Jill Stein Claims Clinton Is ‘Scarier’ Than Trump

Has she ever visited us on these boards? Jill Stein would be terrified of some of the posters we have here. Just saying.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by JackPMiller.

That’s old news. I posted something about that a long time ago.

I had decided not to vote for Jill Stein because of her anti-science rhetoric and her pandering to anti-vaxxers and other fringe groups. But after awhile I decided that even though I disagree with her stance on that stuff, the Green Party’s platform still most closely matches my views. I think a country run on those principles would be a much nicer place to live than anything the dems or reps promise. The entire planet would be much better off.

So under any other circumstances I might vote for Jill Stein. But not under the current circumstances. Trump can’t be allowed to be President. Trump can’t be allowed to appoint four SC judges. That would be a disaster of Biblical proportions.

I somewhat agree with Stein—at least on the issue of Russia/U.S. relations. Trump would be better for that.

However, there is more than one way to start WWIII. Trump’s willingness to let other states have nukes is another path to the same thing. So while both may take different paths—both are not going to leave me sleeping easier.

Putin does make a good point about the anti-missile system in Romania. If the excuse is that it is a defense against missiles from Iran, and we signed the treaty with Iran–than either the treaty wasn’t so great or we’re lying about our reasons. So the U.S. actions aren’t particularly helpful in easing tensions, and frankly–I don’t have a clue what we really expect to happen in Syria but Clinton is all over that. She gets excited talking about Putin and Russia and after the election shenanigans she clearly hates them. That will continue to decline. It really is dangerous.

But Trump, saying things like Japan getting it’s own nukes, or breaking up NATO and basically allowing new relationships to develop–maybe some dangerous ones–who knows–or pushing “every country for itself” is not a recipe for stability.

So I think we can look at disastrous foreign policy for at least the next four years no matter what. It won’t be good.

But I see Trump as a bigger disaster on climate change and a host of other issues.

So, we have two horrible candidates. I just see one as a bigger disaster.

I wish the media would devote at least some small portion of the day to policy issues instead of sex and emails–but that isn’t happening.

bnw wrote:

The liberal bias of NPR has been obvious for decades. Now the MSM has lost all pretense of objectivity. The MSM has fatally shot themselves in regards to public perception.

—————–
Based on what little ive seen of mainstream TV, I agree with qualifications — First, I dont call the MSM ‘liberal’, I call it “pro-corporate”.

Now Fox News is part of the MSM. Fox News is “pro corporate”.
MSNBC is part of the MSM. MSNBC is also “pro corporate”

Practically ALLLL the MSM is “pro corporate”.

Fox news is not ‘liberal’ right? MSNBC, is ‘pro-corporate-but-liberal’ (in a sense, and with regard to social issues as opposed to corporate-econ-issues.)

Now with all that said, I DO agree that the NON-rightwing PART of the MSM (CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, NYTIMES etc) are indeed totally in bed with Hillary. Its quite obvious and blatant, in my view.

If I were a Trump fan, I’d hate the Non-Rightwing part of the MSM.

….you still think he’s gonna win?? It would certainly defy what the polls are saying. I gotta think Hillary has this one nailed down now. Granted i thot that before and Trump came back.
w
v