Purely from a values/policies point of view, what are your thoughts/feelings of this third party, in the US presidential election of 2016.
H/T She's since said that she's not anti-vax, but the rest applies. Plus the Green Party has been extremely reluctant to actually do the work of building a movement by getting involved in local or state politics: they pretty much show up every four years expecting votes just because they aren't Dems or Republicans. So I'm not a fan.strums guitar jill stein thinks autism is a “calamity” comparable with cancer, is ambiguously anti-vax, and called brexit a “victory” for the uk, and the green party platform is anti-sex worker and says that homeopathy is a solid alternative to medical care, so stop acting like stein is an ideologically pure alternative to the mainstream presidential candidates plays a few more chords, scurries offstage
There's a lot in her platform's policy statement that's pretty out-there. Notably: - Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude. - Impose an immediate moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. - Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Can you explain why those policies are "out-there"?
- Pan-abolishing student debt would financially wreck all organizations that loaned those students their money and likely pull down whole sectors of the economy with them. Dislike the system all you want, abolishing debt is simply a non-viable and downright lazy to pass off as a solution. - See above. Remember that whole mortgage crisis from 2008? Now imagine if there was less incentive for any renter / home-owner to pay. - Labeling: controversial, I disagree with, but not out there. Moratorium: absolutely a bad idea. Imagine if you're a farmer and suddenly the gov't says you can't plant any of the same crops or use any of the same fertilizer until they have a chance to "figure out what's going on". A moratorium also flies directly in the face of the fact that there's already the EPA, FDA, and USDA regulating these crops / pesticides. It's liberal fear-mongering and science-denialism, the same as conservative climate denial.
It's also proving a negative. You can't prove something is "safe". However, you can prove that "testing up to today has not shown any clear patterns we should be concerned about", which is a test that all pesticides and GMOs currently pass. Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
How can you assert the consumption of GMO safety based on the past when there's no labelling to know what is and isn't GMO food? How could patterns have been found?
GMO food is actually tested in the same way all other food is tested for safety. And "GMO" doesn't actually mean anything. Using standard hybridization techniques that were developed 5,000 years ago, you can "genetically modify" how a plant grows, and we continue to do it to this very day. Anybody that understands basic biology, or works on a farm, knows the basic techniques for getting a plant to grow differently to emphasize a particular feature, like seedless grapes, or yellow tomatoes. The change that people are worried about with "GMOs" is that these genes are being spliced directly in a lab, and inserted into the plant, rather than waiting for the mutation to occur naturally, and then encouraging that mutation. Can science go too far? Yeah. Maybe. But it hasn't. The food they make is still food by every measure we have managed to come up with. Will this always be true? Who knows? THAT is why you can't say any food is "safe". You just don't know what we may uncover in the future, regardless of whether there is gene splicing going on or not.
This - goobster is correct. The whole GMO thing isn't about whether or not it's safe to eat. It's much more about shitty business practices by companies like Monsanto and the stranglehold they may develop on the seed/food market. I'm all for labeling, for the sake of knowing who you are giving your money to ultimately and what kinds of business practices you are supporting. But we really need to get everyone on the same page and stop mis-information about GMO being unsafe to consume.
Have you heard of the FDA "revolving door"? How can you trust a regulatory agency that is ran by ex-executives of the industry they regulate? I did grow up on farm so thank you for the credit. But please don't try to confuse cross pollination with gene insertion across different species. The first generates very small changes over a long period of time giving the ecosystem a chance to adapt. The second creates abrupt changes, which organisms may or may not be able to process correctly. Also nature doesn't use antibiotic markers to merge genes. I would argue that the atomic bomb is an example of science going too far. However, we are discussing GMOs here not science in general. To have a precautionary approach about new technology is not to be anti-science, like you're trying to paint it, is to be responsible. Back specifically to GMOs, I have posted before on the subject. This pretty much sums up my stance.Can science go too far? Yeah. Maybe. But it hasn't.
Oh I am well aware of the FDA. My Uncle works there. He's the world's leading expert on the Red Tide and similar toxins. If the testing of a new material or product is insufficient, then it should change. But that insufficiency needs to be scientifically proven. Because - like I said before - you can't prove something is safe. You can only prove it hasn't hurt anyone or anything yet.
