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
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.
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!
Probably their corporate overlords have some influence here as well.
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.
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.
Even if you don't get an answer, it's good to keep at it long enough that it's obvious they're avoiding it.
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.
This has strong "the front fell off" vibes.
another Green voter got very agitated when called out for pushing only Russia's talking points in this debate:
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.
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"
That’s Medhi Hassan. He’s a serious interviewer, and he’s tough with every politician he interviews if they aren’t answering questions.
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?
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.
While we may not agree on her trying to be diplomatic, this is very well said
Thanks.
Again, I’m no fan of hers and certainly won’t be voting for her. I was just trying to be fair.
I get it, and to an extent I can appreciate it, but personally I can never give these people any benefit of the doubt
What I’m trying to show is that, even with the benefit of the doubt, she still sucks.
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.
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.
It's the same schadenfreude as Obama bowing to the Saudi King. The rightwing press were having conniptions that the 'leader of the free world' could show any deference to a Middle Eastern leader but it was just normal political niceties.
There are orders of difference between Netanyaho and Putin in terms of future longevity and difficulty in reducing them if that's what the USA wants to do. Putin is a cockroach. For the foreseeable future he is who you're going to have to deal with. So any serious leader will always be running a political calculation as to what their position must be. Stein erred and so sweaty commentators are making hay.
If the Democrats wanted to undermine her position they could easily stop supporting Israel's psychopathy. Any popularity that Stein might be enjoying would wither on the vine.
Yeah she explicitly said "yes" multiple times. I don't like her, but this is garbage.
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?
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
I’m not so sure. I think that I’d need to hear/see the interview to know the tone/context.
Wow, Jill comes off like a jackass in that interview. Shouldn't be surprised I guess the Greens have become useful idiots for those trying to manipulate the election.
Fuck, that's horrible. And this woman consistently manages to drive hundreds of thousands of votes from the Democrat candidate.
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.
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.
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.
Solar is horrible, I'm a big fan of solar energy
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.
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!
If she's not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won't do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.
A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, "Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?" And they replied, "Well...in so many words, yes."
It's a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren't autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.
In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, "You said you would." They can warp it around with, "I never directly said i would do anything." Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.
It's the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It's half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It's very easy to read through though and that's why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
You:
Hasan:
This can't be clearer. Just stop.
its not weird at all? he's saying their both war criminals because they are. youre whose saying he's defending netenyahu when theres nothing here to support that, which is what everyone else is saying
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?
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.
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.
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.
It has nothing to do with your identity. They all have different rules and different communities. Its more like which hotel chain you prefer to stay at. Its a preference for sure, but one that doesnt matter much.
People who judge based on instance are only outing themselves anyways. Churlish.
it does say something though about what style of moderation you prefer and who you associate yourself with. that's why it's literally part of the identity you present. it's embedded in your username. it's like your fediverse last name.
I've been on Lemmy for a year and only now I'm learning about instances. I've read a few threads about lemmy.ml being "tankies" and that hexbear is the worst, but haven't had any negative interactions with either. Shit, I don't know the majority of the time which instance I'm interacting with.
Sort of, at best it means that instance hasnt banned that person, yet.
You could argue it means something more than nothing, I'd argue its not enough to matter.
People really want to be allowed to be bigots and currently Communism is "safe" to hate, so they let a few interactions color their opinion of an entire, loosely-affiliated group.
There does seem to be a lot of regional competition I'll call it, between posters. Some really get a kick out of figuring out which country someone is from so they can quickly throw out their argument.
Kind of a wild place. Still lots of different perspectives abound, if you cast a wide enough net.
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.
No. Unless you're a power-tripping mod or admin, they seem to be cool with that. Not so much toward average users. I've seen no drama here on lemm.ee.
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
I would put some effort into switching when you have a weekend. There isn't necessarily a best, just best for you. The ones quill mentioned up the thread are all solid though. I'm a dbzero guy myself but blahaj is cool and I haven't had issues with people from any of the other servers he's mentioned. .ml, .hexbear, .grad, and .vegan whatever that instance is are all no go in my book for various reasons.
exactly! every instance represents an imperfect vision of their admins perfect instance. the trick is finding or founding the instance that most closely reflects what you want to see and experience on the fediverse
I'm already planning on making a new account eventually, I'm just lazy and have a hard time letting go. Any details on why I should expedite the process? Aside from being mainstream, the only argument I have heard is that it has a hard time federating with the other instances due to its size
You don't have to switch, its like email, you can just have multiple. The phone apps for lemmy have an account switch feature so you can use more than one. The sign ups aren't much more difficult than worlds in most cases. Some require a manual approval which can take some time.
Personally I left world because of how antagonistic they are towards vegans. I don't mind a good debate but its crazy to me that the majority opinion there is that veganism is about as taboo as child rape.
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.
