Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Ampharos]

Perhaps "wasted vote" was too strong a phrase, I just feel strongly about not electing Trump and the people who are considering voting for Jill Stein are not exactly the kind of people who would otherwise be voting Trump.

I'm all for following your conscience, but in an election like this it may be necessary to vote pragmatically - hell, I may be voting Gary Johnson come November just because I think he has a much better chance of taking Texas away from Trump than Clinton does.

I apologize if I offended anyone who was considering a third party vote, don't change your mind just because some guy on a Pokemon forum is fiercely anti-Trump

 

[manodelrey]

Perhaps "wasted vote" was too strong a phrase, I just feel strongly about not electing Trump and the people who are considering voting for Jill Stein are not exactly the kind of people who would otherwise be voting Trump.

I'm all for following your conscience, but in an election like this it may be necessary to vote pragmatically - hell, I may be voting Gary Johnson come November just because I think he has a much better chance of taking Texas away from Trump than Clinton does.

I apologize if I offended anyone who was considering a third party vote, don't change your mind just because some guy on a Pokemon forum is fiercely anti-Trump

The more offensive thing would be voting for someone who is an anti vaxxer

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

i feel the same about gary johnson but i also think if he DOES get into the debates (which seems 50/50 at this point, according to the NY Times he's polling around 9% and needs to hit 15%) he'll steal away lots of conservatives who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for trump, so i don't think he's nearly as outlandish a prospect as stein

All that matters for America in regards to Johnson is that he gets into the debates. If he can represent a credible third party opinion that provides enough of a foundational challenge to the Republican ideology to force them to redefine some of their party stances that have been holding them back in the bipartisan system. I'm Canadian and our elections have shown the value in having a third party able to provide an opposition to the leading party of the day for voters to show their dissent. Prior to the 2011 election the Conservatives were in power and the Liberals the opposition, those two parties having been on opposing sides for much of the country's history. The Liberals had generally been complete ass as far as leadership however, which allowed the NDP (more progressive than Sanders) to take away a significant majority of the Liberals seats and form an unopposed official opposition in our parliament. This in turn allowed a voice for critique more fundamentally opposed to the Conservative side and provided the Liberal party to redefine themselves under new leader and current PM Justin Trudeau.

By Johnson winning enough of a foothold to represent a subset of voices in American politics he has the opportunity to break the dichotomy of opinion and demonization of opposing opinions the current bipartisan political system encourages by providing voters with a viable third option in cases such as this election where neither party fronts a particularly attractive candidate. Introducing fresh ideology to the political climate and challenging the established party stances that have been impossibly entrenched is almost solely a positive thing for America.

tl;dr whether you agree with his policies or not, a vote for Johnson is a vote with value in the case you wish to vote for neither Clinton nor Trump

 

[Bughouse]

Honestly, Johnson has been polling at 9-10% pretty consistently in those polls for like 2 months I think. He's not going to get to 15% unless Trump starts calling Reagan an idiot or something. There's not enough people who would defect to him otherwise.

What he needed was something better (and more impactful given how the electoral college works) like, polling above x% in at least y states. He's not gonna hit 15% nationally though.

 

[manodelrey]

Honestly, Johnson has been polling at 9-10% pretty consistently in those polls for like 2 months I think. He's not going to get to 15% unless Trump starts calling Reagan an idiot or something. There's not enough people who would defect to him otherwise.

Well you got Roger Stone in Wisconsin right now doing his best to alienate the entire conservative base there by taking shots at two of the biggest republican politicians there, A sexual harasser prepping him for debates, and the already disgraced Breitbart CEO now also the Trump campaign loosing his whole narrative of the media is against me. So if Gary Johnson can't get 15% at this point, that's on him. Trump has given him plenty of opportunity to move in on the #NeverTrump vote

 

[RoadsterUFO]

Perhaps "wasted vote" was too strong a phrase, I just feel strongly about not electing Trump and the people who are considering voting for Jill Stein are not exactly the kind of people who would otherwise be voting Trump.

I'm all for following your conscience, but in an election like this it may be necessary to vote pragmatically - hell, I may be voting Gary Johnson come November just because I think he has a much better chance of taking Texas away from Trump than Clinton does.