On your first two points, have you heard her explanation of how that would work? Healthy or not, if you're happy eating GMOs it doesn't mean everyone has to. As for regulation on safety, most studies are industry financed, regulating agencies are known for being ran by ex-biotech industry executives. The point is that there are no long term studies, that's all she's asking for. Having a cautious approach to specific scientific discoveries is not being anti-science, it's being responsible. And there's no need to patronize farmers abilities in order to defend GMOs. I'm sure they're smarter than you give them credit for.
Not encouraged to search myself, but happy to hear a summary. I'm highly doubtful of any plan that doesn't supplant debtors' payments by a gov't subsidy, which usually leads to a "tax-the-rich!" conclusion, which is handwavy. Hence understanding the labeling argument. Understand that would have a massive cost to the food processing pipeline as GMO vs. non-GMO would have to be tracked at every step along the pipeline, supermarkets would have to stock now three versions of food (organic, non-gmo, and gmo), etc. It's simply not as easy as "gluten-free" when it's not opt-in. The best-case scenario is you end up with another case of: Which is an absolute joke back home. There are, 1, 2, 3, she just chooses to ignore them. The best anyone can point to to the contrary is Séralini, who is a scientific hack. When you're talking about crops that have been around for two decades, it's definitely anti-scientific to propose suddenly banning them without any evidence. It's not that they can't grow other crops, it's that there would be massive costs involved in suddenly forcing them to shift away.On your first two points, have you heard her explanation of how that would work?
Healthy or not, if you're happy eating GMOs it doesn't mean everyone has to.
The point is that there are no long term studies, that's all she's asking for.
Having a cautious approach to specific scientific discoveries is not being anti-science, it's being responsible.
And there's no need to patronize farmers abilities in order to defend GMOs. I'm sure they're smarter than you give them credit for.
Dr Jill Stein explains how to abolish student debt. Europe has always had GM labelling and food didn't get more expensive. Those studies are 90-110 days long. Is that long term?! How about the revolving door I mentioned before, that doesn't bother you? How about patenting of living organisms? If you care so much about the farmers why make them buy the seed every year? For the third time in this post (it's quite discouraging to witness intelligent people use obvious fallacious arguments to defend GMOs while at the same time claiming to be on the side of science): the last 2 decades of GMO consumption does not constitute as proof of their safety. For such a self-proclaimed science driven industry, this is a fairly unscientific argument to make. To prevent hijacking the main topic of this post, this is my last post on this subject. A previous post on GMOs pretty much sums up my stance.
"We bailed out the guys on Wall Street" ... who paid us back. "QE will save us" ... well ...: This might sound like a small distinction if you're not a monetary policy obsessive. But it's absolutely essential to understanding what the Fed was doing, and the rationale behind it. (Among other things, holding onto the debts, rather than canceling them, was a key part of how the Fed planned to contain inflation down the line.) Stein's description is so far off, it's as if someone asked Stein how to play basketball, and she answered that teams scored points by kicking the ball off the backboard. I'm not going to pretend I'm an economic expert, but that entire interview seemed like a hand-wavy: "they got their's, why can't we get ours" without much attention to the risks and complications involved in these interventions. Yeah, because GM food is effectively non-existent in the EU. Estimates that include only the cost of generating labels put the change at $2/year. Estimates that include the cost of restructuring the US's food processing pipeline to track GM crops from start to finish put the change at $800/year. The animal studies go up to two years, which is quite long term in the field of toxicology. The trouble with doing multi-year nutritional studies in humans is that it's insanely expensive and challenging to run a controlled trial with a large group of people on that diet for that long. The sane solution is to examine animal and epidemiological data, and use prior knowledge to hone in on diseases or populations you may believe are at risk. See... (Can't copy-paste, so pages 138, 143, 147, 154) And on and on... All evidence points to glyphosate / RoundUp being safer than previously used herbicides, and Cry / Bt toxin being safer than other insectides. It's not ideal, but you'd be hard pressed to find people knowledgeable enough for those positions who haven't had some involvement with the industry during their career. Have you known anyone to go directly into the FDA right out of college and stay there for the rest of their life? RoundUp crop patents started expiring last year. I have no issue with a company patenting a genetically engineered organism or a process to make or use one. Farmers are free to choose what they see as advantageous, and patents open up trade secrets and encourage new developments. We've literally had this exact same conversation before. Check out hybrid vigor if you need a refresher. (1) There's no such thing as proof in science, only evidence supporting or rejecting a hypothesis; (2) that's pretty decent evidence supporting their safety when combined with other methodology; (3) the entire point of your link is that GM is a category of technology, and as such each product should be evaluated individually, but in every one of these discussions that we have, you simply argue against GMOs as a whole. Read up on Bt. Read up on RoundUp. Read up on PPO-less apples and PRSV-resistant papayas. Read up on the farming practices each and encourage and each replace. It might change your perspective. But my mini-essays sure don't feel they're doing anything. So I'm going to stop trying after this.Dr Jill Stein explains how to abolish student debt.
