Uh. Second. Putin LOVES his pet Trump.
It’s not just Jill Stein, it’s a lot of people you see talking about Gaza as some blood curdling atrocity, but they don’t have the same level of empathy or consideration for Ukrainians. The anti-Israel propaganda is just being used to drive the Muslim and progressive vote away from Dems. I think it’s turning out to be successful.
It’s not just Jill Stein, it’s a lot of people you see talking about Gaza as some blood curdling atrocity, but they don’t have the same level of empathy or consideration for Ukrainians.
I don’t want the US government selling weapons to Russia to use against Ukrainians. I’m glad we aren’t.
And other lies you tell yourself.
I’ve never met a Palestinian supporter that isn’t also a Ukrainian supporter.
The entirety of lemmy.ml would like a word.
I signed up to Lemmy without knowing much about instances, can’t remember exactly why I picked lemmy.ml but it wasn’t politics.
Is this really a generalisation people have? Should I move…?
your admins also run lemmygrad. only you can decide if you should leave. personally, i like beehaw, slrpnk, dbzero, and blahaj. one important aspect to understand about the fediverse is that your instance is part of the identity you present to others
We live next to corn and soybeans.
Hey I’ve been looking for someone to ask, and you seem to know, is Lemmy.world cool?
It’s the most ‘mainstream’, for better and for worse.
Probably best to use a smaller instance instead of .world. The less centralized Lemmy is, the better.
theyve been concerning me lately
Ugh. Yeah I’ve heard that "it isn’t the best. It was the easiest to sign up for when the reddit exodus happened. I’m anti Israel and pro Ukraine and I’m always busy with real life/my own hobbies. I just don’t have the bandwidth for finding the best instance. C
Personally, I’m fine with seeing differing opinions. On the political side, they get a bit obsessed with dunking and all these in-group memes for my tastes.
Ah, see I realized they were either all bad faith actors, bots, or idiots ages ago and don’t federate with them.
There are 20 Israel stories to every 1 Ukraine story on Lemmy.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, this platform is being heavily astroturfed, and so are many other “liberal” platforms. It’s actually way worse here than on Reddit.
It’s actually way worse here than on Reddit.
Because after r/ChapoTraphouse was kicked out from Reddit for inciting violence, the tankies moved to create lemmy.ml.
Of course there are, and I probably post 3 of the 20.
Other than the alt-right, you’re not going to find any support for Russia in the West.
Why would we need to raise awareness and keep posting about Ukraine to the same level as Palestine?
Bruh I literally got banned from .ml twice just for mentioning the fact that Russia shot down a civilian airliner in Ukraine. You are completely delusional if you don’t see that a significant portion of these idiots are up Putin’s ass.
Why do you think it’s your job to do so? That’s the literal definition of astroturfing.
You absolute little liar.
the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.
I am a real person, with an ethical obligation to stand up against genocide. There is no deception, I am a member of the public, and what I am doing is called activism (or slacktivism for the pessimists in the world).
So, you admit that you are flooding this platform to deliberately present one story as more dominant in the news cycle than others in order to misrepresent its relevancy to current events?
You can argue definitions and semantics all day, but that is what you’re doing - and it’s dishonest at best.
You are saying posting on aggregate media sites is dishonest?
That is just ridiculous.
Probably something to do with my country financing the underdog in one of these fights and the war criminals in the other.
Do yourself a favor block grad and ml it cleans up a lot of bad faith arguments.
we’re also numb to what’s happening in ukraine. people got tired around when it hit the one year mark
I haven’t met any in real life as far as I’m aware, but I’ve seen plenty on here.
I think they’re talking about the people on TV talking about it, not the protestors themselves.
The exchange:
Mehdi Hasan: We looked at your social media, and you haven’t done that many posts specifically calling out Russian attacks on civilian areas. You haven’t called Vladimir Putin a war criminal, but you have called Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal.
Jill Stein: No, actually, we did. Yeah. In my very first remarks about the Ukraine war, we condemned —
Mehdi Hasan: Vladimir Putin is a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Yes, we did condemn —
Mehdi Hasan: And Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Yes, in so many words, yes, we have said as much.
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.
