Views: 8,989,324 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
12-13-18 11:02 AM
Guest:

0 users taking it easy | 1 bot

Main - Relaxland - Flash forward in 2025 New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Toms
Posted on 10-10-16 09:46 PM Link | #78523
Look, there really isn't going to be a good president this year

You're basically choosing who you think the lesser of the two evil is
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 10-10-16 10:08 PM Link | #78526
Jill Stein is a great choice, though she has no chance of winning.

MusiMasta
Posted on 10-11-16 02:35 AM Link | #78529
Flash forward in 2025: The U.S. seems like it has never existed, for a giant nuclear bomb has fell upon it and decimated the population. Actually, even better, climate change is led to the Statue of Liberty bring half sunk in water and the world is an inhabitable place. A small spaceship with the 100 richest capitalists in the world is flying to Mars to seek a better life. Everyone else has been left behind to die.

____________________
MusiMasta - YouTube Channel Currently 374 subs! Help support me by subscribing! Thanks! :)
Featured Videos: I PLAY POKEMON GO EVERYDAY IN 300,000 NOTES
Pokémon Theme Song 260K Notes Remix


Hiccup
Posted on 10-11-16 10:45 AM Link | #78534
Posted by TMolter
You do realize that she wants to take away a ton rights, such as a right to own a gun

I'm dead serious. She is going to take our freedom and privacy away from us under our nose
I could go on, but I'll save it for the proper thread

But that has got nothing to do with communism. Also, no evidence for what you are saying.

StapleButter
Posted on 10-11-16 10:47 AM Link | #78535
Someone should make a swimsuit for the Statue of Liberty.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

tonks

Toms
Posted on 10-11-16 12:01 PM Link | #78536
Posted by Hiccup
no evidence for what you are saying.
Someone who wants to take rights away from us doesn't seem to like the whole idea of freedom. Hillary is that kind of person that thinks the government should be able to see what we are doing at all time.
well, she isn't part of that list, but the rest of us are

Tahcryon
Posted on 10-11-16 01:24 PM Link | #78542
Posted by TMolter
Someone who wants to take rights away from us doesn't seem to like the whole idea of freedom. Hillary is that kind of person that thinks the government should be able to see what we are doing at all time.
well, she isn't part of that list, but the rest of us are

You've got nothing to be afraid of if you're not doing anything wrong ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

____________________


[04/15/2018]gridatttack: I still think the whole smg2.5 team are still in middle school lol
[04/15/2018]gridatttack: and they are 14yrs old
__________

cosmological: There's no one in Russia who doesn't agree with Putin, probably because his ideas are that great



StapleButter
Posted on 10-11-16 05:26 PM Link | #78556
Kuribo64, the board where even Relaxland threads turn into political debates~

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul
melonDS the most fruity DS emulator there is

tonks

MusiMasta
Posted on 10-11-16 10:40 PM Link | #78591
Hopefully after the elections the election discussion will occur less. It's real frustrating, at least for me, to see that there is not a single good candidate. I've completely lost faith on America honestly, and I don't see why people even take political discussions seriously anymore...

____________________
MusiMasta - YouTube Channel Currently 374 subs! Help support me by subscribing! Thanks! :)
Featured Videos: I PLAY POKEMON GO EVERYDAY IN 300,000 NOTES
Pokémon Theme Song 260K Notes Remix


Lunarius
Posted on 10-11-16 11:57 PM Link | #78593
Posted by StapleButter
Someone should make a swimsuit for the Statue of Liberty.


* Boop *






Hiccup
Posted on 10-12-16 04:02 AM Link | #78597
Posted by TMolter
Someone who wants to take rights away from us doesn't seem to like the whole idea of freedom. Hillary is that kind of person that thinks the government should be able to see what we are doing at all time.
well, she isn't part of that list, but the rest of us are

That isn't a responce to what I said. You haven't given evidence or made (or broken) a connection with communism.

Marionumber1
Posted on 10-12-16 01:33 PM Link | #78614
Posted by MusiMasta
Hopefully after the elections the election discussion will occur less. It's real frustrating, at least for me, to see that there is not a single good candidate. I've completely lost faith on America honestly, and I don't see why people even take political discussions seriously anymore...


What do you think of the 3rd party candidates?

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 10-23-16 12:36 AM Link | #79059
I don't think Jill Stein is that great. She trods way too much into anti-science. For all the bad Hillary is, but at the very least, her record on science beats all other candidates. Jill Stein might be tougher on global warming, but she's an anti-vaxxer and anti-GMO. I don't want to vote for an anti-vaxxer and an anti-GMO and someone's who's possibly a 9/11 truther as well. On social policies, she's... all right I guess?

Gary Johnson is very, very meh. Don't like his policies at all, especially his economic and healthcare plans.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 10-23-16 09:39 PM Link | #79118
^Same I have strong pro-science views and Jill Stein's views on vaccination and genetically modified foods disgust me.

