- Can't think of anything off the top of my head. Evil fascistoh noez 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- ^--Mikal Harass Follow 19:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a number of articles on politicians and candidates without much mission connection, e.g. John Edwards and Jon Huntsman, whose only relevance is their bid for the presidency. I'd say to keep on principle for community interest, but to expand beyond one sentence. Seme Blue 21:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps merge into the Green Party article? SophieWilder 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If expanded keep I guess. If not, a section in the Green Party article. Evil fascistoh noez 01:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I added this article as it was empty linked from the Green Party page. I was going to see about adding more information but if it's not deemed appropriate then I'm not going to get my feelings hurt if it's removed. DissidentRage (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why rational wiki is so critical of the Greens and Jill Stein? It criticizes the Green as the worst aspects of Dems and Repubs rolled into one. How could you possibly justify that. It also calls Jill dumb as a brick.Get back to me please.— Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
- The Greens nominated Cynthia McKinney for president. The batshit crazy, bigoted conspiracy crank from Atlanta. 'Nuff said. StickySock (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Greetings fellow Courageous Conservatives, As suggested per RationalWiki:To_do_list I think it would be worth it to reexamine the creation of a Jill Stein article. There are two angles that I think would be worth exploring. One is the positive angle, such as her longtime support for social justice causes and concern for environmental issues. The other is the not as positive angle, such as her opposition to GMOs and nuclear power, and possible anti-vaxxy stuff. I might try to draft some things here in the talkspace to see what sticks. BossHuade (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- What's up with the desultory posting of a link to Ted Cruz's failed platform? Anyway, as we also have an article on Gary Johnson I believe we should have one for her as well - CNN has a fairly decent write-up of her stance on her moonbat positions which should serve as a good starting point for the creation of an article. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 10:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, yes, France passed a law to RESTRICT and not ban in Kindergartens, but actually ban it from daycare. Whether it's justified or useful, I can't tell, but fact is, yes it is being regulated.
I hope your French is good ;) http://eduscol.education.fr/numerique/tout-le-numerique/veille-education-numerique/archives/2015/juin2015/referentiel-usage-wifi-ecole http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/propositions/pion2065.asp — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs Nicklaus|talk
- Though, not due to any health concerns:
Cette annexe du référentiel s'appuie sur l'expertise de l'Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail (ANSES). Le rapport de l'Agence intitulé « Radiofréquence et santé » ne stipule aucune précaution particulière ni de recommandations concernant le Wi-Fi, notamment en ce qui concerne les enfants.
- Stein is still wrong and a crank. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh sure I'm not condracting that, I was just fact-checking there. Whether it's for health reasons or not, there is a restriction and even a ban in daycares :
I. – Dans les établissements mentionnés au chapitre IV du titre II du livre III de la deuxième partie du code de la santé publique, l’installation d’un équipement terminal fixe équipé d’un accès sans fil à internet est interdite dans les espaces dédiés à l’accueil, au repos et aux activités des enfants de moins de trois ans.
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0468.asp Again, not trying to defend her, I simply find the snark "huhuh those countries have no wifis in schools" misplaced, since measure are actually taken.Nicklaus|talk