I apologize if I offended anyone who was considering a third party vote, don't change your mind just because some guy on a Pokemon forum is fiercely anti-Trump

Fun note: 5% of the vote for a 3rd Party candidate in the general election allows their party to receive Minor Party status, federal funding, & automatic ballot access in all 50 states. I in good judgment cannot & will not ever vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both are about evenly awful to me. I'd rather plan ahead & have other options in 2020 as opposed to giving into the lesser evil garbage.

 

[manodelrey]

Fun note: 5% of the vote for a 3rd Party candidate in the general election allows their party to receive Minor Party status, federal funding, & automatic ballot access in all 50 states. I in good judgment cannot & will not ever vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both are about evenly awful to me. I'd rather plan ahead & have other options in 2020 as opposed to giving into the lesser evil garbage.

Do you have a link to prove that? I'm very curious about that rule and really want to see what they would constitute 5% as

 

[vonFiedler]

The more offensive thing would be voting for someone who is an anti vaxxer

Don't forget that Trump is an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Ampharos]

The more offensive thing would be voting for someone who is an anti vaxxer

actually, trump's the only candidate who's truly anti-vaxx

stein actually supports mandatory vaccinations, though her pandering to anti-vaxx camps is a little problematic

johnson doesn't seem to believe vaccines cause autism but opposes mandatory vaccinations because of libertarian small govt stuff. while i disagree with his platform regarding mandatory vaccines i can at least respect that it comes from a position of principles rather than pseudoscience

soooo yeah. if you feel strongly about vaccination as an issue clinton's probably the only 100% compatible candidate, and trump's probably the only 0% compatible one

 

[manodelrey]

https://twitter.com/JoePCunningham/status/766024487271698432

I guess the only good thing that could come out of this election is to find everyone who promoted trump from the primaries, stuck with him, lied for him, and tried to change conservatism to fit his ridiculously stupid agenda be utterly humiliated on the national stage and disappear from any influence for all future elections. Literally everything about Trump's campaign just screams I don't want to win. If he actually cared about defeating Hillary Clinton, he would have dropped out and let someone else take over by now

 

[RoadsterUFO]

Do you have a link to prove that? I'm very curious about that rule and really want to see what they would constitute 5% as

Last time a party got federal funding was the Reform Party in 1996 with Ross Perot with 8% of the vote, but it didn't last due to the party imploding among another in 1999-2000 on deciding who the candidate that year would be, ended up with two candidates with two separate ballot accesses, and both got less than the 5% for federal funding to continue.

http://www.fec.gov/info/chtwo.htm


Minor party candidates and new party candidates may qualify for partial general election funding, based on their party's electoral performance. Minor party candidates (nominees of parties whose Presidential candidates received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) may receive public funds based on the ratio of their party's vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average of the two major party candidates in that election. New party candidates (nominees of parties that are neither major parties nor minor parties) may receive public funds after the election if they receive 5 percent or more of the vote. The amount is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's vote to the average vote of the two major party candidates in that election.4

Although minor and new party candidates may supplement public funds with private contributions and may exempt some fundraising costs from their expenditure limit, they are otherwise subject to the same spending limit and other requirements that apply to major party candidates.

 

[Bughouse]

Long post ahead...


You, like the entire GaryJohnsonJillStein-Internet, apparently do not realize that "federal funding" for political parties is basically zero lol. It's financed by a box you can check on your tax forms where you have the option to donate $3 to the fund, not even assigned to any particular party. This in recent years has been around 10 million (imo silly) tax payers, aka $30 mil a year. This gets distributed every 4 years for presidential races. So $120 million is available. In reality it's higher but I'll get to that in a bit.

Who gets it and how? Well, the simplest answer is that in the 2012 election almost all of what was given out ended up going to the primaries or the national conventions, not to any particular general election candidate (though funding for national conventions was removed from the law in 2014). And only like $10-20 million could even go to a convention, since that amount is fixed in the law and tied to inflation. So why the heck was "the majority" of $120 million $10-20 million? Well, if an individual candidate accepts any of the money, then they are required to follow a whole bunch of campaign spending restrictions. So in reality no Democrat or Republican took it in 2012. McCain took it in 2008, like everyone had before him, and Obama absolutely thrashed him on donations by not taking it and being subject to the fundraising caps. So in 2012 again Obama didn't take it and Romney didn't either. This results in money compounding over time in the fund. Today there's more like $300 million in it, not $120 million.

