• EleventhHour
    link
    fedilink
    152 months ago

    I’m no fan of Stein. I was years ago, but not anymore. But she seems very clear in the beginning, then equivocates in the middle then clarifies (kinda) towards the end— but the way the interviewer goes after her seems like she’s being evasive in a way that doesn’t come across in the textual reading.

    Is there an audio and/or video clip of this interview?

      • EleventhHour
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Thanks for the link, but I deleted my account years ago. No worky for me.

        If anyone could link something else, I’d be quite grateful. 👍

        Edit: here’s a link:

        https://xcancel.com/mehdirhasan/status/1835761859838038350

        Also— I don’t read her as being so much pro-putin as she is trying to be “stateswoman” and also being terribly unprepared. Just a total flop. She seemed like she was trying to be very reasonable, and she was just destroyed by the interviewer who was unrelenting on a single question that she was not prepared to answer.

        I’m not apologizing for her. It was probably the one and only question she should have been prepared to answer right off the bat. And how she fumbled it was extremely damaging to her.

        She did answer, but her answer got lost in the mess of it all. And that interviewer was being a very aggressive.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          322 months ago

          He wasn’t being a dick. He was doing what journalists should do. If she answers with an extremely simple, “yes” every single time Netanyahu and Biden come up but literally every single time he asks about Putin she can’t just say, “yes.” Every single time she qualifies a yes or hedges without a yes. She doesn’t with the others.

        • Cadeillac
          link
          fedilink
          English
          292 months ago

          She had no problem with Biden and Netanyahu, but avoids a direct answer over Putin. It is painfully obvious

              • EleventhHour
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Well, sure. I only wanted to hear all of this in context— and it doesn’t really help her position IMO.

                It really shouldn’t be so hard to very clearly denounce Putin. She makes it seem like a real chore. Like, she has to be squeezed into saying it, and even then, it’s still a little unclear.

                I think, to some degree, she’s trying to be diplomatic, but more importantly, she’s coming off as weak to international powers that she should be standing up to. Even if she isn’t some Russian shill, she should be standing up to Putin in a resolute manner that she is failing to do here, and kind of always.

                In a very kind reading of Jill Stein, if she wants to take a more diplomatic approach to eastern powers, she needs to learn how to stand up to them. She’s a poor choice just because of how incredibly weak she is in her positions and diplomacy.

                • Cadeillac
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  42 months ago

                  While we may not agree on her trying to be diplomatic, this is very well said

                  • EleventhHour
                    link
                    fedilink
                    32 months ago

                    Thanks.

                    Again, I’m no fan of hers and certainly won’t be voting for her. I was just trying to be fair.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 months ago

                  I still think it’s a nothing burger. It a type of political schadenfreude that always happens. Here the UK you’d get MPs unable to condemn Trump because there’s a chance that they’ll have a Foreign Office role while he’s potentially in power. It comes across as weak but they have to play their cards close to be effective in that role.

                  With Stein it seems like she hadden’t evolved her message on Putin to respond to questions that are current about her party’s funding. It’s just disappointing, not particularly damning.

                  • EleventhHour
                    link
                    fedilink
                    2
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    With all due respect, this isn’t the UK. And a Presidential candidate can’t be taken seriously if they’re seen to either be, at best, overly capitulatory to our enemies or, at worst, in their pockets.

                    And when discussing the future leader of the free world, a bit more discretion is called for.

                    My regards to Number 10.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      Yeah she explicitly said “yes” multiple times. I don’t like her, but this is garbage.

      • Cadeillac
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Unless she can say the words ‘Putin is a war criminal’ she is avoiding the question. “In so many words” is not a yes. I understand she follows with yes he is, but why can’t she just say yes, Putin is a war criminal?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        332 months ago

        Because with the other 4 world leaders she said a simple, “yes.” Every single time she was asked about Putin it was either a “yes…” followed by a qualification or a hedged answer that wasn’t a yes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          162 months ago

          its clear she’s being evasive with the putin answers. She’s an absolute disgrace to the green party

      • EleventhHour
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not so sure. I think that I’d need to hear/see the interview to know the tone/context.