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.
It's a simple yes/no.
"Yes" is literally the first word out of her mouth.
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.
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.
Why can't it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?
Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.
Heres a simple example:
"did you rape that woman"
"yes"
vs
"yes she was asking for it"
Is not the same. That's what she's doing.
Either way it's still a yes. Qualifiers don't affect the result either in this case nor in your example.
Why can't it be a yes full stop? The same way she did for two others?
So she still answered in the affirmative.
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 yes but with an excuse. It's not a hard yes. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth. She seems to have no difficulty saying that for Biden. What gives?
No idea. I don't really care, because she's a terrible candidate. But it's still a yes. And I'm honestly surprised by that, because I'm pretty sure she's been supported by Putin as someone that might fracture the US.
It was a mumbled yes. After Mehdi asked her ten times. Only to be followed by 'but but but'. Gotta be careful what we say about Putin, right? No problem with Biden though. Clear and emphatic out of the gate YES
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.
None of your accusations mean anything when you plainly do not care what she does or says. You'll never aknowledge her own words.
You're right. Because she already proved herself to be a deceitful piece of shit, full of hypocrisy. Would be like taking Trump at his word.
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.
but without some kind of ranked choice voting
This is a really big sticking point for me. People always support it here, but always bring it up with no expectation of, you know, making it happen. I too want ranked choice voting, and when I say that I mean I am earnestly trying to make it happen, and it happens when we elect people that support it, like Jill. Its astounding how much she supports what people here want, but people here just despise her, making up all kinds of shit.
No u
raccoon
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.
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.
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.
"Yes" is literally the first word out of her mouth.
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.
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.
Why can't it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?
Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.
Heres a simple example:
vs
Is not the same. That's what she's doing.
Either way it's still a yes. Qualifiers don't affect the result either in this case nor in your example.
Why can't it be a yes full stop? The same way she did for two others?
So she still answered in the affirmative.
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 yes but with an excuse. It's not a hard yes. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth. She seems to have no difficulty saying that for Biden. What gives?
No idea. I don't really care, because she's a terrible candidate. But it's still a yes. And I'm honestly surprised by that, because I'm pretty sure she's been supported by Putin as someone that might fracture the US.
It was a mumbled yes. After Mehdi asked her ten times. Only to be followed by 'but but but'. Gotta be careful what we say about Putin, right? No problem with Biden though. Clear and emphatic out of the gate YES
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.
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.
None of your accusations mean anything when you plainly do not care what she does or says. You'll never aknowledge her own words.
You're right. Because she already proved herself to be a deceitful piece of shit, full of hypocrisy. Would be like taking Trump at his word.
You aint got shit for evidence against her
photographic evidence
Damning evidence
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.
"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
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.
This is a really big sticking point for me. People always support it here, but always bring it up with no expectation of, you know, making it happen. I too want ranked choice voting, and when I say that I mean I am earnestly trying to make it happen, and it happens when we elect people that support it, like Jill. Its astounding how much she supports what people here want, but people here just despise her, making up all kinds of shit.
No u
raccoon
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.
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.
I would like to get off this ride.