So could Gary Johnson, or whoever the next libertarian nominee is, qualify for $300 million in free federal money? Well, no. A chunk of that isn't even up for grabs for the general election because it is reserved for primaries. It's not entirely clear how much they would be eligible for, but it's not the entire amount. And in any case, of whatever the base is, they would only be eligible for a percentage, proportional to the vote they got. In 2000, based on the Reform Party getting 8% of the vote in 1996 (Perot's second time, and close to what Johnson will get), the Reform Party qualified for $12.8 million for their nominee. Based on the 19% in 1992, they had qualified for $29 million in 1996. Both of those totals are certainly more than Gary Johnson has raised either of the past 2 times and it would make a difference, but only a marginal one. $12.8 or even $29 million doesn't buy you squat in TV ad time. Even if they actually do qualify for all $300 million, they would still only get $24 million. That's a ton more than they currently raise, but it's still nothing compared to the major parties. Still not much TV time. Clinton has ALREADY spent more than twice that much on TV ads, and it's not even September yet.

The third parties get support because of "true believers" in their message or because of supreme distaste with the other two major nominees (not likely to happen quite the same way as in 2016 again lol). More money, until it actually matches what major parties can do, is not going to move the needle. It's not as though $1 million of contribution = 8% of votes means that $60 million of contribution means 480% of votes. There are very, very diminishing returns on money, as you can see from Clinton v Trump. She's outraised him by way more than she actually leads him in polls.

The Reform Party went from 19% of the vote to 8% to 0.4%. I recognize that is largely because they nominated a bigoted idiot in 2000, rather than someone sensible like their founder Ross Perot. But wow that $12.8 million of federal funds they had for the 2000 cycle really made a world of difference didn't it! And so did that $29 million they had for 1996.... when they nominated literally the same guy as last time and got less than half as many votes despite all that extra cash.

Look how successful all these campaigns have been! List of candidates who took federal funds by year (both primary and general):

2016: Martin O'Malley, Jill Stein
2012: Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein
2008: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and finally the aforementioned John McCain
.... do I need to go on?

It's just not a good deal to take it if you have any actual shot at winning. The system was designed decades ago when PAC spending amounted to like 1% of election spending, and it no longer makes any sense in our money-filled politics. Having how much you can independently fundraise capped is too hard of a pill to swallow.

 

[RoadsterUFO]

1. The Reform Parry didn't exist in 1992. Ross Perot had ran as an Independent.

2. Automatic ballot access in all 50 states is another good driving point for 5%.

 

[JES]

a vote for jill stein is a vote wasted, if she doesn't get into the debates (she won't) she has no shot of winning

i feel the same about gary johnson but i also think if he DOES get into the debates (which seems 50/50 at this point, according to the NY Times he's polling around 9% and needs to hit 15%) he'll steal away lots of conservatives who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for trump, so i don't think he's nearly as outlandish a prospect as stein

The fact of the matter, though, is that unless she's involved of a scandal of epic proportions (one that would have to dwarf the email scandal in size, severity, and clarity of ill intent), HRC is probably going to be president. That's not so much a statement of support as one of fact - Trump's tanking his own campaign, Johnson can steal Trump voters but it's incredibly unlikely he'll sway much of Hillary's camp given that his economic stance is literally the opposite of the Democratic platform, and no other 3rd party candidate is going to make it to the debates and thus won't have enough name-recognition with the average American.

what constitutes a wasted vote? i believe that disavowing third party voters on the premise that their candidate isn't going to win is missing the point of why they're doing it. the 'pick the lesser of two evils' supposition forces voters into being complicit with a candidate that they may find vile and appalling. in lieu of this, a voter can opt to vote for neither candidate and make a stance. advocating for a third party makes reform all the more likely for the main parties. if no one voted atypically, why would anyone bother reconsidering their stances? republicans are lacking a conservative candidate. if that doesn't scream that reform is necessary, i don't know what does.

i have no qualms with who anyone votes for as long as it isn't trump--many of his views negatively affect me, and i'm shook from the plethora of outlandish statements he's provided. i'm just a proponent of voters simply following their consciences. if it leads them to someone outside of the two parties, so be it.

I think that your statements strike right at the heart of an issue that isn't covered enough.

