876
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
876 points (100.0% liked)
News
38864 readers
1679 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Okay, then prove that something happened. I'm not the one implying she's some sort of Russian asset with 0 evidence beyond a photo. That's you.
I don't have to prove anything happened. She was put at a dinner table with Putin in Moscow. Something that only happens if Putin finds you useful. He doesn't sit at random tables and strike up conversations with whoever he finds.
You put the rest together.
You made the assertion, so the onus is on you to prove it.
I did in my previous comment. You just don't like the fact that you are only put at a table with the extremely calculating dictator of Russia unless he has good reason for you to be there.
And if you expect me to prove that about Putin, you're just a troll.
Calling me a troll is an incredibly convenient way for you to get out from under the burden of proof here. Kind of hard to have a discussion with someone if they're just going to call you a troll when you ask them to provide proof of something they're claiming.
Yeah, it is hard to have a discussion with someone under those circumstances. But when you refute widely known information because they don't have an affidavit, you get called a troll.
If it's widely known, then surely you can provide evidence for it right?
They just compared this with Hillary Clinton at a table with Putin at a state dinner with her husband.
So I'm out.
I'm not answering how old I am because that's none of your business, frankly. You can call me an idiot or a troll, I don't really care. I just asked for proof of something and so far all I've gotten are replies about it being self-evident because "that's how Putin works" or other various forms of non-proof.
If the evidence is quite accessible, then why is nobody linking it to me? If you can't back up your claim, don't claim it. Again, call me a troll all you want. I'm not going to insult you. I'm just asking for evidence.
This is why
Accusing me of sealioning is just as convenient as calling me a troll. I'm not sealioning. I'm just genuinely mystified at this "Stein is a Russian asset" narrative because there's never been any evidence of it and whenever I question it, I get called a troll or accused of sealioning. It's very frustrating.
Then go read about Putin like you have been told.
Not just the stuff that praises him. All of it. Don't engage here on the topic because we are pointing to the same body of evidence.
If you don't want to do your homework, stay out of these discussions.
How about you link me to something directly so I can engage in the conversation? As I've said, I read the news and I've read about Putin. None of what I've encountered or come across when reading has been evidence of Stein being a Russian asset. You could've easily found something by now if you know it exists, but instead you've chosen to insult me, accuse me of sealioning, and told me to do my own homework.
I can point you in the direction of the information, I can't understand it for you. If you read about the former KGB agent that has been using the dictatorship play book for a couple decades and can't figure out how someone like Jill Stein is a patsy, I don't have the crayons.
Her being a patsy would be an entirely different claim than her being a consensual and willing Russian asset.
The comment that kicked this whole thread off said she was his puppet. Seems like you're the one that jumped to "consensual and willing Russian asset".
You recognize that the electoral system is fucked enough that it doesn't matter if it's Greens, Libertarians, Communists, they all are relegated to the role of spoiler candidate purely from a game theory perspective? If she actually wanted to enact change her entire campaign would be focused down ballot where it's viable to get some ground, rather than taking on the role of the dog chasing the garbage truck that is the presidency. Whether she is knowingly helping Trump or Putin doesn't matter, the end result is still the same.
That's nothing. Someone else claimed I said she was being bribed.
Your evidence for Jill Stein being bribed by Putin in her sitting next to a German ambassador at a table, and Putin sitting down in a seat at the other side of the table?
The Democrat misinformation campaign is in full swing here.
I said nothing about bribery.
Why are you making up lies about me?
Also, pretending that Putin and his cronies just sat down at a random table where Jill Stein happened to be sitting is silly and I think you know that.
Vatnik delusions have reached new heights lmao
Had to reach pretty far back for that one.
Look. Nobody here is saying that the Democratic party is perfect. In fact, most of us are aware it sucks too. But, while we live in a democracy with an electoral college, and a two party system, we vote for the candidate who has the most chance of making a good change (but also has a chance to win). Even if Stein won, and she's the perfect person with all the perfect ideals and policies, she still wouldn't be able to do shit as president, because the president can't do anything significant without support from the house. IIRC there's not a single green party member in the house to support her. She'd be dependant on the DNC for anything that isn't awful.
Since she only pops her head out for presidential elections, and doesn't seem to ever do anything to grow her party in the house, I don't see this ever changing until someone who actually has the chance to win (due to the aforementioned electoral college) comes in and could be persuaded to make changes like ranked choice voting, etc.
There's no such thing as the perfect president, certainly can't be perfect for everyone. But if you have morals, and it seems like you do, how can you ignore the fact that you're throwing out your vote for someone who can't possibly win, in turn depriving a better candidate of your vote, when you know all that does is increase Trump's chances, and Trump will be worse on everything you care about?