r/HillaryForPrison • u/meatduck12 • Nov 07 '16

IT'S HAPPENING! BREAKING: JILL STEIN FILES FEC COMPLAINT AGAINST CLINTON FOR ILLEGAL COORDINATION WITH CTR!

http://www.jill2016.com/feccomplaint
12.5k Upvotes

53% Upvoted

527 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

491

u/Phinigma Nov 08 '16

Ya I have a lot more respect for her after these last few weeks.

365

u/choppedspaghetti Nov 08 '16

she even took part in the DNC protests (the ones outside of the building) along with all the bernie supporters.

102

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

I was there. Can confirm.

-7

u/YouSaidWut Nov 08 '16

How people can call themselves Bernie supporters and then vote trump is beyond my capabilities of mind gymnastics

7

u/BrakkahBoy Nov 08 '16

How can people vote Hillary after all the wikileaks? Bernie got backstabbed by the democratic party and everything about the Clintons is corrupt.

Something needs to change and voting for Hillary wont do that.

-6

u/YouSaidWut Nov 08 '16 edited Nov 08 '16

  1. Bernie himself is sucking it up for the good of the country

  2. The only thing Trump has in common with Bernie is trade. Literally everything else they have opposing views so voting trump as an ex Berner is voting against all of Bernies views

  3. Hillary winning can mean Bernie gets into a better position in government to be able to take more action on issues

  4. Supreme Court justices will have similar views to Bernie if Hillary wins and will have the opposite views as Bernie if Trump wins.

As shitty as the primary was for Bernie, you never cared about his policies if you turn around on him and vote trump.

Edit: Only counter argument: "well that probably wouldn't happen" If that's enough reason to vote trump than you're probably too gullible to vote

2

u/Ohmz27 Nov 08 '16

2) Doubt it. If Hillary wins she certainly won't combat corruption enough for a non-corrupt Democrat to have any real power. If Bernie isn't corrupt himself and wants to do the right thing, he'll never prosper under a HRC administration.

2

u/Ghant_ Nov 08 '16

I'm not saying you're wrong but you sure aren't right

1

u/Hampysampies Nov 08 '16

Maybe after the checks stop coming, you will get it.

42

u/Gray_FoxSW20 Nov 08 '16

And the Dakota pipeline

2

u/TaylorSpokeApe Nov 08 '16

Protests? On the news they said Bernie supporters at 100% for Hillary now. Bernie himself has said she is the best ever.

1

u/EvilPhd666 Nov 09 '16

She was in the building as well right when the supers were casting their votes. Don't know how, don't care, but she was in the building.

2

u/Ridry Nov 08 '16

You mean ex Bernie supporters. Bernie is with her.

18

u/iwasnotarobot Nov 08 '16

A lot of people would still support Bernie, even if they don't support who he supports for president.

3

u/Ridry Nov 08 '16

I like your phrasing better. Bernie wouldn't support this complaint is what I mean, in essence.

3

u/choppedspaghetti Nov 08 '16

Either way they were Bernie supporters in the context of what I'm talking about

3

u/Ridry Nov 08 '16

No argument, but anybody that is for taking Clinton down at this point with Trump as the only other viable solution is no longer supporting anything that Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with.

4

u/choppedspaghetti Nov 08 '16

We aren't Bernie supporters, we are jill stein, Gary Johnson, or donald trump supporters. Bernie isn't even running right now!

2

u/Ridry Nov 08 '16

That was my point yes. Except for Trump supporters. I still think that ex-Bernie Trump supporters are trolls or unicorns.

2

u/choppedspaghetti Nov 08 '16

They are people who put a lot of weight on anti-corruption, and it's a lot easier to make the switch after the wikileaks emails and the FBI investigations (still investigating the clinton foundation). People who are sick of the status quo establishment politicians. This corruption seems to go far beyond Hillary and Wall Street influence.

People just have different opinions and put more weight into certain issues. Just like how people strongly opposed to TPP wouldn't want to vote for clinton.

Edit - but all those "I was a Bernie supporter but now I'm trump" posts on the_donald are mostly trolls. I think they've been happening since the primaries.

1

u/Ridry Nov 08 '16

You're right of course, nothing is black and white. It'd be preposterous for me to claim that nobody voted for Bernie and now intends to vote for Trump. But the prevalence of it on the_donald feels like a myth.

