@zenvelo I see you’ve been drinking Dan Savage’s Kool-Aid, too. Anyways, I’m not saying that she has done anything to earn your personal vote. I think you should vote for whomever you like best. And if that’s not Stein, I’m okay with that. Different people have different standards for when someone has earned their vote, and I haven’t made any suggestion that you should vote for Stein. All I’ve pointed out is that the claim she is against vaccines is false.
The claim that she deleted anti-vaccine tweets is also false. She—or whoever is in charge of social media for her campaign—sent out a pro-vaccine tweet, deleted it, and then sent out another pro-vaccine tweet. Nor has she ever promoted homeopathy. In fact, she has explicitly stated that she disagrees with the pro-homeopathy section of the Green Party’s platform. So I think your outrage is really just a cover for your fear that Hillary hasn’t earned enough votes to beat Trump in the states where it really matters. But outrage has never changed a swing voter’s mind.
It’s also a bit rich for Hillary supporters to claim the moral high ground in this election when they feel compelled to tell flagrant lies about a third party candidate who poses no real threat to them. The number of Green Party voters who would be willing to vote for Clinton if Stein wasn’t running is dwarfed by the number of Democrats who will be staying home or voting for Trump. If Hillary is really the best candidate, her campaign shouldn’t need to spread falsehoods about her rivals. But she would do well to guard her left flank from Trump rather than taking liberal votes for granted when running against a populist.