renewable technology, which is improving all the time. The only reason why the nuclear industry still exists is because the government subsidizes it with loan guarantees that the industry cannot survive without. Instead we need to invest in scaling up clean renewable energy as quickly as possible.

[–]IAmPerhapsDrunk 1039ポイント1040ポイント  (104子コメント)

Hello Jill, thank you for coming to Reddit. Like other people in this particular thread, I am an advocate for nuclear energy. I don't honestly expect to change your mind, but I will feel better if I pretend you spent the time to read this and learned something. I learned much of this when I was getting my bachelor's in Nuclear Engineering.

Nuclear waste is a problem that is almost unique to the United States. The reason for this is that we don't reprocess our waste. What this means is that we do not separate the fission products from the remaining heavy elements. The fission products are the dangerous component because they decay relatively quickly (giving a high dose in a short period of time). If we separated it though, we would have significantly less volume of dangerous material to deal with. The bulk of the rest of the volume is also radioactive, but it decays much more slowly and can actually still be used as fuel.

As for dangerous, I think you are discounting the discharge from other power and chemical plants during Fukushima. Most of the carcinogens spread around Japan were not from the nuclear plant, which held up really well considering the events. I think you miss a lot of the picture if you do not realize how bad the tsunami was. Also, statistically, nuclear energy is the safest energy source per kilowatt-hour: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

As for Chernobyl, I think you might actually be touched to see just how well life is doing there after people ran away: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

For the last point, nuclear power is only obsolete in the US. This is because it's been very difficult to get approval to build any plants since Three Mile Island. That was 40 years ago, so of course the plants are old. In addition, this approval process costs an obscene amount of money. The high cost of nuclear is largely inflated by the government. Once a plant is finally built, actually running it is far cheaper than running other plants. This is another reason energy companies have been working to keep their plants open for so long. It saves them money.

Finally, if you are not aware of how much governments subsidize renewable energy, then you are not in a position to move the US to clean energy. I hope that we can move to clean energy sources someday, and I hope that research and development in renewable energy continues at the present rate. However, it's a lie to say that nuclear is more expensive than renewable technology today. (Unless you're counting only hydro power, but that is not the impression I got from your statement.)

[–]Moleculor 208ポイント209ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete.

And yet coal, oil, and natural gas are these things in far greater degree.

Hell, coal alone causes more exposure to radioactivity than nuclear does, and that's not even the worst feature of coal.

If we're ever to get away from dirty forms of energy (coal, oil, etc), we'll need to step in to something cleaner. We don't have the time to wait 50 years for fusion to work, if it ever will, because our planet is dying now.

Solar, wind, geothermal, or other forms of renewable energy all have reasons they don't work currently in every area of the country. Either the resource isn't available, or the technology isn't, etc.

Even Elon Musk says that switching the nation over to solar and electric power will result in a tripling of our electrical production needs, and only a third of that can come from home solar installations. The utilities need to provide the other two thirds, which means they need to double output.

How do you double electrical power output while abandoning coal? Well, it can't be done with time-sensitive power like solar or wind, or locationally dependent power like geothermal or hydroelectric.

So we're left with a choice:

Do we continue to use coal and kill our planet?

Or do we switch to a cleaner option that can be used regardless of the availability of geothermal vents, time of day, etc?

Nuclear is the only 'gateway' option we have to carry us forward until we can get fusion working.

For someone who's part of a party named "Green", you seem quite resistant to the cleaner realistic power options.

I sincerely recommend you watch Switch.

[–]AnAge_OldProb 416ポイント417ポイント  (25子コメント)

And the depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East.

This is a red herring. Depleted uranium is dangerous because its a heavy metal, not because it is radioactive as many would assume. Even if we shut all nuclear plants down tomorrow, the military would use its existing store of DU (don't worry we've got 100s of tons in storage left over from reactors). Even if the military could not longer use DU by regulation or they run out of supply they would likely switch to other, more dangerous to mine and more poisonous to warzones heavy metals to get equivalent shielding.

[–]MCvarial 139ポイント140ポイント  (2子コメント)

Belgian nuclear worker here, nuclear plants were never considered a target by terrorists the whole story is a hoax invented by fearmongers like you. Terrorist considered stealing medical isotopes for hospitals but reconsidered. Likely after seeing the safety measures and the miniscule effects of a dirty bomb.

I'm not even going to begin to address the other lies you're telling here. Nuclear powerplants get a fraction of the subsidies other forms of energy get. And currently operating plants are way cheaper than renewable energy. It also happens to be the cleanest and safest form of energy.

But as a foreigner it seems like facts and figures have nothing to do with american politics so feel free to continue spreading your lies.

[–]MauiWanderer 68ポイント69ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jill, as someone who only went through nuclear power school in the Navy and didn't even finish the pipeline: the amount of scare tactic language used in a statement like this shows how completely uneducated you are about nuclear technology and is absolutely astounding. Chernobyl's safety protocols were violated at every stage of redundancy of safety meant to prevent catastrophic failure.

This entire statement except for your last sentence makes you look like a complete idiotic fearmongerer. Yes, we should be pumping money into renewable clean tech. Everything else that came out of your statement makes you sound hopelessly incompetent. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[–]codeusasoft 175ポイント176ポイント  (13子コメント)

Your nuclear fear mongering is astounding.

Salt reactors, after burning spent fuel and cleaning our planet, can run on non-weapons-grade thorium. And these reactors are subcritical, meaning pull out the plug and they stop working. You cannot turn a nuclear plant into a bomb, Chernobyl and Fukishma were the only level 7 events in 25 years. Only 56 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl melt down and and none have died as a result of Fukushima.

Also the last part of your statement is just untrue, Nuclear is still the cheapest source of long term energy. Solar and wind cannot produce the same amount of energy without costing more.

[–]ragingtomato 58ポイント59ポイント  (17子コメント)

I have read some of your stances on nuclear. Besides being completely wrong on almost all of them, the most hilarious one I found was your stating that nuclear energy leads to nuclear weaponry. Why this is hilarious is because nuclear weaponry was being developed decades BEFORE the first power plant ever went online (in PA mind you).

History has already proven you wrong. Science has proven you wrong. Why do you choose to be ignorant? I can't vote for someone who refuses to listen to an over-abundance of data. You sympathize (or attempt to) when it is convenient to do so, i.e. when you need votes.

Sorry for the fire, but as a scientist and doctoral student at MIT, I cannot stand blatant ignorance of science. I don't care if you don't know the math or details, but to ignore every shred of evidence proving your fear-mongering ways to be completely incorrect is absolutely ridiculous in the harshest sense of the word.

EDIT: It has also been shown that with the available public data online, any competent engineer can develop a working atomic bomb. Since it hasn't readily been done yet and bombs aren't popping up in our backyards, I think you need to seriously rethink your stance (assuming you even thought it through the first time).

[–]jdragon3 65ポイント66ポイント  (3子コメント)

It’s already more expensive per unit of energy than renewable technology

This like most of your response here is patently false.

Here in Ontario (Canada), wind power now represents 20% of the cost of our electrical bills whilst providing just four percent of our power. We are paying about 7 cents per kWh for nuclear power and as much as 13.5 cents per kWh for wind. And despite our big rollout and gradual shift toward renewables (which you claim are cheaper), our bills are higher (in both total and rate/kWh) than ever.

[–]DullDieHard 246ポイント247ポイント  (121子コメント)

Meh, actually, we can build highly efficient and cheaper nuclear energy that is a lot safer than previous incarnations of nuclear reactors. There is only a negative stigma toward nuclear energy because of meltdowns in recent history and that only happened because those nuclear energy plants weren't maintained properly.

I'm still voting for you, but this is one area where I'm going to have to disagree. But thank you for your continued hard work.

[–]gordonv 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey Jill:

I myself am not a chemist. I only have a high school level of understanding about chemistry and biology.

It was explained to me that each person in the United States produces waste. The average American produces the following per year:

  • Nuclear: 10 USD quarters (in mass and weight) of nuclear waste a year.
  • Coal and Fossil: 10 tons (3 to 4 cars worth) of waste via gases with coal.