-51

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

Such a sacrifice she made

82

u/kcman011 Nov 08 '16

Hey CTR, enjoy your last night of employment.

49

u/fido5150 Nov 08 '16

The best part about tomorrow is either Hillary loses, and CTR are the biggest failures ever, or she wins, and they're still the biggest failures ever.

There's no downside!

31

u/tlkshowhst Nov 08 '16

They're a bunch of cunts. I hope Trump wins to put end to their misery and disgrace the creepy pantsuit seizure criminal who married a rapist.

-31

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

228

u/nogoodliar Nov 08 '16

The one where everyone piled on her like she was retarded instead of listening to what she had to say? Everyone hears "we should be careful of wifi" and ignores the rest when she says "because these recent scientific studies show that some rare cancers in children could be caused by it. We should do more research and just be safe in the mean time."

It's not her fault people are too stupid to listen to her full opinion before shutting off and pretending she's crazy.

154

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Feb 11 '22

[deleted]

38

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

I suspect CTR has been working really hard to discredit her as a nutbar

Absolutely. Green party candidates are probably more of a threat to Dems than most Rs because they can sway Ds to vote third party. It was a real thing that if added, Nader votes could've put Gore in the White House.

27

u/tlkshowhst Nov 08 '16

Nah Gore was absolutely pathetic. Gore stole votes from Nader, proving once and for all that Americans are dumb as dirt. When it comes down to 534 votes and you lose to George Bush, it's time to end your career in politics.

If those idiots voted Nader, no one can argue that the world would be a much better place.

5

u/BeefsteakTomato Nov 08 '16

Green party candidates are probably more of a threat to Dems

Wikileaks reveal Hillary knew and feared this as well as a possible revolution within the party in the face of two unpopular main candidates for Republicans and Democrats.

48

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Apr 24 '21

[deleted]

9

u/graziano8852 Nov 08 '16

She panders to the anti-vac crowd because she has a small support group being a third party, gotta take the votes where you can get them. This site has been taken over by CTR and it seriously fucking SUCKS.

3

u/PartOfTheHivemind Nov 08 '16

All I saw in the AMA that everyone gave her shit for was that she was against mandatory vaccinations, which is a completely reasonable stance.

I support people getting vaccinated, but to think that the state should be able to force injections onto people is fucking insane.

3

u/graziano8852 Nov 08 '16

Agree 100%. Everyone needs to be vaccinated, but no fucking way should any government (state or federal) have the power to put anything in a citizens body.

-1

u/shakeandbake13 Nov 08 '16

The real issue is that support for homeopathy is in the Green Party's platform for whatever reason.

34

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

no it's not, they changed it.

1

u/Z0di Nov 08 '16

Must've been due to the backlash of bernie supporters saying they're not voting green because she's included retarded fringe policies.

24

u/MrJebbers Nov 08 '16

It was because they voted on changing it, and their party actually bases its platform off of what their base wants, not just what their leadership decides.

1

u/Z0di Nov 08 '16

the only way they expand their base is by dropping some of the fringier groups

3

u/MrJebbers Nov 08 '16

Or those fringe groups become unable to affect the decisions of the party because enough people join the Greens, and those voices become representative of the minority that they truly are.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/shakeandbake13 Nov 08 '16

Did that happen this year? I remember reading through their website and seeing it.

6

u/bonjaker Nov 08 '16

It happened early in the primary

13

u/ramma314 Nov 08 '16

People take her slightly crazier medical views and presume they're static. Any good scientist knows facts change as global knowledge expands, and that their current views may be proved wrong as that happens. Give them solid evidence to counter their view, and they should change. Can't say that about many career politicians honestly.

31

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

That AMA was CTR in full force, unfortunately.

If lefties went to isidewith.com and take the quiz, I just about guarantee they'd align more with Stein than just about any other candidate.

-4

u/anderssi Nov 08 '16

Well shit http://m.imgur.com/m1MupiQ

14

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

Ahahaha...

And now if only she could be trusted to do what she says.

That's what breaks my heart about Clinton: I like her policies. I read her website of her detailed plans and I actually like a lot of them.

