‘Useful Idiot for Russia’: DNC Decides to Go Off on Jill Stein - eviltoast

“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes, directly and specifically about Putin. The quote is right there.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Yes we did condemn…” is not the same as “Yes, Putin is a war criminal.”

      The passive accusations run all through it.

      “So, what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is criminal. It’s a criminal and murderous war,”

      “Well, by implication, by implication,” Stein said.

      “In so many words, yes he is,” Stein said. “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.”

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        3 months ago

        It…is when the question is literally “is putin a war criminal?”

          • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just FYI, somebody else already tried explaining all this to blazera and blazera was completely unreasonable about it. You’re not going to get anything through their thick skull.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            32
            ·
            3 months ago

            “Yes he is” does. Im sorry but the headlines youve been given are an outright lie this time

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              26
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              “Yes he is” is a subordinate to “in so many words”.

              https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in-so-many-words

              “If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way.”

              Is he a war criminal?

              “In so many words, yes he is.”

              “I’m not going to say he is, but he is.”

              Not the same thing as:

              “Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal,”

              (What she said about Netanyahu).

              The comparison between what she’s willing to say about Netanyahu and unwilling to say about Putin, in the same interview, to the same journalist, is striking.

              • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                This is the second time today this argument has happened. They aren’t even trying anymore. You can quote anything and they will tell you that isn’t what it means

                The interviewer agreed with her twice about Netanyahu, yet they kept screaming he was defending Netanyahu

                • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yeah, they were arguing with FlyingSquid about it and even when faced with direct evidence blazera kept lying and lying. Obviously bad faith.

              • blazera@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                23
                ·
                3 months ago

                Youve got it backwards

                “If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way.”

                Scroll down for the inverse

                in so many words in American English in unequivocal terms; explicitly She told them in so many words to get out

                • Skeezix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s not working blazera. You’re not getting anywhere. Keep at it though so that you can keep yourself convinced.