Spent nuclear fuel can be slightly reused, but a big factor is that it takes 100,000 years to "cool down." That's why we need to store it. To contain it from leaking into the environment. Nuclear waste is a bad thing, but it is under control.

Coal and Fossil fuel waste cannot be contained. It's easy to dismiss it because it's not plainly visible on what is produced. It goes right into the environment. It is out of control.

Solar panels require 3 things: a computer called a controller, solar panels, and batteries. All are highly toxic to soil when buried. Also, these 3 components have relatively short life spans. Right now, solar is to delicate and just doesn't produce enough for the cost for the average person.

With these factors in consideration, I feel nuclear IS the best option we have.

[–]Ein-Schattenmann 35ポイント36ポイント  (1子コメント)

No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste,

I mean, we did have a solution ,called Yucca Mountain.

Then a bunch of environmental protestors got super upset that a desolate barren region that would remain so for the geologic future might somehow be negatively impacted so instead we got left with our current dangerous and ineffective nuclear storage sites you hate so much.

[–]Tazzies 201ポイント202ポイント  (14子コメント)

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete.

And that right there is how you lose consideration for a vote. But thanks for your honesty!

[–]Teledildonic 21ポイント22ポイント  (9子コメント)

Nuclear power is dangerous. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima create contaminated zones unfit for human settlement. They said Chernobyl was a fluke, until Fukushima happened just 5 years ago.

The problem with both of those examples is both were fundamentally flawed. Chernobyl was a poor design with no containment towers and gross incompetence in running a safety test.

Fukushima was a safe design that was implemented poorly: in a region with known tsunamis, they put backup equipment in the basement and built the sea walls too low. And now Germany is abandoning nuclear power (because we all know Germany is know for earthquakes and tsunamis).

Three Mile Island is a testament that if you design it well enough and respond correctly, you can avert absolute environmental catastrophe.

[–]myterribear 66ポイント67ポイント  (12子コメント)

What about thorium reactors? I believe that to be a better alternative than uranium for the same reasons you mentioned.

[–]FrickinLazerBeams 36ポイント37ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a long time progressive and environmentalist, I have to say that this is a disgusting level of science denialism. I'd expect this kind of counterfactual garbage from a Republican, and it's humiliating to hear it come from a Green. Please stop being part of the problem.

[–]Unclesam1313 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

In regards top the economic argument in the last paragraph:

(Disclaimer: I am in no way an economist or incredibly well-informed/studied in the topic. I'm simply trying to provide a perspective separate from the consensus I'm seeing here)

Though nuclear energy is definitely far preferable to fossil fuels in almost every regard, there may be some merit to the argument that we should focus our efforts on giving other forms of alternative energy the push they need to take over our energy production. See this comment I wrote a while ago, in the /r/news thread about a new US reactor opening.

After watching this talk by Dr. Joseph Romm, I'm less sure than I used to be about the claim that we should instantly push for nuclear energy. Yes, the risks are way overblown, but that's not the argument that this speaker is making- he argues the economics.

The video is a bit lengthy (the part specifically about nuclear power begins at 20:14, but I'd recommend the whole thing if you're interested), so I'll give a bit of a tl;dw of his argument here: Nuclear energy is simply not a financially viable solution in any market economy. Renewable energy technology (especially solar and wind) is mature enough that the ideal solution, according to Dr. Romm, is to do what we can to support existing nuclear reactors to curb the growth of carbon emissions in the short term, but only until the much more profitable (and thus more appealing to those with the capital to make it happen) renewables can take over. He also cites a study which claims renewable energy will be a larger used source than fossil fuels by 2030.

So, from this point of view, nuclear is the reality at the moment, but is not likely to and probably should not be expanded (short of some sort of cost-cutting breakthrough. I am aware of thorium reactors, but not sure what the economic implications of them would be. This only considers technologies we currently use at large scales.). Other types (read: solar, wind) certainly seem much closer than most people think. With recent developments such as Tesla's contract to build a battery facility in LA, it's starting to look really good for renewables in coming years.

Don't get me wrong: I'm definitely a fan of nuclear energy. Anything that moves away from fossil fuels is a win in my book, and I wouldn't be at all opposed if for some reason the government went into a mad rage of expanding nuclear infrastructure. It just seems that, with these facts, it's much healthier to hope for the more likely outcome.

Feel free to disagree with this; I'd love to see a counterargument to what Dr. Romm claims, using similarly recent data/studies.

[–]brbrippin 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

And that right there is why I'll never vote Green. I agree with most of the things, but this opposition to nuclear energy is completely anti-science and regressive. It's not the 60's, we gotta get over the fear of nuclear power. It's the safest, most reliable, and least impactful on the environment.

[–]penguins2946 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe you should consult people who actually understand nuclear power before you take such a dumb political stance on it. It's kinda sad that someone running for the president has such a factually incorrect opinion on something and they act like if it's as law. To say nuclear power is "obsolete" and to say that it is "toxic from the beginning to the end" just shows you have no fundamental understanding of it.

[–]Daktush 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Dirty

False. Instead of pumping the waste into the atmosphere we hide it and there is a lot less of it by multiple orders of magnitude

  • Dangerous

False. Nuclear produces the least deaths per MW produced out of all the sources of energy, even when taking into account disasters such as Fukushima and Chernobyl. Even with Solar, the amount of technicians that die while installing solar plates is greater than the combined mortality of nuclear per MW produced (and lumping together modern reactors in developed countries on safe grounds with old, obsolete reactors in communist countries and reactors that took quakes/tsunamis much larger than what they were designed for is unfair)

  • Expensive and obsolete.

Obsolete is a non argument (this is about costs/benefits of new plants), I believe it is still less expensive than solar / wind once you factor in we would need to store energy and government subsidies

[–]joshuabeebe 57ポイント58ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spoken like a person who hasn't consulted any real experts in nuclear power. Shameful really.

[–]max-peck 36ポイント37ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's bullshit, Jill. Nuclear energy offers a cleaner solution to our growing energy problems than typical coal based energy plants.

Also, Nuclear isn't dangerous as long as the facilities are properly maintained.

[–]hiyatheremister 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The #1 reason I can't vote for you. As an environmentalist, this is a dangerous, outdated, and ignorant viewpoint. Moreover, all of your so-called "renewable technologies" require MORE mining and resources than nuclear (silicon, heavy metals, water, etc.).

[–]IS_THIS_NAME_TAKEN- 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is one thing where I disagree Jill. Firstly only 3% of nuclear waste is "high level", with most of it degrading within a few years. Nearly anything can count as "nuclear waste" (clothing overalls, paper etc) if certain conditions are met. Next, per kilowatt of energy produced nuclear is safest form of energy production, beating both solar and wind energy. Nuclear energy is also very reliable and is easily controllable compared to wind and solar energy - you can't control how much sun there is one day or how much wind there is the next.

[–]JayEssArr 8ポイント9ポイント  (19子コメント)

Hey there, Dr. Stein! Thanks for the AMA, I just submitted by ballot today and I happily checked the Green Party's box as many times as I could.

The other day, Hillary Clinton responded -- for the first time so far -- to the ongoing protests at Standing Rock, where you have repeatedly joined water protectors in saving their sacred land from the construction of DAPL.

“From the beginning of this campaign, Secretary Clinton has been clear that she thinks all voices should be heard and all views considered in federal infrastructure projects. Now, all of the parties involved… need to find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest. As that happens, it’s important that on the ground in North Dakota, everyone respects demonstrators’ rights to protest peacefully, and workers’ rights to do their jobs safely.”