Marionumber1
Posted on 10-23-16 09:59 PM Link | #79121
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I don't think Jill Stein is that great. She trods way too much into anti-science. For all the bad Hillary is, but at the very least, her record on science beats all other candidates. Jill Stein might be tougher on global warming, but she's an anti-vaxxer and anti-GMO. I don't want to vote for an anti-vaxxer and an anti-GMO and someone's who's possibly a 9/11 truther as well. On social policies, she's... all right I guess?


Jill Stein isn't an anti-vaxxer; her position is that we need to eliminate corporate control over the FDA. She's also not a 9/11 truther; she wants a new investigation, given the perceptions that the original one was obstructed (including from well-respected Democrats like Max Cleland), and the desires of some victims' families. And I actually do happen to believe that there are some inconsistencies in the 9/11 explanation worth examining further.

The anti-GMO stance is pretty bad. But on basically every other issue, Jill is far and away better than Hillary. She's the only candidate who'll challenge corporate power, fight for economic fairness, and treat climate change as the real crisis that it is.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 10-23-16 10:13 PM Link | #79123
Well, she was basically JAQ'ing off here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/

She's doubting the trust we have over the vaccination, even though there doesn't need to be any doubt over our current methods of vaccination.

RespectfulInsolence does a good blog post criticizing her here

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/08/01/jill-stein-and-left-wing-antivaccine-dog-whistles/

Marionumber1
Posted on 10-23-16 10:24 PM Link | #79124
Jill's primary criticism has always been corporate influence over our drug approval process. She literally said "We have a real compelling need for vaccinations", but it's important to make sure that people can trust them. Assuaging their fears that vaccines are unsafe, by putting people who lack a vested interest in charge of their approval, is likely to make more people accept vaccines.

The science websites interpret anti-corporatism as anti-science, which seems rather ridiculous. What's the problem with wanting that influence out of the government? If it really is true that corporate influence over the vaccine approval process doesn't exist (which may be the case, but it can also happen in subtle ways that are harder to pick up on), she's still not anti-vax for mentioning it. And getting it out of the government in general is good public policy.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 10-23-16 11:06 PM Link | #79125
As far as I know, there isn't any corporate-related problems with vaccines. It's a non-issue, but it's brought up by more hard-core anti-vaxxers. It's still essentially the same argument, though.

Dr. Stein is also sadly mistaken about a great many things. For example, her rant about “corporate influence” on the vaccine approval process is straight out of the antivaccine playbook and based on incorrect information. As David Weigel pointed out, the most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies. Yes, there are representatives from drug companies there, but they are a minority, and they are nonvoting members. Moreover, VRBPAC business is nearly all conducted in public. There are only very rarely nonpublic working groups, and all meeting materials are posted to the FDA website.


Jill Stein also said this, which is JAQing off. None of these concerns are valid, the mercury "issue" is a dead-horse (i.e. it's been debunked: it's not the same mercury compound as the toxic one and it is present in extremely low doses, probably lower than the natural amount in the body).
There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.


"Corporate influence" sounds like a dogwhistle to me, and it does bring up the radar when vaccines have pretty minimal corporate influence. It sounds like code for "I don't trust vaccines".

Marionumber1
Posted on 10-23-16 11:13 PM Link | #79126
Whether or not the corporate argument has merit (and I did see that quote, though it's possible that corporate influence over the advisory board exists in some other way), it's not anti-vaccine. One can call it a dogwhistle, but that means that at worst, Jill is just pandering to anti-vaxxers. I still don't see how that makes her anti-vaccine, or shows that she'll pursue anti-vaccine public policy.

As for your second quote, she's mostly talking about past concerns. Subtly implying that some might not be addressed to this day is problematic, but again, that only indicates (at worst) pandering.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 10-23-16 11:22 PM Link | #79128
They aren't exactly actual concerns though.

I actually think it's at best pandering, not at worst. If you're pro-vax, you won't even bring up those arguments. Additionally, anti-vaxxers usually don't straight up say they are, so you have to look at their language. They often say very similar things and try to disguise their arguments to sound reasonable. For instance, they say "I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm pro-safe vaccine" without regarding that vaccines are already safe and effective to begin with. If Jill Stein is really concerned about corporate influence, she shouldn't bring up vaccines at all; the Epipen scandal is a far better target. But by giving common anti-vaccine arguments a platform to stand on, I question her actual stance on vaccines compared to the scientific literature. Additionally, anti-vaxxine and anti-GMO people very often overlap and also use very similar arguments. Not saying that because she's anti-GMO it means she has to be anti-vaccine, but it doesn't lend her arguments on vaccines a lot of support.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Main - Relaxland - Flash forward in 2025 New reply

Page rendered in 0.033 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 27, rows: 231/231, time: 0.018 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.