CTH was kicked out for saying "John Brown was right actually, killing slavers is good" and made an example of, along with thedonald way after it had been abandoned. Full "antifa is as bad as fascists" garbage but it's what the shareholders want.
And it wasn't all tankies, there were a lot of LateStageCapitalism refugees that git kicked because LSC was just straight tankie. I got kicked for suggesting that North Korea isn't good just because the West says it's bad.
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?
we're also numb to what's happening in ukraine. people got tired around when it hit the one year mark
By “people” I assume you don’t mean Ukrainians.
i mean westerners. it's been very frustrating because it means i have to find out what's going on by seeking firsthand perspectives because journalistic fervor is guided by what will sell ads. my bet is sometime around october seventh people start tuning out again because the novelty will have worn off. i'd love to be wrong, but every single outrage decays as we mistake novelty for news
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.
Not yet, anyway. That's absolutely Trump's plan though. You want to help prevent that?
You want to quit calling me a trumper every time I speak out against genocide?
Why can’t they? You accuse everyone you talk to of supporting genocide. Quit playing the victim of the exact same shit you do to everyone here.
Avoiding the question.
Putting a question mark at the end of a lie doesn't make it a question. I'm already voting for Harris, and you will never care because all you want in this world is total unquestioning loving support for Netanyahu and the genocide he's committing for you.
You can put "but I'm voting for Harris" in tiny font at the end of one of your countless attacks on Democrats, it doesn't absolve you of the damage you do.
Also I'm starting to worry you're getting high on your own supply here - you do recall that I don't actually support Netanyahu and your accusing me of it is just a rhetorical device, right?
Since you keep ignoring that I'm not a trump supporter and keep lying about me, there's no reason for me to take anything you say at face value either.
edit: Elsewhere in the thread, there's someone outright denying genocide. You've chosen to focus your attention on someone who objects to genocide instead.
Okay, cool, just checking
No. You decided to confront me and call me a Trump supporter. You ignored the genocide denier because his cause is your cause.
Well there's a difference between "you are a Trump supporter" and "you are supporting Trump". I accuse you of the latter.
You proactively call opposition to genocide trump support.
Jay Sekulow represented The Green Party in their bid to get on the Nevada ballot.
Anyone who knows that name knows why this is absurd.
And that somehow prevented her from simply calling Putin a war criminal like she did Biden and Netanyahu?
Oh, so she's just spineless, then?
That really clears it up, thanks.
I wonder if Kamala would admit that Biden and Obama are war criminals (or even Netanyahu!).
No one's asked her. But she probably wouldn't hesitate to condemn Putin as one like Jill Stein did.
I mean, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't call any of the guys I mentioned one. Would be nice if Mehdi Hassan asked her though.
Mehdi Hassan has never had an interview with her.
I don't care for Jill Stein and Putin. But the hypocrisy is still astounding. Lets ask Harris to call Biden a war criminal. Because he is one too. This is all just performative politics.
Biden is Harris' boss.
Unless you think Jill Stein works for Putin, which would explain this, it's a different situation.
Biden is Harris’ boss.
Exactly! Jill Stein only presumably works for Putin the war criminal, and if so in a far less stringent capacity, compared to Harris who definitely absolutely works for Biden the war criminal.
Absolutely a far worse situation! :D
Do you think you could get away with badmouthing your boss to the press, even if it's a valid thing to say?
Of course not, the Israel lobby would get her before Biden and the democrats could shake themselves out of absolutely flabbergasted horror.
But that just makes the hypocrisy more delicious. Nobody can take the USA seriously any more.
Who is being a hypocrite here exactly?
There doesn't have to be a hypocrite for hypocrisy to exist. Maybe it was spontaneously formed by a preponderance of misinformation and dumbassery?
I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is. Because yes, there does need to be a hypocrite.
Someone has to be making a claim. Who is making the claim and what is the claim?
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
Oh, it's in the definition! It's suburban life that made the claim!
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.
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.
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."
Even Lincoln?
Especially Lincoln. You can argue the ends justified the means, of course, but the Union didn't win the war by keeping their hands clean.
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?
Are you under the bizarre idea that Al Gore is influencing Lemmy?
Lol, no. Why would you even think that?
Continuity.
I mean if you're ignoring the context of the election and 2000, then maybe you can make that leap.
The 2000 election, when Lemmy didn’t exist? What on Earth are you talking about?
That's what I'm asking. What are you talking about?
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?
No... I'm saying you're mistaking two different commenters as one
No... Because I'm only referring to one post.
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.
I'll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:
the green party isn't a threat to any of the parties
And then the very next part of the same sentence is:
but it's designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans
Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn't a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.
the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency
What does Florida's fuckery have to do with independents?
I don't understand that conclusion. According to their table there, Gore lost by ~550 votes and Nader had over 90,000 votes. Do you really think those votes would have been evenly split?