Jill Stein: Oh, absolutely.
Mehdi Hasan: Is Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: So what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is a criminal and murderous war.
Mehdi Hasan: And he’s a war criminal who should be on trial?
Jill Stein: Well, by implication.
Mehdi Hasan: You’re struggling here to say something very simple. This is why people have their doubts about you with Russia. Why is Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but not Vladimir Putin?
Jill Stein: Well, as John F. Kennedy said, “We must not negotiate out of fear and we must not fear to negotiate.” So if you want to be an effective world leader, you don’t start by name calling and hurling out that.
Mehdi Hasan: So how will President Stein negotiate with Israel then, if you’ve called Netanyahu a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal.
Mehdi Hasan: Oh, so Putin clearly isn’t a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, we don’t have a decision, put it this way, by the International Criminal Court.
Mehdi Hasan: Yes, we do. Yes, actually, actually, you’re wrong. There’s an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn’t an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.
Jill Stein: With Russia it’s far more complicated.
Mehdi Hasan: Either you’re a war criminal or you’re not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: In so many words, yes he is.
Mehdi Hasan: I don’t know “what so many words” — Butch [Ware, Stein’s running mate], is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Let me say that whatever you think he is —
Mehdi Hasan: It’s not about what I think. I’m asking you. You’re running for President.
Jill Stein: If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal unless you have a…
Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?
Jill Stein: Because we have a clear strategy and we have very strong support across the world.
How is it more complicated, Jill? The lady doth protest too much
This has strong “the front fell off” vibes.
Would be nice if more politicians were subjected to dogged follow-up questions like this. Instead the press just lets them deflect and ramble and change the subject.
He did the same thing to an Israeli spokesperson, and then MSNBC fired him.
I wish every interviewer were even half as good at this as Mehdi Hassan is. He is a delight to watch or read when he’s talking to anyone who is dodging questions.
Mehdi Hasan is from the UK and that’s how they do political interviews in Britain. Like you, I wish we did it in the U.S.
Interviewers in the US are all about themselves. Making themselves look good and preening in front of the camera. Dogging a recalcitrant subject with repeated questions is a bad look for them. Plus it convinces potential interviewees to stay away!
Interviews in the US are based around stock algorithms. Most media headlines in the US, particularly about companies, are for stock algorithms/fluctuations. “Buy the rumor, sell the news,” has been a classic adage for a while.
So really these interviews are basically ads. That’s why Elon isn’t being asked difficult questions about Tesla. If pieces come out trying to tank Tesla, they won’t usually include an interview. Trump, as an entertainer and business person, is used to this type of interview and expects it. Unfortunately, advertising doesn’t make for good journalism.
Probably their corporate overlords have some influence here as well.
To be fair, the rambling did make the latest presidential debate very watchable compared to previous ones 😂
It was Harris that made it more watchable. And Trump taking the bait was sad but at least there was schadenfreude. But the rambling was an absolute fucking travesty, it should still be considered a national damn crisis that the idiot is even a serious candidate.
All the talk about pets aside, one of my favorite moments was when Harris talked about the Trump rallies and you see his eyes pop. You know that got through the dementia fog and struck home.
i really need more people to be aware this is who jill stein has always been. she focuses on the liberatory language of green politics but in practice is a fascist. there are two ways to view this. either she’s an idiot who thinks she can deal with putin, or she knows exactly what she’s doing and is in favor giving a genocidal maniac more power because it benefits her personally
She’s a grifter so it really would not surprise me to learn that she’s taken daddy putin’s propoganda dollars.
Remember how she raised a bunch of money in 2016 to do a recount and then never did? Yeah. That’s what grifting looks like. She had no legal way to actually accomplish the task she was fundraising for which is every bit as bad a selling someone snake oil.
She and the green party exist solely to extract money out of credulous idiots who buy the lie that voting for her does anything.
It’s always amusing seeing her fans try to explain this photo without suggesting she’s pro-Putin.
Oh wow, that’s a terrible photo. I didn’t know about it, but given the recent tenat media lawsuit I figured russia pumping money into the green party wasn’t crazy. They were more than willing to dump $5 mil on idiots like tim pool and dave rubin so why wouldn’t they also pump a bunch of money in long shot candidates like Stein.