What are your thoughts on this response? I think it's pretty clear at this point that Hillary Clinton is going to win the election, a thought that terrifies me about as much as a Trump victory would. What can be done to ensure that Clinton establishes a more clear position on this issue rather than the sterile non-response she offered up above? What can be done to protect Indigenous peoples from continued imperialism, especially considering the Democratic Party's silence (with the exception of, like, Elizabeth Warren) on this issue? I know your plan for if elected, but what about after November 8, when all is known and all is said and done?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 48ポイント49ポイント  (11子コメント)

Hillary's response - which said nothing - is shameful. She supports pipelines, including this horrible, dangerous, bakken oil pipeline that puts the water supply for 14 million people at risk, and which violates the human rights of the Standing Rock Sioux. We must continue to fight, as the indigenous leaders are doing, on all the front lines of climate justice. And we must continue to organize - TOGETHER. That's what the Green Party is for.... so we can come together across the spectrum of justice - for climate justice, student justice, worker justice, lgbtq justice, immigrant justice, african american justice etc. If we only fight on our separate issues, we are divided and conquered. We must come together, on behalf of people, planet and peace over profit. And we must challenge power politically if we are to change things. Join us at jill2016.com or on fb/twitter @drjillstein . Together we are unstoppable. And the struggle has only begun!

[–]DeeDee_Z 28ポイント29ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'd like to genericize this question and answer, if possible.

"Suppose that, like today, we have Crude Oil at Point A, a Refinery at Point B, and several or many hundreds of miles between them. Product -has- to get from A to B. What's the best option?"

(If the party is opposed to pipelines, does that mean that trains are preferred? Or is there a third option?)

[–]Chicago-Gooner -38ポイント-37ポイント  (82子コメント)

Hey Jill, I'm a potential voter that's caught between voting for you or writing Bernie Sanders in.

My question to you is, why should I vote for you instead? Out of all the candidates you're my top choice, but a lot of you and the green parties policies are a tad to extreme for me.

I was a very passionate Bernie supporter (still am) and still feel like he's the one who best represents me, thought I'd give you a chance to tell me why you're my vote.

[–]jillstein2016[S] 117ポイント118ポイント  (43子コメント)

Write-in votes only count if the candidate has registered, which Bernie Sanders has not. So write-in votes for Sanders won’t count towards anything.

Every vote for the Green Party helps us get closer to 5%, which would qualify us for $10 million or more in public funds in the 2020 election and win ballot access for the Green Party in states across the country. So you should vote Green to invest your vote in building a truly democratic party for the people, a party that doesn’t take corporate money.

Bernie was sabotaged by the Democratic National Committee - as revealed in their leaked emails. Bernie proved that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter revolutionary party. It's time to move on and build a party that supports the people - that doesn't take marching orders from the big banks, the fossil fuel giants and the war profiteers.

[–]throwaiiay 86ポイント87ポイント  (12子コメント)

Bernie proved that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter revolutionary party. It's time to move on and build a party that supports the people

That's pretty harsh. Bernie's campaign did extraordinarily well, and he polled far better than you have (no offense). If his campaign is proof that you can't have a revolutionary campaign with the Democrats, what is your campaign proof of?

[–]thatpj 84ポイント85ポイント  (21子コメント)

Bernie proved that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter revolutionary party.

Bernie also said that his followers should not vote Green. How do you feel about that? You seem to bring up his name a lot.

[–]greenronald 6ポイント7ポイント  (28子コメント)

Where and how will the Green Party of the United States make a breakthrough on a local level?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 51ポイント52ポイント  (15子コメント)

We have made lots of local break throughs - though the corporate media doesn't want you to know about them. Gail Mclaughlin presided as a Green Mayor over Richmond California, where she massively reduced police violence, supported local small businesses, reigned in the safety violations of the Chevron refinery, and used eminent domain to challenge foreclosures by the banks.

The Green mayor of New Paltz New York, Jason West, was the FIRST official to preside over gay marriages - and went to jail for it.

Green officials in Minneapolis also made important innovations as park commissioner and city councilor.

[–]jelvinjs7 33ポイント34ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't think this is the corporate media hiding facts, but rather having no reason to report on it. Get more mayors in bigger cities, state legislators, or better yet, major politicians like governors and Congressmen, and the media will want to mention you. Right now, the local elections you've won aren't interesting, and are therefore not worth reporting on.

[–]Bromaster3000 1893ポイント1894ポイント  (333子コメント)

You once said that "wi-fi" is a threat to the health of American children? Why do you hold that belief, if you still hold it?

[–]jillstein2016[S] -620ポイント-619ポイント  (181子コメント)

A number of scientific studies have raised red flags about possible health effects of WiFi radiation on young children. I do not have a personal opinion that WiFi is or isn't a health issue for children. There is not enough information to know. I do however believe in science. Scientific research should go forward and find out. Countries including Switzerland, Italy, France, Austria, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Israel, Russia and China, have banned or restricted these technologies in schools.

These concerns were ignited by a recent National Institutes of Health study that provided some of the strongest evidence to date that exposure to radiation from cell phones and wireless devices is associated with the formation of rare cancers. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/

If we believe in science, which i think most Redditors do, let's follow the science where it takes us.

[–]Faaresemo 445ポイント446ポイント  (7子コメント)

To those of you saying that she has linked to evidence and that we should be refuting it instead of just calling her a moron, I'm afraid to let you know that she has not cited any evidence.

  • The link she provided is to a journal article. That is not evidence.

  • The article does not provide citations. So that eliminates reliability.

  • The article is speaking about a study which had its findings released to a "prepublication Web site." That means that they have not been peer-reviewed, nor published. Generally, the scientific community does not consider anything to be note-worthy if it has not been both peer-reviewed and published.

  • She has cited a single study. For scientific findings to be reliable, they need to be reproduced. A single study does not demonstrate reproducibility.

What I'm trying to say is, there is nothing to refute. If you are actually interested, do some searches on google scholar. It provides only papers, and most people who aren't involved directly in the field don't really have the time to go reading through papers for internet discourse.

[–]rslake 159ポイント160ポイント  (7子コメント)

You are a physician (and therefore, ideally, a scientist), so you should know that a handful of poorly-designed studies with mixed results aren't enough to provide evidence, even for your wishy-washy non-stance.

And since other commenters are complaining that nobody has posted sources to counter your ridiculous claims, this article has several. And this article has several more.

Your anti-science stances and not-quite-stances weaken the credibility of physicians everywhere, which puts patients in danger. In any other politician, this would be simply weak-hearted waffling and pandering. But from a doctor, it's unethical as hell. Grow a backbone and stop bowing and scraping for your bozo fringe base.

[–]Ameisen 62ポイント63ポイント  (2子コメント)

It does seem as though you only believe in science when it enforces your predispositions and your dialog. You talk about things like how terrible nuclear power is when basically everything you cite as 'fact' about it is completely untrue.

I honestly don't think you have any integrity. If you want to push your dialog, fine, but do so with honesty. If the facts don't support your dialog, perhaps it is time to reevaluate it. Your fringe supporter group is not nearly substantial enough for you to be effectively ruining your image this way.

[–]Kapitalist_Pigdog 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

These concerns were ignited by a recent National Institutes of Health study that provided some of the strongest evidence to date that exposure to radiation from cell phones and wireless devices is associated with the formation of rare cancers.

But don't those use a much shorter wavelength than WiFi? WiFi uses a frequency in the radio wave range, but I don't think that's relevant to a study on devices that use a frequency in the microwave range. To me, it'd be like saying we should investigate visible light since UV rays can cause cancer.

[–]MaohTheGiant 46ポイント47ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi, I've been working as a school teacher in China for three years now. I've worked at kindergartens, a high school, an English training school and a primary school. Every single one of them has had WiFi in at least some capacity, though quality of signal is obviously another question.

You're full of shit. China does not ban or restrict WiFi in schools and if they do nobody actually pays attention to it. When you wonder why you lost the election, look back at statements like this and then ask yourself if you know why you didn't come close to pulling in the same number of votes that the Republicans or Democrats did.

[–]dukenPL 63ポイント64ポイント  (5子コメント)

You listed Poland as an example, and that is a manipulation. Yes, wifi in schools is limited but that isn't because it's believed to be harmful, rather- to stop kids from using the internet while in class. All the teachers in schools do have access to wifi, it's just secured with a password. It's probably the case with all the other countries you listed as well.