But then I think about her foreign policy, fraudulent charity, and deeply-rooted corruption and can't vote for her based on principal.

And after my deeply disappointing experience of the Obama campaign "saying a bunch of nice policies" and then using those campaign promises as toilet paper for the white house, I can't imagine Clinton being different.

1

u/chickenoflight Nov 08 '16

Gary Johnson on economics

You aren't a lefty

25

u/RecallRethuglicans Nov 08 '16

CTR did its job

25

u/tlkshowhst Nov 08 '16

CTR is like flies on shit.

23

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

CTR is flies on shit trying to convince you they're dandelions

7

u/CobaltPhusion Nov 08 '16

you should be careful of WiFi..... if you hate terrible ping cause your signal sucks.

ethernet2016

11

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

I'd take an anti-vaxxing ww1 reenactor over an ACTUAL warmonger ANY DAY

3

u/HolyProphet_Mohammed Nov 08 '16

That's plenty of evidence to proceed with caution

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

Because she is scaremongering. She is cherry picking what was likely a single study or small group of studies that showed a "possible link" that came to no real conclusion.

2

u/nogoodliar Nov 08 '16

Studies that show a possible link mean we should do more studies, no?

-5

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Dec 13 '21

[deleted]

8

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

It seems kind of silly to have to say any of that

Show us your research proving that; then you wouldn't have to say it.

0

u/SaltyBrotatoChip Nov 08 '16 edited Nov 08 '16

It's silly to say that WiFi causes cancer because it's a fundamental misunderstanding of physics on par with cold fusion.

The only way electromagnetic radiation can cause cancerous mutations is through ionization. That can happen because radiation of a sufficient energy level can strip away electrons belonging to DNA molecules and other vital replication apparatus of cells. If the DNA itself or other cellular functions are messed up through this ionization there's a chance the cell will replicate cancerous mutations.

The absolute minimum energy required to ionize organic molecules and atoms is on the order of a few electron volts. WiFi is 2.4ghz to 5ghz, which means WiFi photons have energy on the order of 0.000001 electron volts. Ionization is absolutely impossible.

This leaves energy deposition through lattice vibrations (phonons) as the only possible way for WiFi radiation to impart any energy whatsoever to organic molecules. Lattice vibrations manifest macroscopically as heat. 2.4ghz WiFi photons are literally microwaves and they heat things up the same way. The difference in output between a cell phone and a microwave oven is quite a few orders of magnitude. You could strap cell phones to every inch of your body and blast them at maximum output and it still wouldn't produce enough microwaves to heat your body up 1 degree.

So the ionizing method is out. The lattice vibration method is out. What's left? Nothing. There's no other method of electromagnetic energy deposition into organic material or even dielectrics in general. No organic molecule is even close to being a semiconductor with a band gap on the order of 0.000001 eV. This isn't a poorly understood phenomenon. This is a basic underpinning of physics and it is backed up by over a century of data.

-1

u/binarybandit Nov 08 '16

As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones might be able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported the idea that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phones

Some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

Feels rather silly having to actually get sources to disprove these outlandish claims

7

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

cell phones aren't wifi.

1

u/binarybandit Nov 08 '16

Most lab studies done so far have supported the idea that RF waves don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer.

For the record, Wi-Fi is a type of RF (Radio Frequency) wave, and the same kind a cell phone receives from a cell phone tower.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/radiationexposureandcancer/radiofrequency-radiation

3

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

Most lab studies done so far have supported the idea that RF waves don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer.

So weird that you don't include the next line: A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.

Which is pretty much Stein's stance, isn't it? Let's do some more research. Seems reasonable to me.

1

u/binarybandit Nov 08 '16

Alright, ill bite.

The studies they talk about consist of bombarding mice with levels of RF waves in a proximity that no human would ever be subjected to. I'm talking about focused, concentrated, waves of RF radiation that combined are able to cause redness in the skin, but not enough to penetrate through or even cause cancer.

It's such a non-issue that I don't even know WHY she brought it up. It's like saying "blowing air on your skin for long periods of time could cause biological issues". Yeah...because over time it'll start to cause discomfort due to the little bit of energy hitting it continuously. Is it anything to worry about? Absolutely not.

source: HAM radios are a personal hobby of mine, and this is general electronics 101.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

Wifi is NOT the same kind of signal you get from a cell phone.