This is wrong. Flat wrong. Quantitative easing was an unconventional monetary policy tool the Federal Reserve used to try and revive the economy after the financial crisis once it had emptied its normal bag of tricks. There have been vigorous debates about whether it was wise, or whether it worked. But it did not involve buying and canceling debt owed by the banks. Quite the opposite—it involved buying and holding onto debts owned by the banks (or other investors, for that matter), such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
Europe has always had GM labelling and food didn't get more expensive.
Those studies are 90-110 days long. Is that long term?!
How about the revolving door I mentioned before, that doesn't bother you?
How about patenting of living organisms?
If you care so much about the farmers why make them buy the seed every year?
the last 2 decades of GMO consumption does not constitute as proof of their safety
It's obvious that we hold completely opposite views not just on bio-tech but on how society should be organised as a whole. So far you seem to support: 1) Bailing banks but not bailing people 2) Executives holding positions with a conflict of interest 3) Privatisation of life by profit driven corporations 4) No accountability for said profit driven corporations 5) Centralization of food production by a handful of biotech corporations 6) No consumer choice when it comes to know what we're buying May I ask, what would the perfect society look like to you? Because to me it sounds like fascism.
You are being ridiculous. Please stop mischaracterizing what I say. You clearly have no idea about any of my views or philosophies. Notice how instead of refuting any of my points, you simply went into an attack on my character as a whole. I have a BS in Biochemistry. I am working towards a PhD in bioengineering. This does not make me a fascist biotechnology dictator. It does not make me an agricultural shill. It does make me more qualified to talk about this topic than you. You're argument all along has been that GMOs are unsafe and should be banned. I have refuted that point several times, giving you several examples of evidence to the contrary. I have pointed out that the only evidence showing GMOs are unsafe has come from scientific hacks. I have pointed out that there is no correlation between the introduction of GMOs into a country and the markers of that country's health. Do you know what labels I am perfectly fine with? I used to manage food for a house of 60 hippies. I'd buy all of the above. I support opt-in labels driven by consumer desire. I support farmers choosing the stock of seeds amenable to their practice. But I don't support the FUD you bring to this discussion. So I'm blocking you. Good day.
We are all laughing at organicArt. You did good work here, thundara. I just don't have the patience any more to argue with dimwits who equate "science" with "scary", and "dogma" with "evidence". ...stands and applauds thundara as she exits the arena...
The whole "showing up every 4 years" thing is tired, and pretty well debunked. The latest takedown that goes into major detail is here: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/21/24371858/the-green-party-responds-to-dan-savage-says-hes-dead-wrong
Brexit and pro-homeopathy seem to be the two stances you don't agree with. Can you expand as to why? Is there any Green Party policy that you agree with? Regarding the low visibility of the Green Party in local and state elections, could this be related to their small following?
Is the green party truly pro-homeopathy? I mean, homeopathy is the practice of taking a sample and basically diluting it down ad infinitum and believing that it somehow retains some type of healing property... more or less. Isn't it? To me, homeopathy always seemed to be harmless at best and dangerous at it's worst. Kind of like trying to pray away the disease instead of going to the dr. I think I would have a hard time backing a platform that supported or pushed homeopathy to any degree really. I generally don't like to make anything about a single issue, but unless I'm really mistaken about something here, supporting something like Homeopathy seems too irrational to me that it would make it difficult for me to overlook that.
Homeopathy was removed from the platform and replaced with an explicit commendation of alternative medicine. While I respect the party's mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry, I'm wary of those who would recommend 'alternative' medicine to anyone as a viable treatment. I'm absolutely skeptical of the industry as well, but I at least trust it to act in its own self interest and find a way to grow their profits wherever possible. If it were proven that alternative medicines were effective treatment, I'm pretty confident the pharmaceutical industry would themselves turn around and find a way to profit from them.
I'm not particularly pro homoeopathy but if people want to use it, it should be their choice to do so. If nothing else for the placebo effect. What I find irrational is voters' priorities. "Homoeopathy, is dangerous -- I rather support the racist or the pro-war candidate which endorsed the killing of millions of innocent civilians in unnecessary wars." I think we need to keep things into perspective.