Fact: unless Jill Stein gets into the debates, her chances of winning the lottery are a lot higher than winning the election.

Also fact: we have a huge problem with our electoral system, and this election in general is showing it for the whole world to see. We have the two most disliked candidates I've ever seen, and perhaps the most disliked in history, for many reasons.

I also have a huge problem every time my father gets angry at Jill Stein, and claims that she is only running to get Donald Trump in office, so he can then nuke us all or declare himself emperor. People like him miss the point entirely of why people like Stein run for office, and that is because our politicians, including Hillary Clinton, are in bed with large corporations, the banks, and Wall Street, amongst other things and policies that Bernie has chosen to bypass, which resonated with voters, and they don't want to take it any more. As far as they're concerned, only a complete moron would vote for Trump anyways. It's not the voter's fault. It's our political establishment not listening to us.

There is rightful idea that Bernie was cheated, and so were the voters, and why the hell should we support the Democrats in beating Trump, when the establishment wants to have their cake and eat it too, and only leave us the crumbs, as usual? Maybe they should be taking responsibility of earning the votes, and throw their wealthy donors under the bus for now, and do what is right. Failing to do so, and earning the trust of Bernie supporters I think could have a huge influence on getting Trump elected. Hillary should be earning the more skeptical voters by proving that she cares about what is good for them. Like stop supporting fracking, making it clear she won't support the very unpopular TPP or will tear out parts that would hurt America, and propose using her ample influence to give GMO some much needed regulation, a health issue that I think is quite frankly not talked about enough. Win over the environmentalists, and give them less reason for vote for Stein. Hillary needs to prove that she is not in it for the big corporations, and will stick her neck out for us. I think she'd find activists would the same for her in return.

If Hillary and the Democratic establishment wants to be all "what you see is what you get, now vote us in or you're voting for Trump", maybe they should look in the mirror.

It's true that Stein doesn't stand a chance, but many voters don't care, because they are angry, and hate Hillary as much as they hate Trump, and so are willing to take their chances.

 

[Chou Toshio]

a vote for jill stein is a vote wasted, if she doesn't get into the debates (she won't) she has no shot of winning

i feel the same about gary johnson but i also think if he DOES get into the debates (which seems 50/50 at this point, according to the NY Times he's polling around 9% and needs to hit 15%) he'll steal away lots of conservatives who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for trump, so i don't think he's nearly as outlandish a prospect as stein

The fact of the matter, though, is that unless she's involved of a scandal of epic proportions (one that would have to dwarf the email scandal in size, severity, and clarity of ill intent), HRC is probably going to be president. That's not so much a statement of support as one of fact - Trump's tanking his own campaign, Johnson can steal Trump voters but it's incredibly unlikely he'll sway much of Hillary's camp given that his economic stance is literally the opposite of the Democratic platform, and no other 3rd party candidate is going to make it to the debates and thus won't have enough name-recognition with the average American.

I agree, though we might as well start looking past the election (since apparently Trump already is).

I frankly, agree strongly with the pretty wild and still largely unsupported theory(s) that Trump is:
1) Actually trying to get Clinton elected
2) WILL be making money off of this election through a massively successful brand campaign
3) May congeal that success in the form of a new media business that preaches his agenda
(Trump strikes me as the kind of guy who would toute and push a terrifying agenda and political movement even if he didn't believe the crap he was saying so long as it made him money)

The thing is that even if Trump doesn't care about a future as a politician, the movement he made isn't going to die. I don't see his base quietly and passively re-joining the conservative base-- especially if Trump does take his new brand success to start a powerful new media outlet speaking to his "populist" agenda.

I think those who want a 3rd party are about to get it in the worst way possible, though the responsibility lies entirely with Republican (and Democratic) leaders failing to serve the working class.

I'd say it's very likely we will soon see the birth of a nationalist/populist party with a powerful voice and significant presence, one that seriously shapes the political landscape long-term. I'd say they have a much better shot of becoming a real thing than Bernie's legacy (unfortunately). Bernie's campaign will probably continue a swell of passion for progressive issues, youth engagement, and hopefully lead to true and meaningful reform for the democratic party; but I don't see it becoming a new one. Since HRC is now massively winning the youth vote (albeit against Trump), and coming years with obviously conservative voters dying off disproportionately to progressive ones, the GOP and conservatism are probably in for a bad time; especially if Trump's legacy does lead to the birth of a movement/party representing his agenda.