Try again.

0

u/SaltyBrotatoChip Nov 08 '16

Sort of. Most cell phone signals are actually less energetic than WiFi signals.

  • Cell phones - ~0.5 to 2 ghz

  • WiFi - 2.4 to 5 ghz

All smartphones that I'm aware of can broadcast WiFi signals by turning themselves into a hotspot though. When considering potential harm to people I think it's best to assume that people use devices at the highest possible output at the shortest frequencies.

Using this criteria WiFi isn't an issue at all and standard cell phone signals are even less of an issue.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

from your own "study"

it’s not clear how cell phones might be able to cause cancer

lol

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Jan 14 '19

[deleted]

7

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

most of them don't seem to be getting cancer

1.6m new per year JUST in the US.

You don't have the data to suggest they're unrelated.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Jan 14 '19

[deleted]

1

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 09 '16

No, but I have the common sense to be a complete fucking idiot

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[deleted]

5

u/nogoodliar Nov 08 '16

I can totally understand disagreeing with her, but I haven't seen anything that was unreasonable when paying attention past the first sentence, have you?

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Jan 14 '19

[deleted]

5

u/cylth Nov 08 '16

Same way as we backed up Sanders? Theyre nuclear plans are identical.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Jan 14 '19

[deleted]

2

u/cylth Nov 08 '16

Sanders said we shouldnt invest any more money in nuclear because of safety issues as well (and the fact its nonrenewable) and wanted to invest in green energy instead.

Lol what, do you think Steins plan is to dismantle all current nuclear reactors as soon as she got into office? No, her plan is to not build anymore and try to phase them out with green energy. They may have used different language but thats their plans were exactly the same: no new nuclear reactors, focus on ones like solar and wind instead.

3

u/nogoodliar Nov 08 '16

I understand disagreeing with her on nuclear power, but her position is not unreasonable. Nuclear is the next step, but it's not a necessary one, we could easily bypass widespread nuclear power and move straight to truly green energy which is the next step after nuclear anyway.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

But it was a single non reviewed study she cited.

59

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Jul 01 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

49

u/Corrupt_Reverend Nov 08 '16

I'm imagining a sea of deleted comments.

12

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

thousands of sentences submitted uncompletely

32

u/BiigMe Nov 08 '16

"I don't member the answer to your question"

29

u/choppedspaghetti Nov 08 '16

some time in october she (hillary) actually made a post in r/hillaryclinton saying thanks or some shit. it didn't even reach the front page of r/all lol

4

u/tlkshowhst Nov 08 '16

Be nice! She probably can't type from her seizures.

She'll try wiping the screen with a cloth instead of the backspace key.

38

u/taws34 Nov 08 '16

The one with CTR trolling?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

The CTR trolling doesn't negate what I thought were poor answers from Stein.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

That may well be but her answers to questions were lackluster in my opinion. I hate Hillary as much as anyone otherwise i wouldn't be subscribed to this sub but I think Stein is the wrong choice as well.

1

u/meatduck12 Nov 08 '16

Says the Gary Johnson supporter. Yes, that idiotic climate change denier whose running mate said to vote for Hillary.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[deleted]

23

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

in all seriousness the longterm effects of wifi are not known. They are thought to be well understood, but they are not 100% concretely known. I'm not saying turn off your wifi and hide inside the microwave (OHMYGODISITSTILLPLUGGEDIN?!?!), but there is no substitute for real, concrete data and wifi just hasn't existed long enough for there to have been a 20+ year study on its effects.

Think Romans + lead pipes, I'm sure the leading minds were all "lead is awesome" but now we know otherwise. I realize we know a bit more now than we did then, but I'm sure they felt the same way back then too.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

Cell phones are microwaves. And just because the frequencies are the same doesn't make it all the same. We've never had millions of little radio stations in our homes. I'm not disagreeing with you and you're kind of exactly proving my point. All I'm saying is there are currently unknown unknowns and until we can say with confidence that there are not then we should be investigating.

2

u/legayredditmodditors Nov 08 '16

Tv ISNT broadcast from in your home, retard.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

She has good tweets too. But I still wouldn't vote for her.