Heck, they’ve done it in the past via the NRA.
It’s not just the green party, they are trying to buy influencers for hundreds of thousands of dollars as well. Tana Monogeau just came out that she was offered substantial amount of money to endorse the Trump campaign and declined, and she suspects a lot of influencers have done this.
It’s literally always projection. Remember them saying George Soros bought protestors?
And now I’m bummed finding out about Kusturica
She and the green party exist solely to extract money out of credulous idiots who buy the lie that voting for her does anything.
I want to copy this phrase and reply to every single post mentioning her as an alternative to voting for Harris.
You can
And should.
another Green voter got very agitated when called out for pushing only Russia’s talking points in this debate:
Can I get a timestamp?
Edit: my bad, embedded browser didn’t preserve the url timestamp. 1:23:30
Why was the reporter asking her tough follow up questions? It doesn’t match what I usually see. Is Jill Stein bad because she can’t afford to pay for easier interviews? For real though, I wish every “big name” was treated this way.
That’s Medhi Hassan. He’s a serious interviewer, and he’s tough with every politician he interviews if they aren’t answering questions.
Agreed. Politicians are so insulated now from actual tough interviews
part of the problem is psychological in nature. it’s flattering when a powerful person makes time for you, no matter how vile they are. polǐicians have been gaming this ever since the advent of mass media. jill stein here got the treatment all our politicians should be because this is an interviewer with a track record of doing this better than many, but also because jill stein is an unserious candidate. the perception is less “wow, she made time for me,” and more, “what else would she be up to”
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?
If you don’t mind Twitter, yes.
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.
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.
I misspoke. He was just being aggressive
I edited my comment
She had no problem with Biden and Netanyahu, but avoids a direct answer over Putin. It is painfully obvious
I agree that she’s being evasive
Thank you for being reasonable
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.
if you don’t mind commentary and a higher speed its captured on Destiny’s Youtube channel. https://youtu.be/ekZ53AF8tOM?t=140
Yeah she explicitly said “yes” multiple times. I don’t like her, but this is garbage.
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.
its clear she’s being evasive with the putin answers. She’s an absolute disgrace to the green party
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?
I’m not so sure. I think that I’d need to hear/see the interview to know the tone/context.
Jill Stein: So what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is a criminal and murderous war.
Mehdi Hasan: And he’s a war criminal who should be on trial?
Jill Stein: Well, by implication.
Mehdi Hasan: You’re struggling here to say something very simple. This is why people have their doubts about you with Russia. Why is Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but not Vladimir Putin?
???
What does “by implication” mean to Hasan?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.
Jill Stein: With Russia it’s far more complicated.
Mehdi Hasan: Either you’re a war criminal or you’re not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: In so many words, yes he is.
So they’re in agreement. Right?
Mehdi Hasan: I don’t know “what so many words” — Butch [Ware, Stein’s running mate], is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Let me say that whatever you think he is —
Mehdi Hasan: It’s not about what I think. I’m asking you. You’re running for President.
Jill Stein: If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal unless you have a…
Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?
Jill Stein: Because we have a clear strategy and we have very strong support across the world.
Is Hasan trying to defend Biden and Netanyahu?
Because Jill Stein repeatedly agreed with Hasan on Putin being a war criminal. But Hasan keeps doubling back and trying to defend the American President and his Israeli ally from the accusation.
The problem is this: regarding Netanyahu she says “Well he is very clearly a war criminal.” Regarding Putin she says “With Russia it’s far more complicated” and “In so many words, yes.” She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal directly so she can plausibly deny it. She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances but she won’t say it directly so she can go “Oh no, Hasan called him a war criminal, I didn’t, I just agreed that if all of those things were true then he could be considered a war criminal!”
I think her point is moreso that we’re actively funding and giving arms to Isreal to carry out these crimes, therefore we have more power to state things in that way from a geopolitical standpoint.
That’s certainly the point she’s making to avoid giving a direct answer.
Yeah, but it’s a bit of a fair difference to point out I think still.
She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal
“In so many words, yes.”