With Trump's base parting with establishment Republicans and a failure to speak to young voters, the GOP may finally lose it's grasp on the legislature, and see major problems moving forward. (Ironically, Trump may end up doing more than Bernie to get Republicans out of Washington)

When Obama came into the Presidency, they all took on a massively partisan stance in order to "revive" Republican power; but it just might be about to backfire massively as they've cared more about the number of Republicans in seats than they have about coming up with real solutions that work for the real people of America. Those failures are making themselves painfully apparent in this election.

Anyway, that's how I see the future evolving-- even if it is unfounded theorymonning. Please forgive me.

 

[JES]

I agree, though we might as well start looking past the election (since apparently Trump already is).

I frankly, agree strongly with the pretty wild and still largely unsupported theory(s) that Trump is:
1) Actually trying to get Clinton elected
2) WILL be making money off of this election through a massively successful brand campaign
3) May congeal that success in the form of a new media business that preaches his agenda
(Trump strikes me as the kind of guy who would toute and push a terrifying agenda and political movement even if he didn't believe the crap he was saying so long as it made him money)

The thing is that even if Trump doesn't care about a future as a politician, the movement he made isn't going to die. I don't see his base quietly and passively re-joining the conservative base-- especially if Trump does take his new brand success to start a powerful new media outlet speaking to his "populist" agenda.

I think those who want a 3rd party are about to get it in the worst way possible, though the responsibility lies entirely with Republican (and Democratic) leaders failing to serve the working class.

I'd say it's very likely we will soon see the birth of a nationalist/populist party with a powerful voice and significant presence, one that seriously shapes the political landscape long-term. I'd say they have a much better shot of becoming a real thing than Bernie's legacy (unfortunately). Bernie's campaign will probably continue a swell of passion for progressive issues, youth engagement, and hopefully lead to true and meaningful reform for the democratic party; but I don't see it becoming a new one. Since HRC is now massively winning the youth vote (albeit against Trump), and coming years with obviously conservative voters dying off disproportionately to progressive ones, the GOP and conservatism are probably in for a bad time; especially if Trump's legacy does lead to the birth of a movement/party representing his agenda.

With Trump's base parting with establishment Republicans and a failure to speak to young voters, the GOP may finally lose it's grasp on the legislature, and see major problems moving forward. (Ironically, Trump may end up doing more than Bernie to get Republicans out of Washington)

When Obama came into the Presidency, they all took on a massively partisan stance in order to "revive" Republican power; but it just might be about to backfire massively as they've cared more about the number of Republicans in seats than they have about coming up with real solutions that work for the real people of America. Those failures are making themselves painfully apparent in this election.

Anyway, that's how I see the future evolving-- even if it is unfounded theorymonning. Please forgive me.

Just...shoot me with a phaser already. Wait, what am I saying shoot them! Shoot them!!!

And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Trump is just being the most terrifying bastard candidate I've ever seen just to force progressives who want to vote for Stein to vote for Hillary out of fear (or to get more family members to pressure reluctant family members into doing so).

Once the Trump University case runs it's course, Trump's political career will be torpedoed for good, hopefully, and so will his reputation. But I can see the movement starting to grow out of Bernie's success butting heads with the nationalist rights.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think things are going to get very ugly, whether the stupid Trumpsters decide to go out and revolt or not. Lets just say I also hope I'm wrong that it might be a good idea to buy stock in firearms manufacturers. Because when was the last nationalist organization that was easy to reason with?

 

[manodelrey]

This interview was a couple of days ago, but it accurately describes who Trump's new "CEO" of his campaign is

 

[Lavos]

I give western liberal democracy ten more years, make your over/under bets here

 

[billymills]

a vote for jill stein is a vote wasted, if she doesn't get into the debates (she won't) she has no shot of winning

i feel the same about gary johnson but i also think if he DOES get into the debates (which seems 50/50 at this point, according to the NY Times he's polling around 9% and needs to hit 15%) he'll steal away lots of conservatives who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for trump, so i don't think he's nearly as outlandish a prospect as stein.