Fair point, but I think I have to question anybody's ability to think critically if they claim to be a proponent of something that really seems quite ridiculous. It's not a comparison of Homeopathy vs racism and war. It's a question of judgement really. And just because I may not be a fervent supporter of the green party or I question the whole platform because they may support something as ridiculous as homeopathy, does not mean that I am a fervent supporter of the other party candidates either. I'm not exactly thrilled or happy with any of them. And in reality, I would LOVE to be all excited and supportive of a third party and their candidate, like Jill. I'm just not quite there yet.
That's fair enough, you shouldn't have to compromise. I hope a party that's compatible with your values pops up in the future.
Well, really we ALL need to compromise. Nobody ever gets everything they want. I've just started taking in the Green Party platform, so I'm still digesting and pondering and to be honest, I really like the idea and philosophy of most of it. I REALLY like the fact that it's NOT the democratic party. And to a small extent, I agree with you on your stance regarding experience that we were discussing elsewhere here, but I still have some reservations about that. All in all, I kind of feel like I could become a real Green Party supporter - but at the same time - I'm not convinced that pushing too hard for the presidency right now is the right thing to do. Honestly, out of all of the candidates - Jill may very well be the best, even considering the fact that she doesn't have public office experience. But, does anyone really believe that she could potentially get enough votes to outright win and not wind up giving the election to Trump? I could easily vote for Jill, but it wouldn't matter - because I unfortunately live in a state that is more than likely going to go to Trump. But if we had what happened with Gore and Nader, and we hand it to Trump.... then we're stuck with Trump. I'd much rather have Clinton with her flaws and status quo than Trump. And I HATE saying that. I hate that things are as they are and everyone can't just vote for who they feel best represents them, without having to consider the bigger picture and vote for someone else just to prevent another. It's ridiculous. And it sucks. But unfortunately, I think that's still the case yet. And it probably will be the case until we get a third party that is pervasive enough throughout the lower government positions that a larger majority of the general population is familiar with them and willing to vote for them. I agree that the Green Party doesn't just show up every 4 years and they have been doing the work to build the base, but I also don't think they have quite a broad enough base YET, to try and truly win the presidency outright. So, outside of the presidential election, I would gladly and happily support Green Party candidates at this time. I may even see if I can get involved in my local area, because that party and it's message is far more inspirational than the democratic party. And sure, I could potentially even vote for Jill in this election - but I'm certain she doesn't have a chance in hell in taking SC. So my vote wouldn't matter other than saying hey, somebody here voted for the Green Party. And holy shit does that depress me. That I live in a state that is more than likely going to go for Trump. Fortunately on a more local level, I live in one of the better areas that isn't quite so steeped in the GOP and is a bit more diverse, but it's still SC. And it's still more than likely going to go for Trump. :(
In Fall 2012 Jill Stein came into my 200 level poli sci class to campaign. That will give you an idea of how irrelevant she and the Green Party is.
That's the thing, if we never see third party candidates as a viable option, there'll never be a viable third candidate since the system will not allow it and the media will not promote it. They are not even allowed into the debates unless they have 15% of following which is a high bar to reach, if you have no debate exposure. It's a chicken & egg situation that gets exacerbated by disillusioned voters supporting one of the two main parties anyway.
You know, I never really knew anything about the green party but I was curious because when I take the isidewith.com questionarre, she somehow winds up at the top of my list. Right where Bernie used to be. But based on what ya'll are saying below, it doesn't seem I would really agree with her/her platforms policies. Makes me wonder a bit about isidewith.com now.. I thought that was fairly legit. My biggest problem (not having really known very much about the green party platform) was that I didn't really consider her a big contender because I didn't think she really had any sufficient experience for the role. I never really bothered to look much up about her and the platform in general even after isidewith.com said she would be the best to represent my views. I'd love to see other parties really get into the fray here, but based on what I'm learning now, I don't think the green party is really it. Not to derail you original topic, but I'm curious now - do any of you see any other parties out there that are not well known that could be considered centrist at all? A party that tries to maybe marry some of the better points of the two main parties into one? Is it possible to have smart and sensible social programs and government regulation alongside reasonable fiscal conservatism? It seems the two main parties would say that isn't possible. But I feel there are a lot of people out there like me that believe there ought to be a way to accomplish something like that.
Did you watch any of her interviews? I'd take second hand opinions with a grain of salt. There's a lot of misinformation going around, whether intentionally or not. This can be said for any political party. Always get the info from the horse's mouth so you can understand the context and reasoning.