[–]jerrrrremy 131ポイント132ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't have any questions for you, but just wanted to make sure you're fully aware of how much damage you and your ridiculous, nonsensical ideas have caused to the idea of having any parties beyond the two-party system. You will forever be held up as an example of the type of uninformed person that leads one of these parties, and your actions will serve to reduce credibility for anyone who makes a legitimate attempt at being another option.

[–]jReX- 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

I might have misunderstood you, but here in Switzerland WiFi isn't banned at our school, nor is it restricted. I've also never heard of anything like it before at other schools.

[–]MauiWanderer 26ポイント27ポイント  (0子コメント)

A number of scientific studies have raised red flags about possible health effects of WiFi radiation on young children. I do not have a personal opinion that WiFi is or isn't a health issue for children.

Please re-read that.

[–]itty53 231ポイント232ポイント  (11子コメント)

let's follow the science where it takes us

Except nuclear energy.

[–]StefanNc 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Believing in science also means falsifiability. If one or two papers show that something is the case, it does not automatically mean that it is true. Hundreds of papers have been written about RF-radiation that show that health effects are small (look up Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) as well). Also from a physical perspective; WiFi has a very low power. And thus RF-dielectric-heating will only occur in terms of tiny temperature changes, which are nearly negligible.

[–]wholetthehilldawgout 66ポイント67ポイント  (36子コメント)

I thought you'd at least dogwhistle, but no, you really are that stupid.

Do not ever call yourself a pro-science candidate ever again.

[–]butdainternetpoints 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yet, drilling down into the data, in the male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RF radiation the number of brain tumors at all levels of exposure was not statistically different than in control males—those who had no exposure at all.

Furthermore,

The findings are not definitive, and there were other confusing findings that scientists cannot explain—including that male rats exposed to the radiation seemed to live longer than those in the control group.

So radio frequency radiation did not produce a statistically significant increase in number of tumors and this is "the strongest evidence to date"? Alright maybe I won't smash my modem with a hammer.

[–]DownWithAssad 48ポイント49ポイント  (0子コメント)

Could you explain your VEEP Mr. Baraka's bizarre Russian disinformation statements?

Anti-semetic "false-flag" conspiracy theories:

Baraka also questioned news stories about the June 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, which Israel blamed on Hamas members and which led to Israeli air strikes in the Gaza Strip against Hamas. One month after the kidnappings, which he called a "false flag operation," Baraka indicated in an interview his belief that "the kids were supposed to be kidnapped but they weren't supposed to be murdered. That was an accident. But nevertheless it gave Israel the pretext that they were setting up for, and that was the opportunity to basically attack Hamas in order to destroy the unity government."

Source: http://noliesradio.org/archives/85748

Anti-American propaganda

Baraka has also asserted that the atrocities of the Syrian Civil War are being "fomented by a demented and dying U.S. empire, with the assistance of the royalist monarchies of the Middle East and the gangster states of NATO."

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/04/the-syrian-elections/

Called Assad's fake elections in 2012 legitimate, even though the U.N. said otherwise:

Baraka has rejected the U.S. position that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and the 2014 Syrian presidential election are illegitimate. In an article, he wrote that the idea of Assad's illegitimacy had been "carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media." He further argued that the election was proof that Syrians have "not surrendered their national sovereignty to the geostrategic interests of the U.S. and its colonial allies in Europe and Israel," United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized Syria's holding of an election during an ongoing civil war for undermining a political solution to the conflict, and the lack of independent election monitoring was widely reported.

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/04/the-syrian-elections/

Repeated the Russian disinformation about Nazi hordes "genociding" Russians in Ukraine, along with falsely claiming the perpetrators of the Odessa Massacre were "U.S. supported":

Baraka characterized the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as a "U.S.-supported coup" that contained "racist neo-Nazi elements." After the 2014 Odessa clashes, which resulted in the deaths of 42 pro-Russian and six pro-Ukrainian protestors, Baraka wrote that he was "outraged by the murder of people defending their rights to self-determination at the hands of U.S.-supported thugs in Odessa."

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/18/obamas-legacy-permanent-war-and-liberal-accommodation/

Source: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/benghazi-boko-haram-why-i-support-benghazi-inquiry

Repeated the Russian disinformation of MH17 being a "false-flag", along with accusing OSCE monitors of being "spies":

Two days after the event, Baraka expressed his suspicions that the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine was a "false flag" operation, saying: "Someone wrote about three weeks ago that we should expect a major false flag operation in eastern Ukraine that's going to be then blamed on the Russians. And that's exactly what has happened. They're trying to say in the Western press that the Ukrainian government does not have access to that kind of weaponry, when it's clear that they do." He criticized Western media coverage of the event for "undermining anything coming from Russia Today. That's where you see the story being advanced that there is a possibility that this story is a little more complicated than people realize." Baraka also claimed that observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe were "sent in basically as spies who showed up on the scene to quote-unquote 'monitor'."

Source: http://noliesradio.org/archives/85748

Transcript of the show, as some people are accusing Wikipedia of taking Mr. Baraka's words out of context:

“What do you think of this plane—Malaysian plane shootdown?” Barrett asks. “The U.S. media is putting out the possibilities of this being done by the Russians or by the pro-Russian Ukrainians, but President Putin’s plane was flying through there shortly before this plane was shot down—it looks like Putin’s plane may have been targeted. If so, obviously that wouldn’t have been done by the Russians or pro-Russian separatists quote unquote, that would have been done by the Kiev Zio-Nazi government. Which is what it is—these Zionist Jewish oligarchs, billionaire criminal dons, are funding Nazi street thugs. These are the people who overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government of Ukraine and created a fascist junta, and they are the ones who would be the suspects, at least in my opinion—somebody shooting at Putin’s plane, and yet the media doesn’t even raise that as a possibility.”

“And when it’s raised, it’s raised as a conspiracy,” Baraka responded. “I think that this is a—I was trying to find the citation, I remember reading, I can’t remember who it was, someone wrote about three weeks ago that we should expect false flag, a major false flag operation in eastern Ukraine that’s going to be blamed on the Russians. And that’s exactly what has happened.”

Accused the U.S. of being behind Boko Haram so that it would occupy Nigerian oil fields and kick out the Chinese:

Baraka has criticized calls for Western military action against the jihadist rebel group Boko Haram, arguing that "a purely military response will only exacerbate an insurgency whose roots lie in the complex socio-historical conditions and internal contradictions of Northeast Nigeria." Baraka also stated that while he was "outraged" by the kidnapping, he was also suspicious of U.S. humanitarian concerns in the region: "U.S. policymakers don’t give a damn about the schoolgirls in Nigeria because their real objective is to use the threat of Boko Haram in the northern part of the country to justify the real goal of occupying the oil fields in the south and to block the Chinese in Nigeria."

Source: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/benghazi-boko-haram-why-i-support-benghazi-inquiry

Regularly associates with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, anti-semetic CIA/Mossad false-flag conspiracy theories:

In January 2016, Baraka's "Je suis Charlie" article was republished in an anthology about the November 2015 Paris attacks,ANOTHER French False Flag? Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernadino, edited by Kevin Barrett, a Holocaust denier and 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Other contributors to the anthology (including controversial figures such as Gilad Atzmon and Alain Soral) posited "that the Charlie Hebdo attacks and many others were perpetrated by the CIA and Mossad" as "false flags."

Accused Sanders of being controlled opposition and of supporting war crimes, while saying his campaign is a commitment to "white supremacy":

In February 2016 during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, Baraka wrote that "[i]n this period of media-driven pseudo-opposition in the form of Ta-Nehisi Coates, Beyoncé, or even Bernie Sanders, it is increasingly difficult to make the distinction between image and reality, especially when the production of images and symbols is controlled by dominant forces with an interest in keeping us all stupid." In September 2015, he said that "the world that a President Sanders promises—continued war crimes from the sky with drone strikes and Saudi led terror in support of the Western imperial project." He has referred to Obama and the Sanders campaign as "a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy."

