Talk:Jill Stein

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Alt-medicine and science woo is "hard-left"???

"Like her party, however, Stein more often leans toward the hard-left (particularly with regard to alt-medicine and science woo)"

Is alt-medicine and science woo really a sign that you're hard-left?

You can of course be hard-left and believe in alt-medicine and science woo. It's not a contradiction. But I've never heard that this is mostly limited to the hard left. Hippies are known for following a lot of alt-medicine, but does that make them hard-left? What about Alex Jones, is he hard-left?

I know very little about Jill Stein but if one is attempting to show that she's hard-left, one should present something more evidently hard-left like praising Mao or Emma Goldman or something.

--Softcommie (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"complete joke"

Look, I hate her views on science issues, but Obama and Bush are war criminals.50.194.115.156 (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

this article is bad

regardless of what one thinks about her as a person or her positions...

Fixed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena, you just deleted a shitload of perfectly good material. You should at least discuss a bit before you do. Also, wtf is with you calling Obama an Uncle Tom? Twodots (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not good material it's centrist bullshit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe so, but several paragraphs of grammatically correct, cited, and correctly spelled material do not need to be thrown out the window because you personally don't like them. I'm going to bring @CorruptUser,@Ace McWicked, and @Rairyu75 in on this. Twodots (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Cory in a convo with Oxy never ends well, my dude, Get on with RationalWikiWiki. Electros^Pardon? 15:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It'll probably be fine. We're just going to have a polite discussion about this article and the centrist bias that Oxy claims it has. Twodots (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Twodots Whoa there, cowboy! Why am I being dragged into this? I ain't a mod! But also, I'm here now, so I might as well type (yay, wall of text!). Twodots, listen to me. Confrontations on the internet are, fot the most part, fruitless. Mkay? There isn't gonna be more money in your back pocket from arguing over this article with Oxyaena. The sun ain't gonna shine more, global warming won't end itself, like, there is NOTHING that you will gain from this. IF you feel strongly about the material Oxyeana removed and want to put forward a case as to why it should be kept, then do so in a detailed manner. And I mean like, bullet points detailed. Crying from the boredom, polite, logically sound type of detailed. The type of argument that's bulletproof and stands on it's on two legs. There is no need to ping people and drag them into this. First make an attempt to resolve it just between the two of ye. IF that fails, then go to the mod noticeboard and say that there is an edit war (and there isn't an edit war just yet, so you should be trying to convince your opponent before asking for mod hats to step in). Also, that's a weird selection of people to ping. :D Why me, Ace and Cory? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Because they are people that'd be more partial to them than to me. I don't plan on pressing this issue, ive learned my lesson. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

We could just hold a content vote if anyone feels so strongly. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 16:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I've caused unnecessary drama...Twodots (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I pinged you, Ace, and Cory because I was hoping that you might agree with me and try to help. I'm terrible at debating, you see, and the last conversation I had with Oxy ended with me telling her to eat glass and a nine hour block. Oh, and she's been an editor for way longer. Twodots (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

First, you should revert to the original text, then, Oxy should present an argument why it should be changed for each factual change. Goat knows she seems to have the time. The burden is not on the last accepted version to afford defenders.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stein's predictions about Russia

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Stein opposed Democrats partially based on the notion that they would enter a war with Russia. Whether it is justified or not, since she has made those predictions and lambasted for it, the USA has entered into a proxy war with Russia by supplying over 13 billion in arms to Ukraine. If there is no reasoning for removing this, I will continue to try to add it back https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3597492-heres-every-weapon-us-has-supplied-to-ukraine-with-13-billion/ 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're putting minutiae about what the US has supplied into a part of the article it doesn't go. Also, a proxy war is not a war. We're not anywhere near a nuclear exchange, and we've had proxy wars before. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The passage I was adding back said it was a proxy war. Your response doesn't address the passage. It is not irrelevant and if you think that providing 13 billion in arms to Ukraine doesn't elevate the risk for nuclear was you are either malicious or pyschopathic Britneyspears (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Billions in arms funding to Ukraine is geopolitical "minitiae" XD 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, 1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided missiles, 155mm Howitzers, 105mm Howitzers, 120mm mortar systems, National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems, Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems, Puma unmanned aerial systems, Mi-17 helicopters, Harpoon coastal defense systems, Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems, VAMPIRE Counter-unmanned aerial systems, Stinger anti-aircraft systems, Javelin anti-armor systems, High Speed, Anti- Radiation Missiles, and over 27,000 other anti-armor systems, as well as small arms." Yeah, it's minutiae. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, you two are sounding like vatniks. Letting Russia roll over Ukraine and thereby signalling weakness would have been a far more dangerous course of action. It would've just convinced Putin that he could've gotten away with anything, and he would've started on a bigger and bolder form of aggression. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Your statement that we are not close to a nuclear exchange is against scientific consensus. I cannot edit based on Duce's opinions. https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/#nav_menu Putin has made multiple nuclear threats since US involvement. Nothing in the passage promoted Russia either. 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's be real here, the doomsday clock is a joke. I genuinely cannot believe you're taking them seriously. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious what action by the USA you would consider dangerous for nuclear safety vis-a-vis Russia beyond simply announcing a full-out war with Russia. Britneyspears (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

He may have already gave a reason, that not entering a proxy war with the world's largest nuclear power would have resulted in a greater threat to nuclear safety. I think this is a bit backwards 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is arms funding not Stuxnet Britneyspears (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The US is involved in much more than "arms funding" in the war with Ukraine. When Biden comes out with statments about "beating Putin" as he has been, with arms funding, that's as close to war as we can get. If it were a "full-on war" we would all be dead 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said Stein was "partially correct". The biggest limiting factor being Clinton didn't win the election. If I said she was fully correct then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Britneyspears (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you arguing with yourself? Carthage (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if Clinton had won election, gone to literal war with Russia and avoided nuclear catastrophe there'd still be people trying to downplay the nuclear safety risks of getting into a proxy war with Russia. You trying to reason with them is pointless. Reason has no place among warmongers 98.118.249.192 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they could follow up on their assertions like "Doomsday clock is a joke" etc 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the Doomsday Clock does not solely track purported nuclear war existential risk but also risk from climate change and AI which have helped drive the reasoning for recent adjustments. Chillpilled (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Back to the original statement, the passage could be deemed irrelevant given Clinton held no position in this particular Biden administration. But the US and NATO were already breaking agreements about NATO expansion during Clinton's time in the Obama administration. Given Clinton's history with Ukraine and Libya, she would likely have been much more bellicose and dangerous with Russia than Biden. Britneyspears (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletions of Stein's activist history

Seems bizarre to dislike highlighting that she has a long history in activism. Hope isnt lost (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)