Hasan won’t take “yes” for an answer. Which is a weird thing to do, given that he keeps looping back around to attack her for her condemnation of Biden and Netanyahu.
She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances
Under what circumstances is Hasan conceding that Netanyahu is a war criminal? All he does is deflect blame for war crimes away from Netanyahu, which is a really weird thing to do across multiple interview questions.
she won’t say it directly
She will and she did. Of course, Hasan keeps cutting her responses off to interject with new defenses of Netanyahu. Which is, again, a very weird way to establish Jill as a Putin-defender. It seems more like Hasan is hedging on Netanyahu and trying to back Jill into recanting her views on Israel.
Say weird some more. We aren’t going to be desensitized to it. The right will still be fucking weird
Say weird some more.
It looks like you’re being forced to notice the contradictions at last.
Oooooooh got 'imm!!!1!
I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes. And frankly I question why someone can’t use the word yes if it’s such a clear yes
I don’t like Jill Stein but she clearly did say yes up there
In so many words, yes she did. Wait, why does a clear yes have so many words?
Well, if we prove her quotes accurate we can surmise that she may have said yes, with further investigation. But I’ll tell you, once we get to the bottom of our deep investigation we will find that she may possibly believe putin might be a war criminal given the current political climate of the UN and the ongoing hostilities in nations. After all, we need to address the issue of tariffs in china.
Yes she never said yes.
I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes.
She said the word yes.
How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.
We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.
Eh, the OP asking the question is operating in bad faith. They are most likely some disinformation shill or useful idiot who just espouses 3rd party or bust vibes every time I see them. You’re going to have as much luck getting through to them as Hasan had of getting Stein to say “yes.” with no qualifiers attached.
Is Hasan trying to defend Biden and Netanyahu?
Almost the very beginning of the interview:
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.
Unlike Jill Stein, he has no problem calling a war criminal a war criminal. But I am sure that, unlike Putin, Jill Stein would have no problem calling Joe Biden a war criminal immediately.
Unlike Jill Stein, he has no problem calling a war criminal a war criminal.
Who does he call a war criminal in the interview?
You asked if he was trying to defend Netanyahu.
I literally quoted him calling Netanyahu a war criminal. At the beginning of the interview you apparently didn’t read.
And now you’re doubling down on it? Really?
To get pedantic, which seems fair considering the context of the exchange, he never said “Netanyahu is a war criminal” he simply said “I think he is” which doesn’t seem all too different from her saying “Yes … by implication.” The interviewer didn’t seem to think her answer was satisfactory, but his response was pretty much equivalent to her own.
Yes, but he was not being interviewed. The thing everyone is hung up about is that Stein’s answer about Putin did not match her answer on Netanyahu or Biden.
Sure, but add the other things he said.
There was also this exchange:
Mehdi Hasan: Oh, so Putin clearly isn’t a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, we don’t have a decision, put it this way, by the International Criminal Court.
Mehdi Hasan: Yes, we do. Yes, actually, actually, you’re wrong. There’s an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn’t an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.
The real difference here is that Mehdi Hassan was saying “yes” and Jill Stein was saying “yes, but…”
You asked if he was trying to defend Netanyahu.
Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?
Why keep raising this question? Why not focus on Putin alone? Why does Hasan need to inject Biden into this conversation?
And now you’re doubling down on it?
I’m asking questions. You don’t seem comfortable thinking about the answers?
Irrelevant. You asked if he was trying to defend Netanyahu and he literally called him a war criminal at the top.
If you had read the interview, you would have known that. So either you didn’t read it or you were being dishonest.
Irrelevant.
That’s what Mehdi Hasan is asserting, which is weird when you consider how Netanyahu and Putin are allies.
Why keep putting up this defense of Netanyahu if you’re so focused on getting Jill to denounce Putin? Why does Israel become this backdoor by which you can tacitly trade weapons and fossil fuels internationally?
If you had read the interview, you would have known that.
Have you read the interview? You don’t seem to want to acknowledge anything Hasan has actually said.
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one [a war criminal], which I think he is.
Yeah, he’s really trying to defend them. Sure…
He’s telling Jill what she said about Netanyahu, but he doesn’t seem to agree. He keeps doubling back and insisting she needs to condemn Putin (which she then does) and using that as a shield for Netanyahu in follow-up.