This wasted vote stuff is all bullshit. Your vote doesn't matter. There is a small chance this election will be close. In the event that nationally, people are evenly split in November (which is extremely unlikely), there will be at most 2 states where the popular vote is decided within 1%. Anywhere else, voting for the eventual winner, the state winner, the state runner up, Jill Stein, or writing in Santa Claus, your vote is wasted. Even within those close states, the winner will win by hundreds if not thousands of votes. There is no personal benefit to having picked the winner.

Where your vote could matter is on down ticket races. If you do not like Hillary or Trump, focus your energy on state elections. Work on changing the electoral process at the state level (e.g.: https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_(2016) ). And vote in your local primaries. Your vote can easily matter at lower levels, where far less people show up, especially if you bring friends.

Also Walrein are you even following the election? Do you think Johnson going 9% -> 15% nationally is a coinflip? You really think he has a better shot at Texas despite Hillary's mid 30s polling to his ~6?

 

[Ampharos]

it's largely theorymonning based on the fact that most of the texan conservatives i know (read: a lot of people) have beliefs that are much more in line with johnson's policies than clinton or trumps, it's just a matter of them not yet having been exposed to him

as for the coinflip thing... yeah it may have been wishful thinking, idk. i just want not-trump to win this state :/

 

[billymills]

Trump not winning Texas might be funny, but it would be irrelevant. If Texas is close, the election is already lost.

The focus should be on electing better state representatives and possibly national representatives.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Folk tend to crap on Jill Stein for being an anti-vaxxer but it's important to note that she has strongly held views on other topics for which she has no factual basis on understanding. For example: https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/715230945679380481

"Nuclear power plants = weapons of mass destruction waiting to be detonated. Time to shut them down. #EndNukes"

 

[hyw]

I live not far from Indian Point in New York and, every so often, we get emails about leaks contaminating our water source, balloons flying in causing shutdowns, fires that can't be put out, and so on.

The original plan for 9/11 was to detonate nuclear power plants, most likely Indian Point. Israel, with our aid, developed invasive worms with the intent to hijack the security of Iran's facilities (South Korea's facilities were subsequently hacked by this breach, most likely by North Korea).

Fukushima's plants were designed to be resistant to natural disasters since Japan is known to experience earthquakes, yet when it did actually hit, it melted down and 50 million people were displaced. Moreover, sabotage by maintenance workers, in addition to general incompetence/human error are not uncommon.

By mocking the notion that nuclear power plants are WMDs waiting to be detonated, one carries the tacit burden that said plants are invulnerable to an employee becoming radicalized or hijackers forcing themselves in, cyber-attacks landing successful breaches, or natural disasters (a decade later Indian Point was built, people found out it sat right on top of the Ramapo fault line LOL).

On another note, Jill Stein's anti-vaccine sentiment stems less from irrational speculation, but rather, a reaction to the absurd reality that members of the Vaccines Advisory Committee simultaneously work for the pharmaceutical companies trying to push out the very products the committee is designated to regulate. As an analogy, how would you feel if portfolio managers for JP Morgan and Goldman also worked for the SEC?

I agree with many that most of Jill Stein is crazy, but her ardent skepticism of corruption by means of corporate influence, I can respect. In the end, it's all kabuki theater; nothing's going to change unless and until a firewall is established separating money and politics.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

By mocking the notion that nuclear power plants are WMDs waiting to be detonated, one carries the tacit burden that said plants are invulnerable to an employee becoming radicalized or hijackers forcing themselves in, cyber-attacks landing successful breaches, or natural disasters (a decade later Indian Point was built, people found out it sat right on top of the Ramapo fault line LOL).

Conversely, by supporting the notion one explicitly chooses to ignore the myriad of safeguards and fail safe measures against nuclear meltdown of the kind that would endanger lives on the scale of a WMD.

 

[Lavos]

First: comparing a nuclear power plant to a nuclear weapon is like comparing a drinking fountain to a tsunami. I am not exaggerating.

Second: a nuclear power plant cannot detonate. There is nothing to detonate. The only thing that can happen is an internal meltdown, which can be caused in a variety of ways, all of which can be summed up as "human error". The technology is unbelievably sound, and many countries (US, France, Finland) are working on ways to remove humans completely from the nuclear power equation.

Third: Jill Stein is completely delirious on a number of basic issues. Do not vote for her unless you are similarly deluded.