Are these out of context? Factually and objectively, all of them are false. I'm worried he's being influenced by Russian/Iranian propaganda, thus showing his lack of judgement.

[–]CrRonaldo17 -46ポイント-45ポイント  (14子コメント)

Hello. Will you audit the Pentagon?

[–]jillstein2016[S] 74ポイント75ポイント  (10子コメント)

Yes!! A DoD Inspector General’s report revealed the Pentagon can’t account for $6.5 trillion worth of military spending. Despite a 1996 law requiring all federal agencies to complete regular audits, the Pentagon has never complied with that law and never completed an audit. There are many indications of incredible waste going on with the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars we dump into the military, and auditing the Pentagon should be a first order of business.

[–]kicker58 75ポイント76ポイント  (1子コメント)

Huh!?! I guess this account that asked the question was just created and have a softball question.

[–]TheCocksmith 28ポイント29ポイント  (4子コメント)

Your AMA is really shameful. Dodging difficult questions, answering planted questions from brand new accounts, and just spouting bland rhetoric left and right.

Third party candidates like you and Gary Johnson actually make Hillary look like a competent candidate.

[–]RAND0611 4376ポイント4377ポイント  (452子コメント)

Your VP, Ajamu Baraka, Jill.

Regarding the integration of African Americans into the middle class: "Saner people would call that process genocide, but in the U.S. it is called racial progress."

Called the 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers a "false flag".

Called je suis Charlie a "arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy" and the Republican March a "white power march"

Argued that the Charlie Hedbo shooting was a Mossad/CIA joint false flag

Called Obama an "Uncle Tom President" because he condemned the Ferguson riots, and argued that he has shown "obsequious deference to white power".

criticized Cornel West for supporting Bernie Sanders, saying that West was "sheep-dogging for the Democrats" by "drawing voters into the corrupt Democratic party

My Question: How do you reconcile those comments and stances with voters? Do you think, in your absence, that your VP could lead the United States effectively?

[–]lalalalalalala71 141ポイント142ポイント  (10子コメント)

I know the issue of vaccinations has been treated elsewhere, but I'd like to draw attention to this particular tweet: https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/786620278487052290

Do you have any scientific evidence that the minute amount of thimerosal that used to be present in vaccines had any significant harmful effect on public health? What did it cause, specifically? How often? To whom? With what intensity? Can you provide at least a rough estimate of how the benefit of removing it from vaccines outweighs the loss of the benefit it caused by being present in them?

As a reference, its benefit was as a preservative, making them longer-lasting and consequently cheaper, which especially benefits third-world nations where vaccine storage is unreliable. Also, it is worth mentioning that thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is readily metabolized by the body and does not accumulate, as opposed to methylmercury, which accumulates and is present in tuna in larger quantities than the thimerosal in vaccines. If thimerosal should be banned from vaccines due to public health issues, why should tuna consumption be allowed?

In short: what is your view of the idea that policy should be evidence-based?

[–]YNot1989 178ポイント179ポイント  (32子コメント)

Why is it that the Green party doesn't reach out more to hunters and fishers?

In Washington state, local fishers were some of the biggest supporters of Dam removal to restore salmon populations. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, "The sale of hunting licenses, tags, and stamps is the primary source of funding for most state wildlife conservation efforts." One of the largest private wetland conservation funds, Ducks Unlimited, is financed primarily by duck hunters.

It seems like hunters and fishers would be an ideal demographic for the Green party to reach out to, especially at the local level.

[–]LikeAScientist 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hey! You still have those horrifying views on Nuclear and GMOs? What about that unnecessarily ambiguous support of Vaccines?

Look there are a lot of really good reasons not to support the main parties this election or any election. However, Clinton is, to the best of my knowledge, a better candidate for science than you. I want you to convince me I'm wrong. I hate having to say that woman is the best candidate for scientists to support. However, your stance on GMOs is horrifying and frankly uneducated0, your stance on Nuclear puts the environment before human lives while stifling an entire field of science (and arguably fear mongering), and your stance on Vaccines is unnecessarily and uncomfortably ambiguous/sympathetic.

I would like you to put these issues to rest right now, and address the up and coming issue of genetic engineering (hopefully in humans). My questions: Can you tell me that you support GMOs, flat out? Can you tell me you consider nuclear to be of the same importance as wind and solar? Can you, concisely and without any political dodging or unnecessary sympathy tell me that you support vaccines? And, what is your view on genetically engineering humans (I'd like to have a genetically engineered daughter, and if that ever happens I'm going to show her this post, so keep her in mind)?


/u/jillstein2016's views on Nuclear1,2,3 , GMO's4 , Vaccines5,6 , and Wifi 7

[–]C_Wags 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good afternoon Dr. Stein, and thank you for taking the time to do this AMA.

When asked about your opinions on vaccines, you had this to say back in a July piece that ran in the Washington Post:

"Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence.

As a medical student and future physician, I'm a little alarmed that you were seemingly flippant about the CDC, in whom the public needs to place trust in order for several public health initiatives to be successful. It appears to myself, and other people in the medical community, that you are pandering to the liberal faction of anti-vaxxers for political purposes. I think statements like these can be misleading, especially when vaccines like MMR, DPT and influenza have been studied exhaustively with CDC oversight and proven time and time again to be just as safe as other available medications and treatments.

My question is thus: do you think running for president puts you at odds with your goals and aims as a physician, and how do you plan to balance your medical and political interests when making decisions on policy?

[–]Imadethisfoeyourcr 590ポイント591ポイント  (62子コメント)

On Twitter you said: "nuclear power plants = weapons of mass destruction" https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/715230945679380481.

Could you please elaborate on this quote and explain how this energy source is to be considered a weapon of mass destruction?

Do you stand by this statement still?

[–]baronvoncommentz 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi! Former Green party supporter here (from back in the day, remember your campaigns in MA?).

  1. You've attacked Hillary Clinton as worse than Trump (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/jill-stein-insists-trump-is-less-dangerous-than-clinton-and-attacks-bernie-sanders-as-a-dc-insider/) - can you support that in a concrete way?

  2. Do you feel liberals and progressives will have an easier time fighting for women's rights, gay rights, separation of church and state, against police violence, for the first amendment, the environment, and a more peaceful world under Trump or Clinton? Why specifically?

  3. Why have you consistently avoided providing concrete policy details in every campaign you've ever run?

  4. Are you running to win, or to make a point?

  5. As a medical doctor - how can you comfortably shed doubt on the safety of vaccines?

[–]oddapt 658ポイント659ポイント  (96子コメント)

Why haven't you come out and unequivocally said that the anti-vaccine movement is based on flawed science and should be rejected? All evidence that vaccines cause autism are thoroughly debunked, and as a person of science, don't you think you should disavow the vocal minority that still holds on to this delusion?

Some of your previous statements have pivoted off of that issue to talk more about money's influence in healthcare policy, but I'd appreciate it if you could answer the question directly.

[–]Muaddibisme 33ポイント34ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hi Jill.

My biggest barrier to voting for you is your stance on scientific issues. Wi-Fi, vaccines, nuclear power, etc.

Can you defend why you won't trust those who study these issues as their career?

The appropriate scientists are exactly who we should listen to on these issues. Political argument will never change the data.

Any presidential candidate should be standing by the conclusions these people draw from the data.

[–]LysanderSporker 31ポイント32ポイント  (1子コメント)

How do you plan to actually make any of this happen?

The Presidency is not a dictatorship. All the great ideas in the world don't mean anything if you can't make the legislation happen. The Green Party is running a total of 31 candidates for Congress: five in the Senate and 26 in the House. So even if you did win and all the Green Congressional candidates won, you wouldn't be able to do anything without getting the Republicans and Democrats to cooperate with you--and should you win in November, I don't see the GOP or Dems being terribly willing to do so.