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all.
Jesus, why are you lying about this when everyone can read the interview?
Removed by mod
By your same logic, Stein didn’t call Putin a war criminal
That’s what I’m seeing.
If we apply equal standards to both of them, then Hasan didn’t call Netanyahu a war criminal and Stein didn’t call Putin a war criminal. They both do this weird word dance around the topic.
They’re both really frustrating here.
She agreed that he was a criminal when asked.
Hasan then pivoted to complaining about Jill calling Biden and Netanyahu criminals, while asserting our sponsorship of Israel isn’t relevant to the question of war criminality.
Dude, you said he didn’t agree with her when he literally agreed with her.
Stop lying.
Removed by mod
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.
That’s all you need to read. If you are unable to read that one simple sentence, you are too stupid to even have a real conversation here. If you refuse to read that one simple sentence, then you are intentionally trying not to have a real conversation here.
That’s all you need to read.
The fact that you think this tells me you’re utterly insincere.
Mehdi Hasan: Vladimir Putin is a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Yes, we did condemn —
Yall are deranged
Give the full exchange. I watched the full interview. She said “we condemn his actions”. She never could in a full sentence condemn him. It’s gotta be loaded with qualifiers, and even THEN nothing of value comes out of her mouth. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. It’s a simple yes/no.
You are responding to a quote of her saying yes and condemning him, and getting interrupted by a bully.
Saying yes then loading it with ten thousand qualifiers is not a clear yes. Nice try though.
Qualifiers like “his invasion of Ukraine is a criminal and murderous war.”
But it’s still a yes.
It’s a simple yes/no.
“Yes” is literally the first word out of her mouth.
Wrong. Her answer is ‘yes’ followed by a million qualifiers. Because for sugar daddy Putin we need to use the softest padded gloves. We’re not stupid. The ruse is up.
What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to be doing to claim that saying “Yes” to the question “is Putin a war criminal” isn’t a clear yes/no answer and clear agreement? This is like MAGA level insanity.
So she still answered in the affirmative.
She was asked several times before giving a yes or no answer, despite giving one immediately for Netanyahu
Literally the first word out of her mouth when asked the first time if hes a war criminal. This is incredible levels of lying.
Mehdi Hasan: And he’s a war criminal who should be on trial?
Jill Stein: Well, by implication.
Mehdi Hasan: You’re struggling here to say something very simple. This is why people have their doubts about you with Russia. Why is Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but not Vladimir Putin?
Jill Stein: Well, as John F. Kennedy said, “We must not negotiate out of fear and we must not fear to negotiate.” So if you want to be an effective world leader, you don’t start by name calling and hurling out that.
Mehdi Hasan: So how will President Stein negotiate with Israel then, if you’ve called Netanyahu a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal.
Mehdi Hasan: Oh, so Putin clearly isn’t a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, we don’t have a decision, put it this way, by the International Criminal Court.
Mehdi Hasan: Yes, we do. Yes, actually, actually, you’re wrong. There’s an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn’t an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?
Anyone remotely supporting Stein is either as ignorant as she is (claimed there were 600 members of Congress LOL), or drinking Russian vodka.
This is also just the Chef’s Kiss in terms of having of all people Mehdi Hasan take down Stein.
Im very familiar with her position on Russia and Putin. As she has immediately done in this interview, that you will absolutely never acknowledge, she has already condemned Putin and Russia’s invasion many times. She is more critical of Israels genocide because of our involvement in supporting it. And she has criticisms for our role in aggressive military positioning around Russia before that invasion. She has a consistent platform of reducing military aggression.
Bullshit. Our involvement or not is utterly irrelevant to identifying a war criminal. She tried to cop out by claiming we don’t have a verdict with the criminal court; neither do we with Israel but that didn’t stop her, did it… ? Smells like Russian vodka to me.
that you will absolutely never acknowledge
Despite your lies, she immediately identified him as a war criminal
Evidently many here, including Hasan, disagree. In fact, her own response proves otherwise when she claims it’s because the criminal court didn’t issue a verdict. Once again, a double-standard in her clear declaration of Bibi being a war criminal despite lacking the same verdict.