Very true. I will take a look at these this evening. It is true though that she has never held public office before though if I'm not mistaken, which was really why I had initially disregarded her. I mean I'm all for getting more 'political outsiders' involved to a certain extent. But I don't know that putting someone in the presidential seat with zero public office experience of any sort really makes a lot of good sense.
She actually answers that criticism and many others in her interviews. She says that not being a career politician would work in her favour as she's less likely to be coerced by the political and lobbying systems. She's a medical doctor, it's not as if she lacks the brain power to learn/adapt to whatever circumstances. Something that cannot be said from all candidates in this race. It'd be interesting to know what you think after watching some interviews. I appreciate you giving it a fair chance.
I didn't get a chance to watch the videos just yet. But I'm interested in giving my current perspective on experience and hear your (and others) potentially differing opinion. Generally, I feel I am all for 'political outsiders' to enter into politics. This would/should bring in fresh perspectives and new ideas and what not, not to mention that often, the longer someone is IN politics and 'playing the game' they probably more often than not, become more susceptible to corruption and various agendas that wind up being more about self preservation than truly doing your job for the people. BUT.. I would say that when it comes to the US Presidency, I'm not sure that I feel it's correct/good/better/ok to put someone in that particular position that has never held any public office before at all. Not to say that it doesn't/hasn't happened. Reagan never held office prior to becoming elected right? I'm sure there are others. But my reasoning for this is, the US President, the Commander in Chief, is arguable the most prominent and powerful position on the planet. It seems to me, that the person elected to that position ought to already have some genuine experience in somewhat similar type roles, of serving the people, of steering and coordinating something rather large and unwieldy. Sure, an intelligent person could easily step in and start learning my job tomorrow. And in some period of time, they could be reasonable decent and effective. But, there is no way for someone to quickly acquire my 20+ years of experience doing this job. Which means that regardless of their intelligence, for a long period of time I would most like be far more effective and efficient due to the long period of time I have been doing this work and all the little details I've learned over that time. Now, maybe public office is a bit of a different animal. But I'm certain that there is a whole lot that goes on that many lay people like myself are not aware of. The details of truly 'getting things done'. How all that behind the scenes works. I'm not saying that I don't think she COULD do it or she isn't intelligent enough to do it. And I really don't want to find out at all if Trump could do it. But I guess I just feel that it makes a lot of sense for someone vying for the Presidency, to have a certain amount of experience and knowledge about really what that position would be like. Damn near every other job listing has at least a desired if not required experience level. And the idea of anyone being able to run and be elected president is great and all, I just don't know if that's the right place to start - at the top. Seems a little bit like something that should be worked up to, at least to a certain extent. Anyhow, that's kind of how I view it. Curious to hear other opinions.
In the wider context of things, experience in the public sector doesn't rank as high priority in my list of must haves for a leader of a country. Being intelligent, compassionate, pro-peace and independent from industry and financial influence does. The day to day tasks are ran by civil servants anyway. The commander in chief has to have a clear and incorruptible vision that represents the people wants, that's all.
They are irrelevant in the modern American political system. They've not shown any interest in getting involved on the local level, they seem pretty anti-science (particularly in regards to their stances on nuclear energy and homeopathy, plus that dumb-as-bricks quote about WiFi waves the other week) and they've never tried to actually build anything resembling a movement. I like their more recent move towards an anti-capitalistic stance (though that is almost certainly an opportunistic move to try and court the 'Bernie socialists') but that's basically it.
I'm not a green party supporter, but the impression of them just fielding a Presidential candidate every four years and "not showing any interest" is just flat wrong. Here's the evidence you need to change your stance and rhetoric on the Green Party being "non participants": http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/21/24371858/the-green-party-responds-to-dan-savage-says-hes-dead-wrong
Hey did you click the link to the response by Dan Savage to that green party response? Now, I'm not saying who is right or wrong here, I honestly don't know much about Dan Savage or the green party, but Dan's response seemed well reasoned too. Assuming that the numbers he threw out were legitimate, it does appear that the green party really needs to amp up their game in more states and many more local districts. Even if he was off a considerable amount, it seems the green party has well under a half a percent of total public offices available. That APPEARS to be pitifully small, as he put it. BUT - on the other hand, unless more of us seriously start considering 3rd parties in general - that will never change. And I don't think most of us DO consider 3rd parties because we get all caught up in that shitty catch 22 where we think we're throwing our vote away cause no 3rd party candidate can never win and of course they can't because we think that way. Ideally, if we all simply voted for the one we most aligned with and not for the lesser of the 2 evils, we might be able to change that. But it's hard to imagine that happening. I'm just as much a part of the problem as everyone else I guess.
