No, no differences between the candidates. Nope.
Originally shared by +Tina Vigilante:
94 view(s)
Just the vaxx, ma'am
https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net
Snopes still says false.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
+Stan Pedzick I think Snopes was too quick to take Stein's word for it.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/08/01/jill-stein-and-left-wing-antivaccine-dog-whistles/
At the very least, Stein is being overly solicitous to the left-wing anti-vaxx memvers of the Greens.
A politician panders to a fringe minority that somewhat aligns with their party affiliation? In other news, water is wet. Stein isn't anti-vax, she's pro-"discuss conflict of interests surrounding big pharma". I wish people still embraced nuance in their assessments.
+Derik DaSilva She's lending aid and comfort to the anti-vaxxers, while raising, yes, valid concern over Big Pharma (though of all the places to raise concerns over Big Pharma, vaccinations is presently the least important).