You’ve got no logic to support your argument.
Hasan is a bully interrupting her immediate identifying Putin as a war criminal.
Boohoo. And she’s a self-defeating clown openly exploiting the Spoiler Effect to derail Democrats and help Republicans. Fuck her.
Trouble reading? Because there’s more.
Yeah i see 6 or 7 more times of her agreeing hes a war criminal.
So you’re saying you willfully overlooked how she could without hesitation call Netanyahu a war criminal but could not in the same manner say that about Putin. I’ll refer you to my original comment, that is unless you’re doing this all on bad faith of course.
but could not in the same manner say that about Putin.
"Mehdi Hasan: Vladimir Putin is a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Yes, we did condemn —"
What fucking hesitation? First fucking word of the first question, yes. You are deranged
“Is Kyiv the capital of Ukraine?”
“Yes, yes, we do think Moscow is the capital.”
She said yes twice already! /s
You are stooping to some deplorably dishonest strawmanning here
Seems quite similar to her answers, but obviously my “deplorably dishonest strawman” was exaggerated for effect.
I wish we could have viable third parties, but without some kind of ranked choice voting they will only remain spoilers. Which leads people to wonder why Stein remains at the top of a party that doesn’t perform well, and actually serves to reduce votes for things they claim to care about. Democrats are a coalition of all kinds, and if enough people would bother to vote in primaries the quality control would only improve.
lol right? when she finally gets to complete her sentence she fully says she condemns Putin. what do y’all want, a complete obliteration of nuance? get the fuck out of here with your purity tests.
No u
raccoon
We have truly all gone off the deep end. Truth isn’t truth, facts don’t matter, we’re all arguing for what should be completely obvious and nobody is actually listening to the other person.
If the propaganda is now directly targeting third parties it means that they are becoming popular enough to threat red and blue
Do explain how Medhi Hasan is “the propaganda.” He doesn’t even work for any major media company. He founded his own company.
He’s wrong anyway, the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties, but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.
You said it’s not a threat and then gave a reason it is actually a threat.
they are becoming popular enough to threat red and blue
Context clues
it’s designed to
Doesn’t mean it works
Tell that to Al Gore.
Why?
That was a different commenter…?
No, that commenter literally said they’re not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.
Look at the thread again
Are you saying that something helping the republicans isn’t a threat to democrats? Or are you saying it’s not enough to help because you’ve already forgotten the lesson from 2000?
A threat is viable. They are not
Flying Squid you have been around here for enough time to know what propaganda is so don’t play the fool. There’s clearly a bias in which news get posted and reach the frontpage and that’s a direct and indirect result of the propaganda. How many news about third parties did you post up to a month ago?
The “bias” on Lemmy is that people use their personal biases to post an article they feel is interesting. If other people agree, they upvote it.
There’s no propaganda there. Lemmy just isn’t designed to cater to you personally.
There’s no propaganda there.
The fediverse has grown enough to draw biggest corporations in the world attention. Expect propaganda to be here too and expect people to repost here propaganda they get from other websites. I wonder where you got this news from.
As a mod constantly dealing with spammers, I can tell you that that’s just a silly assertion.
So then she indeed did call him a war criminal on the record? You can’t pretend that doesn’t matter and expect any respect
Current president of usa has probably more pictures shaking hands and being friendly with putin than this person does. Politicians are all rigged and corrupted. I’m highlighting that news about third parties suddenly pooped out of nowhere and that it’s most likely propaganda
Hmm, dodged successfully I suppose you think.
pooped
How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are using toilet humor smhmyhead
I guess the team running Monks account hasn’t woken up yet. A post about his heroine, and they haven’t said anything lol
They’re usually late to the party. They didn’t post on another Stein thread until long after the discussion was over.
Every president of USA is a war criminal. I don’t see anybody pressing harris/trump on that issue. Probably because they’re war criminals themselves… Life inside the imperial core…
Plenty of people call US presidents war criminals. That’s not what this article is about though. It’s about a different war criminal. What’s the point of bringing up an entirely different topic?
On top of that, Hasan agreed with Stein when she said, “We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.”