So why should I vote for you, who I agree with on probably 90% of the things but as far as I can tell would be able to make none of them actually happen, instead of Hillary Clinton, with whom I agree with on like 60% of the things and stands a really good chance of making half of them actually happen? I might feel better voting for you for making a statement against the two-party system and all that, but in the end isn't actually making good things happen (even if they're not perfect, even if they're not enough, even if the organization that makes them isn't absolutely morally pure, they're still an improvement over what we have now) more important than how I feel stepping out of the voting booth?

[–]ZenWattage 55ポイント56ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are you going to fire whoever recommended you do an AMA on Reddit?

You should because to come on Reddit and do an AMA then dodge all the questions is detrimental to your image with a community of people with a very loud voice.

How am I supposed to continue seeing you as a viable candidate after this clear demonstration you are anything but informed and anything but transparent? Do you think we really need more uniformed leaders who are completely out of touch with reality?

[–]gbinasia 173ポイント174ポイント  (20子コメント)

Your running mate Ajamu Baraka has characterized Barrack Obama and Loretta Lynch as exemples of the 'black petit-bourgeoisie who have become the living embodiments of the partial success of the state’s attempt to colonize the consciousness of Africans/black people'

Could you elaborate on what he meant?

[–]creejay 539ポイント540ポイント  (69子コメント)

You recently suffered from pneumonia brought on by your asthma. Now that you've recovered, do you regret mocking Hillary Clinton on twitter for coughing?

#HackingHillary, here's my prescription: Take a #JillChillPill and stop campaigning altogether to ensure global peace. #PagingDrStein

[–]lilaznswimma 66ポイント67ポイント  (9子コメント)

Hi Dr. Stein. I'm a pre-med student, wanting to be a physician just like you. I'm also involved with my local Student Government.

What are you thoughts regarding medical education in the United States? My issue is the funneling between receiving your MD/DO and residencies. There aren't enough residencies programs, often due to the lack of government funding, for medical school graduate. Especially in a time where our population is significantly getting older, the need for physician is increasing yet we're not expanding residencies program to allow these med students (who are graduating with SIGNIFICANT amount of debt) get into working inside medicine. I know you have plans to cancel student debt, but what about students going to graduate/professional schools?

A lot of my colleagues believe that you're pandering to the anti-vax and anti-science crowd. What is your position regarding vaccines and scientific research and its applications for public health?

Last but not least (a nonpolitical question), what made you transition from being a medical doctor to a presidential candidate? In other words, how did you transition from the medical profession, which I assume takes up a lot of time already, to American politics?

[–]omgplatypus 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dr. Stein, I apologize if this comes off as an attack but I have some concerns about your experience. You've been an activist for a long time, with ideologies that appeal to me as a progressive. However your experience in regards to holding elected office and working within our current political system is minimal to nonexistent. While I feel that has its merits in regard to corruption I believe it presents some alarming problems in regards to ability to enact change and progress in the form of policy and law. Without the support of a bottom up movement where like minded individuals hold legislative positions could you tell me how you would be successful in office in regards to enacting policy change. And as a follow up to that, while I share a lot of concerns about Clinton the idea of a false equivalency between her and Trump seems patently false. The differences in what he and Clinton represent to me are not as minimal as those between Obama and McCain and Romney. Would you be comfortable with an outcome where the Green Party split off enough of the vote to the point that Donald trump became president?

[–]coincrazyy -27ポイント-26ポイント  (118子コメント)

American abroad who voted for you!

American friends tell me your election is impossible due to how the system works, but then I see you are on the ballot in 48 states.?

How could your election be impossible if you could win 48 states?

Or are these people just misinformed?

[–]jillstein2016[S] -54ポイント-53ポイント  (88子コメント)

Yes we could win! The corporate media has blacked us out for fear of the voter revolt. But that revolt is happening. Clinton and Trump are the most dislike, untrusted presidential candidates in our history. 76% of Americans were clamoring for open debates. But the Commission on Presidential debates - which is none other than the Democratic and Republican parties - set the rules to exclude political opposition. That's not democracy. That's two-party tyranny.

With the new revelations of Trump's abuse of women, and the Clinton Inc fundraising scandals and reopening of the FBI investigation, people are more desperate than ever for a politics of integrity. My campaign is the secret the political establishment is terrified of. Because that establishment is a house of cards waiting to fall down. I encourage people to find out more about a real politics of by and for the people at jill2016.com or on fb/twitter @drjillstein.

[–]iposterbot 20ポイント21ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've heard you use that 76% figure many times, but where does it come from?

[–]DakotaDevil 230ポイント231ポイント  (24子コメント)

Yes we could win!

You're polling at 2-3%. You have to win a state before you can win an election.

[–]wholetthehilldawgout 232ポイント233ポイント  (27子コメント)

My campaign is the secret the political establishment is terrified of.

Sure.

[–]TheUsher 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes we could win!

And yes, rainbows could shoot out of my ass.

[–]limeade09 95ポイント96ポイント  (4子コメント)

You should feel lucky that there is a "media blackout" of your campaign.

It's the only think stopping the world from seeing how ridiculous you are.

[–]DrummDragon 84ポイント85ポイント  (7子コメント)

Why do you feel the need to cater to the anti-science and conspiracy fringe? As a Doctor you SHOULD know that vaccines are perfectly safe, but you seem to forget this scientifically verified information in order to get votes. The anti-vaxx movement has already endangered and killed countless children across the US, what do you plan to do about it?

[–]houston_oilers 38ポイント39ポイント  (6子コメント)

Hello Ms. Stein. As per John Oliver's smackdown have you figured out 'quantitative easing' isn't actually a magic trick, is a monetary policy tool, and actually rendered a profit when Wall St. paid it back?

Also, why did you choose a maniac who advocates White genocide as your running mate?

[–]DrHollandxvx 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

What are your views on animal rights and, as someone who stands up for environmental issues, the role that animal agriculture plays in environmental degradation?

[–]dollabath 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dr. Stein,

With regards to sex work, your platform states: "We urge that the term “sex work” not be used in relation to prostitution. With the increasing conflation of trafficking (the violent and illegal trafficking in women and girls for forced sex) with prostitution, it is impossible to know which is which, and what violence the term “sex work” is masking. An increasing number of experts think the percentage of choice prostitution is very small, leaving the larger number of women exposed to serious and often fatal violence. Much of what is commonly called prostitution is actually sex trafficking by definition."

Regarding sex work, what policy model do you support? Are you in favor of legalization, decriminalization, or continued criminalization? Would you consider discussing policy models with actual sex workers, sex worker organizations (SWOP-USA), and human rights organizations (Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch)?

Respectfully,

A Sex Worker

[–]DragonPup 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hi Jill. You attended Russia Today's party in Moscow (You also were seated with Putin, and Trump's senior military expert Michael Flynn). While in Russia you criticized America's human rights record, but you were strangely silent on Russia's. Would you like to state what you think of human rights in Russia today?

[–]direpolarbear 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi Dr. Stein! In your opinion, what are some of the issues that you think are very important that are left out of the public political conversation these days?

Also, what are your suggestions for reforms to improve the quality of democratic participation in political decision making, including voting, referendums, campaign laws etc?

Thank you, hope you get the Greens over 5% this year!

[–]Bricka_Bracka 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

My Green New Deal will halt climate change

What the hell is this? You could remove USA from the planet entirely and you aren't halting climate change. Are you this far removed from the issues that you think you can just stop it like that? Are you familiar with positive feedback loops?

Unless you plan on changing our economy into 100% CO2 scrubbers, this is a bullshit statement.

[–]9pigsinspace 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a terrible AMA. Why come on here and not answer any questions? Terrible PR in action here

[–]SwampDrainer 229ポイント230ポイント  (99子コメント)

As a supporter of reparations, can you explain why all Americans are collectively guilty for the crime of slavery? What other crimes am I guilty of simply due to my race, sex, religion, or nationality?

[–]EarthWindnFireEmoji 107ポイント108ポイント  (13子コメント)

How would you reform the NSA's mass surveillance program?

[–]iLikePierogies 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

John Oliver absolutely dismantled you on last week tonight. As someone who doesn't like either Trump/Clinton i was really unaware how non-commital you and Gary Johnson were on issues.