Yeah. I started on Dan Savage's side, and said FUCK YEAH! YOU TELL EM DANO! when his original piece came out. Then I read the Green Party's exquisite response, and went through every single one of their links and supporting arguments, and... I changed my mind. Dan Savage was wrong. The Green Party is out there, in the political trenches, doing the hard work. They also are aware of how the system is rigged against them, and have a practical plan for attacking that problem, too. That's why every time someone pulls out the old "the Green Party are just political opportunists who just show up every 4 years to complain" trope, I call em out, and link to that article. Thanks for taking the time to actually read it. We all need to be better informed, and more active.
Ah, thanks for that link - I do appreciate it. But I don't think the Green Party are not 'participants' - perhaps my wording was a bit too strong. I just think that fielding a Presidential candidate in and of itself is just not worth the time as things currently stand. The Greens have about 135 elected positions in a country of 325 million people, no seats in either the House or the Senate, no seats in state legislative systems, no governships, and no real power in any singular state besides a few mayoral positions. That does not a movement make, and I think that's what I was trying to get at. I'd look to the Lib Dems in the UK, Podemos in Spain, the New Democrats in Canada, or, hell even the Green Party in Australia/UK to an extent (at least they have a seat in Parliament...) to how to actually build a relatively successful movement in a two party system - the Greens are adopting more populist stances, and I like that, and I truly want to see a real anti-capitalist, progressive party in the States, but nothing the Greens have done shows me that they are willing to put in the years of groundwork to start capturing more than 130 meager local offices. I also understand that it's hard as shit to break the duopoly here in the US but I don't really think the Greens have taken the right approach to do so. I mean, the Liberfuckingtarian Party has more power than them in terms of seats/offices. That's ludicrous. I love Corbyn in the UK (though he still has a long way to go to try and challenge the strangehold the Tories have in England in particular) and one of the keys to his success has been creating a mass party-movement - energizing people to join the Party as card-carrying, dues-paying members, challenging them to take on MPs that they are unhappy with them, rallying them to get involved. And now Labour is the biggest party in Western Europe. That's a movement. That's how you change the game and inject real progressive politics into the mainstream (though, I will admit, I'm still dubious as to how far Corbyn will really go).
Yeah... I hear you... but I think there is a unified motive power behind all of the parties that are not Republicans or Democrats, in the USA. The more Libertarians and Greens and Socialists and Whatevers we can get legitimately onto ballots, the less we focus on the "R" or "D" next to their name, and instead look at their positions. When the choice is black and white, it is really no choice at all. But when you have a lot of shades of grey in the middle, then you actually have to think about the issues and the positions. Variety is good. And there are always the outliers - the Pirate Party in Sweden and Iceland actually have sitting representatives! - that give all the other marginalized parties a goal to shoot for.
Can you explain what that means? When would they have been relevant? Are you happy with the two party race? Have you watched any interviews with Jill regarding your points of concern, namely what you perceive as being "anti-science"?They are irrelevant in the modern American political system.
Oh let me clarify, I'm not happy with the two party race whatsoever, I'm just not sure that the idea of consistently fielding candidates for the presidential race helps much. I'd rather they try and assemble a strong base in singular, more progressive states and move up from there perhaps. In reality though, with the electoral college and FPTP, it'd take a lot more than the Greens to break up the strangehold the two parties have. In regards to interviews, yes, I have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to start equating ruminations on nuclear energy or WiFi signals to war-crimes (as in the case of the two major parties) and in a lot of ways I really do agree with what the Green Party stands for. But I just don't think they win a lot of supporters by coming out with stuff that doesn't quite jive with scientific consensuses on things.
Third parties are in a chicken vs egg situation. Which comes first state or national exposure? I agree that one might help the other, but I'm not so sure if there's a correct order of approach. I take relief in knowing that you have a certain perspective of the seriousness of other candidates stances. As for the scientific consensus, I don't think it should ever be put on pedestal and worshipped unquestionably. That I think is a recipe for disaster. Jill herself is a medical doctor who believes in the precautionary principle. All she wants is more safety research done on some technologies. Something which is secondary in a capitalist system where profit trumps (and buys) everything else.