Progressives should not be voting for Jill Stein

The 2016 election features two of the most disliked candidates the country has ever seen, and as we get closer and closer to Election Day, voters will be watching debates, taking sides, and considering options other than the Democratic and Republican parties if neither candidate is able to win their vote.

Hillary Clinton has lost many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters because they view her as not “progressive” enough. This is not an unwarranted critique. Hillary has a history of flip-flopping on various issues and certainly doesn’t agree with Bernie’s far left views.

Considering this, it is not a surprise that Bernie supporters are moving away from Hillary. What is surprising, however, is the candidate many of them seem to be gravitating toward — Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

To be fair, there are many similarities to their campaigns, including free public college, universal healthcare, and a $15 minimum wage. There is, however, another side to Jill Stein that many people may not realize — a side that should immediately raise red flags for anyone identifying as a progressive.

Firstly, Jill Stein has a history of pandering to those who believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

She has been asked multiple times about her stance on vaccines and has repeatedly tiptoed around the question. In an interview with the Washington Post, she said,

“As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues [with vaccines] and not all those issues were completely resolved. 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.”

Despite her concerns, the truth is that the issues Stein raised have already been addressed. The scheduling of vaccines does not harm children, and concerns about the dangers of mercury in vaccines are completely unwarranted. As a medical doctor, Jill Stein should know this. She is using her platform to pander to the fears of those who accept pseudoscience as fact.

Stein’s love of bad science does not stop there. She has also embraced the idea that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe. In fact, she has gone even further, calling for a moratorium on GMOs until they are proven to be safe.

A look at history will show that there have been numerous studies indicating that GMOs do not present any risk to human health. Stein, however, does not acknowledge this fact and once again panders to the pseudoscientific community.

Even considering the false scientific claims made by Stein, the biggest red flag for progressives should be her stance on Israel — she wants to completely cut off foreign aid to the country.

This should not only be a warning sign for liberals, but also for anyone with common sense. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and an ally of the United States. Stein, however, is invested in completely ending that alliance.

She has endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which considers Israel an apartheid state, responsible for the oppression of Palestinians. Additionally, Stein slams Israel for “war crimes & human rights violations [that] are off the charts,” when in reality, Hamas, not Israel, are terrorizing and oppressing people and committing the human rights violations Jill Stein condemns.

The concerns about Jill Stein do not end there. Her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, is an extremist who praises Bashar al-Assad and suggested that the United States is intentionally supporting ISIS — and that only scratches the surface.

When it comes to Jill Stein, the question is whether she honestly believes the absurd claims she is making or whether she is voicing talking points and pandering to the pseudoscientific community in order to win votes from an uninformed electorate. Either way, her actions are disturbing and should not excite liberal voters.

All things considered, Jill Stein is the wrong candidate for anyone who considers themselves a progressive.

*The opinions expressed in this editorial do not necessarily reflect the views of the Geneva Cabinet.

There is 1 comment

Add yours
  1. Mike brown

    Well done and we’ll written.
    Third party candidates are becoming more and more appealing to voters, but you gotta do your research on anybody and everybody.

Comments are closed.

Monthly Archives