I guess my question is, do you have a rebuttal to anything mentioned on his show?

[–]IAmTheVi0linist 39ポイント40ポイント  (7子コメント)

I've heard before that you are in favor of decommissioning all of our nuclear power plants. It this true? If so, why do you believe that shutting down the plants that have proven to be cleaner and almost as safe as conventional power plants would be a good idea?

[–]baconfriedpork 70ポイント71ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why did you feel the need to write the word "title" in the title of your AMA?

[–]ShadouxGT 42ポイント43ポイント  (0子コメント)

What are your plans on the topic of immigration, and do you support any type of reform? Thank you!

[–]ColdS3 37ポイント38ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you plan on significantly reducing carbon emissions?

[–]sevintoid 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This entire AMA is proof to me the third parties are a joke and complete waste of time.

If they wanted to be seen on a national level, instead of propping up Stein and Johnson, two very deeply flawed candidates with no shot at winning, why arent these parties banding together and pushing legislation that will give them a better chance in the future? If there was ever a time for the general population to be in favor of reform, its NOW. And yet all we hear about is getting that 5% which just gives them more money for matching funds, its all about money, thats all these parties care about, and thats why they even throw someone like Stein in the ring, to hopefully get enough votes for that sweet sweet fed money.

Why not fight for debate reform? Why not fight for electoral college reform? Why spend money on these people who have very iffy policies and half the time can't articulate their policies in a way that are practical, affordable and bipartisan enough to get pushed through?

Yes we only have a two party system, because the third parties are more concerned about getting their sliver of the pie, rather than fighting for us. The Green Party is useless.

[–]WRCousCous 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why are you wasting our time with a sham campaign? Seriously, why should I take you and the Greens seriously, when you don't run local or state-level campaigns and have no long-term strategy to implement progressive reform in the US?

[–]Hynjia 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

What are you intentions for reforming our economy to help the American people? Do you believe in more regulations for capital enterprises that benefit workers (i.e.: mandatory paid maternal leave) and/or socialist reformations that inevitably give workers more power over their workplace?

[–]AloneWithTheCalm 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

When asked in a Vox interview about Russian aggression in Crimea and Ukraine, Stein answered, "These are highly questionable situations. Why are we — Russia used to own Ukraine. Ukraine was historically a part of Russia for quite some period of time, and we all know there was this conversation with Victoria Nuland about planning the coup and who was going to take over... Let’s just stop pretending there are good guys here and bad guys here. These are complicated situations. Yeah, Russia is doing lots of human rights abuse, but you know what? So are we."[140] When asked by Politico if she thought that Putin was an "incipient despot", Stein answered, "To some extent, yes, but there could be a whole lot worse... when we needlessly provoke him and endanger him and surround him with war games--you know, this is sort of the Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids, what we are doing to Russia right now, and I don't think this is a good idea."[161]

Stein has argued that the United States "helped foment" a coup in Ukraine, maintaining that Ukraine should be neutral and that the United States should not arm it.[159] She was critical of the Ukrainian government formed after the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, saying that "ultra-nationalists and ex-Nazis came to power."[162] She met with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in December 2015 at a banquet celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Russian state television network RT. While in Russia, Stein criticized U.S. foreign policy (saying that the U.S. had a "policy of domination" instead of "international law, human rights and diplomacy") and human rights in the U.S, but did not criticize Russian foreign policy or human rights abuses, a decision that prompted criticism from commentator John Aravosis.[163]

How long have you been working for the russian government?

[–]BRFan 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

West Virginia is the state whose socioeconomic condition has been most damaged by oppression from the fossil fuel industry. As our mines close down so goes the only livelihoods that many of these people have ever known. What would a Jill Stein presidency fight for to ensure a pathway to respect, dignity and a sustainable future for the people of West Virginia?

[–]TonyTheJet 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why do an AMA and not answer anything? This just solidifies negative opinions of you.

[–]Affinity420 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So... You about that legalization of cannabis? I think you'll find a lot of support with /r/trees & /r/elderents with supporting federal legalization. Even at a state choice level you would help grow economies much like Washington, Oregon, Colorado and for D.C. our Nation's capital. Yet, Iowa and many other small population states are held back, when this would only help grow populations in area where it was legalized. It also creates jobs. Throws more money into the economy.

I'm sure you have seen both sides.

But I want to know what your stand is behind legalization or marijuana, and how you plan on dealing with the war on drugs?

[–]HeartDenko 66ポイント67ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're polling behind Harambe in Texas. Is there any chance we will have the option to vote for a Harambe/Stein ticket?

[–]RadicalNonComformist 17ポイント18ポイント  (19子コメント)

Do you agree with what your running-mate said about Charlie Hebdo?

What it means for many of us in the Black community is that Je Suis Charlie has become a sound bite to justify the erasure of non-Europeans, and for ignoring the sentiments, values and views of the racialized “other.” In short, Je Suis Charlie has become an arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy that was echoed at the white power march on Sunday in Paris and in the popularity of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo.

http://www.ajamubaraka.com/the-charlie-hebdo-white-power-rally-in-paris-a-celebration-of-western-hypocrisy/

I like your platform, but I find this bothering.

[–]moeburn 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I support the idea of moving America away from a country reliant on fossil fuels, and one towards renewable green energy. But at the same time, I also understand that there are thousands of Americans whose jobs and livelihood rely on fossil fuel industries.

We obviously can't just shut off the coal and oil and gas industries overnight and tell all those people who are out of jobs "tough luck", but we obviously can't keep using and mining fossil fuels at our current rates, either. How do you gradually make the switch without hurting the livelihoods of these Americans?

[–]Weforgethesword 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

How will you help Veterans and their families?

[–]RAND0611 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

You have said that nuclear power plants are "weapons of mass destruction, waiting to be detonated".

What is your exact policy on nuclear power? And if elected what would be your policy towards already nuclear power plants?

[–]girth_worm_jim 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

As an outsider looking in, you are doing a shit job of answering the difficult questions. How do you expect to answer to a whole nation if you cant answer these legitimate questions?

[–]delorean225 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hi, Jill! I have heard that you are against GMO foods, and that shocks me a little. Can you clarify your stance on the subject, and explain the regulations you would put in place on genetically-modified foods?

[–]stevehobbes 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

You rail against big pharma, big oil, big tobacco, etc. but seem to have no qualms about investing and profiting from it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html

How do you reconcile your belligerent attitude with your fiscal positions? If you're as principled as you say, shouldn't you forsake the 8 percent growth and put it in a savings account or - and this would be amazing - put your money where your mouth is and invest in only eco energy technologies?

[–]BPCR_throwaway 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sorry that I'm late. Hopefully you'll come back and answer this question, probably not.

You claim that we should not be subjecting children to Wi-Fi, due to the cancer risk, especially to their heads. As microvascular surgeon with additional training in maxillofacial oncology and reconstructive surgery, and work with neurosurgeons and neurologists who are noted within their fields, this is dangerous rhetoric.

There is little evidence to prove that exposure to Wi-Fi threatens children or adults. On your campaign site, you list a singular study by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory/NIH to back yourself up, because, as I believe, you realize there is a lack of evidence to your claim. At least, I hope you realize that, as an attending physician of 25 years.

Now, I certainly wasn't trained at Harvard University, nor do I practice at Beth Israel. I was educated at a state university, and did my residency and fellowships at institutions much less prominent than those of Harvard's. I only have one question for you, Mrs. Stein.

As a former instructor of medicine at Harvard University Medical School, and a former staff Internal Medicine attending at their hospitals, you should realize the danger of promoting unproven statements as scientific facts. Do you regret making that statement?

[–]constantmanic 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you mean by cancel student debt? Do you mean free tuition. Go easy on that hype doc, someone has to pay for it, either by taxes or.... well, taxes. You cannot immediately stop climate change or even gradually stop climate change. I am all for clean energy but there has to be incentives and better tech to keep it as an economic option for even the low income families. There are so many industries in motion that would prove to be your biggest obstacles. Don't bother with the full wage employment because millennials want freebies not earned success. And last, YOU cannot end racism unless you openly speak out against any group or movement that promotes one race over another. Recognition and the condemnation of "movements" and equal opportunity orgs(ACLU, NAACP, CAIR) by prominent people in leadership would be a start. Not speaking out against the division these groups create while they operate under the premise of equality is beyond me.

[–]DeadLink404 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would you change the voting system to stop gerrymandering and help third parties?

[–]DragonPup 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hello Jill. Currently the Green party controls about 120 elected officials across America out of over 500,000. That's 0.024%. None of those positions are higher than the county level. If your party can barely get elected for almost entirely minor positions, why do you think your party is qualified for federal money, or the presidency? Shouldn't you focus on, you know, building the party?

[–]jbdean 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dr. Stein, How do you feel about Bernie Sanders calling on President Obama to step in on the Pipeline protests when it's obvious that you are the ONLY candidate (running or already in the White House) that has stood physically with our Native American Nations? Does Obama's absenteeism show his true feelings now that he's on his way out of the White House?

[–]clutch_batman 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

How do you respond to those that say that a vote for a third party is a vote for Donald Trump?

[–]Anthro_Fascist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

What will you do to support the space industry?

[–]Brock_Vond 100ポイント101ポイント  (31子コメント)

What is the Green Party stance on mandatory vaccinations?

[–]T-nawtical 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Dr. Stein, welcome back to Reddit! Truly appreciate you taking the time to do this today!

For the past two months, I have genuinely been flipping back and forth between you and Secretary Clinton. Ask me a week ago and I'm with Hillary, ask me this week I'm with you, etc. Etc.

One thing I truly appreciate about you is that you take every scandal and you address it head-on. Anti-vax smears? Your campaign puts that to rest. John Oliver smear? Your campaign tears into him. The story this past week where we found out you had investments in the very corporations you were fighting against? Your campaign put out a clear cut rational explanation that really put my mind at ease.

I'm sorry if this comes off as gushing. These are just things I always wished I could say but didn't have a chance before. Your foreign policy with the Peace Offensive is honestly one of the best foreign policy strategies I've ever seen in a candidate, I love the concept of the Green New Deal, and I can't say enough about how inspiring it was seeing you tag that bulldozer at Standing Rock while everyone else was letting those atrocities slide.

You truly are an inspiring candidate, and at this point I feel like I can be confident that you'll receive my vote, but there are just a few questions I have left.

  1. One thing I loved about Hillary is that she's championing an issue that no other candidate is. How small industrial businesses get devastated when they try and complete a job for a big company. My brother-in-law has a concrete business and refuses to take jobs for big companies because those companies have a strong tendency to not pay. And my uncle had a painting business for 20 years, he took a job doing the inside of the biggest bank in town, was a $40,000 job for him. The bank wound up not paying and threatening that if my Uncle took this to court, they had the legal resources to draw the case out for years... My uncle is a cook at the airport now. So my question having said that is this: How are you going to make these companies pay? I've heard a substantial part where you're going to rail against Wall Street, but do you have any plans in mind to help those small business owners?

And my last question is one of leadership. Right before the end of the Democratic Primaries, you had invited Bernie Sanders, who was absolutely committed to the Democrats at this point, to not only join you in the Green Party, but take your spot as the Green Party nominee. If you were willing to give up the Green Party to what could've been your political opponent, then how can I trust that a Stein presidency won't just give it up to Bernie and the Democrats when you're elected? I also have to put out it hurts seeing you hail Bernie as am absolute saint when he has just about the same foreign policy ideas as Clinton or Obama, but is just more sheepish about it.

So Dr. Stein, thank you again for doing this. Look forward to your next Fireside Chat, and appreciate the hard work you and Dr. Baraka have put into this campaign. =)

[–]GrantWPaul 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's your position on Saudi Arabia-United States relations, and in general the efforts needed in the middle east to maintain the petrodollar?

[–]slamdunk3000 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is it the slightest bit disheartening to know that the chances of a third party winning the election are very slim? Not a question designed to be rude, just knowing outcomes of previous elections and media coverage of both Trump and Clinton surpass the coverage of third party candidates greatly

[–]bluddre58 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dr. Stein,

In late August, the DEA announced their intention to place the alkaloids in the kratom plant onto Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act via their emergency scheduling powers without public comment. After much public outcry and pressure from Congress, regulatory agencies, and legal firms, the DEA withdrew its intent to place kratom onto Schedule I and is now accepting public comment.

However, there are still many who believe that either DEA will attempt to place kratom onto a lower schedule or that the FDA will refuse to approve it as a dietary supplement safe for human consumption, effectively making it inaccessible to the estimated millions of Americans who currently use this safe, natural remedy for various ailments.

What is your position on the current situation surrounding the kratom plant, and if elected what action would you take regarding your position?

Thank you.

[–]daninjaj13 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi there, merci for doing this ama. What are your thoughts on the situation in Syria? What do you think about Tesla and their push for renewable energy? How cooperative do you except people in government with your goals for the areas that do not fall directly in your control and how do you plan to convince these people to work with you?

[–]phama 20ポイント21ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hello Dr. Stein.

What will you do to end the corrupt influence of money in politics?

[–]TheGeniusBoy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's your plan in resolving the issues in Syria and Iraq?

I'm only 11 so you might have to explain it to me in layman's terms.

[–]daviddavidsoneq 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What specific programs do you have in mind to improve the lives of disabled individuals? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything on your website, and it is an important issue to many individuals that would prefer you to other candidates on many other issues.

[–]IAmBecomeBears 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you could say one sentence to voters who have not yet heard of you or your platform, what would it be?

[–]ndodpgk16 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why did you call this "Title: etc." You know how an AMA works, right?

[–]SammyTrujillo 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you could add any amendment to the constitution what would it be?

[–]robertkri 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Incinerators (such as in WPB), are they good or bad? How to prevent contaminated waste, Dioxins, POPs etc etc?

[–]dreamscout 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

While paying off student debt sounds attractive to those with debt, what about those who spent years paying off their debt. Will you give them a credit? Seems inequitable to only pay off those that haven't done it themselves.

I'd rather see an education program for high schoolers that helps them to understand their potential earnings versus the cost of various colleges. Getting students and their parents to be better consumers of higher education would help make universities more accountable for what they charge.

[–]magicmuscle 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

hello there. what will you do to help bring transparency and accountability to government spending?

[–]TheFlukeBadger 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey Jill, I just wanted to say that you're such an inspiration to me and a fantastic presidential candidate. Even though I'm an Aussie myself I follow a lot of your social media, watch countless speeches done by you in my spare time and really admire the strong, thought out stances you take on issues that I really care about. Bernie Sanders got me into politics but you and your running mate Ajamu carried my passion forward.

I hope I'm not too late to ask a few questions.

Now that the presidential election is drawing to a close, what was your favourite moment of your campaign?

Also, what was in your opinion the most frustrating mistruth spread about you during the election?

[–]N8TANIEL 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you respond to those who say that it would be unfair to cancel student debt while those who already paid for tuition fully won't receive the same privilege just because they were quicker about paying off their debt?

[–]twitch_OBGI 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you believe that we can achieve universal basic income by the end of the 21st century (or sooner)?

[–]CommanderMcBragg 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

What will you do about the NSA's mass surveillance program?

[–]ImitationsHabit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would your healthcare system reimburse non-evidence based medicine as the green party platform suggests (homeopathy and "traditional Chinese medicine")? If so, could you please defend your view point?

[–]jacobpilawa 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you describe the process of switching from our current energy system to 100% green energy? Would the process be immediate or gradual?

[–]wire-less 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Jesus christ, this is the harshest treatment I've ever seen someone get on an AMA.

Dr. Stein, if elected president, how would you treat the military budget? What ways do you think it can be reduced in order to provide money for programs like relieving student debt while still maintaining a force strong enough for peacekeeping and humanitarian actions?