I know reading is harder than looking at the picture, but give it a shot and you will have your answer. Of course, you won't. You will only cherry pick the things that you think will help your case. Problem is, no one believes you, and you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise
Edit: I did a bunch reading for you
Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and New Hampshire. If Gore had won just New Hampshire and lost Florida, we would be calling him Former President Al Gore.
As it turns out, only around 24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida, compared with the 308,000 registered Democrats (or 13 percent of all Democrats in Florida) who voted for George W. Bush. It seems to me that the 308,000 Democrats who voted Republican in 2000 hurt the Democratic Party much more than the 24,000 Democrats that voted for Nader.
Gore lost because 200,000 Democrats voted against him in Florida, electoral chaos reigned, and he failed to win his home state of Tennessee.
Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Republican George W. Bush has now been completely nullified in the eyes of history by none other than former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted for Bush. Now she says, “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up.”
Imagine if O’Connor had thought that way in December 2000. Gore may have become president, and Nader would have had nothing to do with the results.
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
The exchange:
How is it more complicated, Jill? The lady doth protest too much
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.
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!
Probably their corporate overlords have some influence here as well.
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.
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.
Even if you don't get an answer, it's good to keep at it long enough that it's obvious they're avoiding it.
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
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.
This has strong "the front fell off" vibes.
another Green voter got very agitated when called out for pushing only Russia's talking points in this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/live/wR4l5BWWzCQ?t=5010
Can I get a timestamp?
Edit: my bad, embedded browser didn’t preserve the url timestamp. 1:23:30
didn't realise these 2 had history, lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l203PI-SXc
lol she was squirming
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.
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"
That’s Medhi Hassan. He’s a serious interviewer, and he’s tough with every politician he interviews if they aren’t answering questions.
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.
https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1835761859838038350
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.
While we may not agree on her trying to be diplomatic, this is very well said
Thanks.
Again, I’m no fan of hers and certainly won’t be voting for her. I was just trying to be fair.
I get it, and to an extent I can appreciate it, but personally I can never give these people any benefit of the doubt
What I’m trying to show is that, even with the benefit of the doubt, she still sucks.
Honestly, on the merits— she’s awful.
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.
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.
It's the same schadenfreude as Obama bowing to the Saudi King. The rightwing press were having conniptions that the 'leader of the free world' could show any deference to a Middle Eastern leader but it was just normal political niceties.
There are orders of difference between Netanyaho and Putin in terms of future longevity and difficulty in reducing them if that's what the USA wants to do. Putin is a cockroach. For the foreseeable future he is who you're going to have to deal with. So any serious leader will always be running a political calculation as to what their position must be. Stein erred and so sweaty commentators are making hay.
If the Democrats wanted to undermine her position they could easily stop supporting Israel's psychopathy. Any popularity that Stein might be enjoying would wither on the vine.
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.
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?
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
I’m not so sure. I think that I’d need to hear/see the interview to know the tone/context.
Wow, Jill comes off like a jackass in that interview. Shouldn't be surprised I guess the Greens have become useful idiots for those trying to manipulate the election.
Fuck, that's horrible. And this woman consistently manages to drive hundreds of thousands of votes from the Democrat candidate.
???
What does "by implication" mean to Hasan?
So they're in agreement. Right?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Solar is horrible, I'm a big fan of solar energy
Yes she never said 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.
Say weird some more. We aren't going to be desensitized to it. The right will still be fucking weird
It looks like you're being forced to notice the contradictions at last.
Oooooooh got 'imm!!!1!
If she's not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won't do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.
A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, "Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?" And they replied, "Well...in so many words, yes."
It's a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren't autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.
In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, "You said you would." They can warp it around with, "I never directly said i would do anything." Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.
It's the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It's half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It's very easy to read through though and that's why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.
Almost the very beginning of the interview:
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.
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.
Sure, but add the other things he said.
There was also this exchange:
The real difference here is that Mehdi Hassan was saying "yes" and Jill Stein was saying "yes, but..."
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.
Why keep raising this question? Why not focus on Putin alone? Why does Hasan need to inject Biden into this conversation?
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.
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?
Have you read the interview? You don't seem to want to acknowledge anything Hasan has actually said.
You:
Hasan:
This can't be clearer. Just stop.
its not weird at all? he's saying their both war criminals because they are. youre whose saying he's defending netenyahu when theres nothing here to support that, which is what everyone else is saying
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.
Jesus, why are you lying about this when everyone can read the interview?
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.
The fact that you think this tells me you're utterly insincere.
The things you yourself quoted show he is not trying to defend biden and netanyahu.
Uh. Second. Putin LOVES his pet Trump.
Dont forget Tulsi
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.
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.
It has nothing to do with your identity. They all have different rules and different communities. Its more like which hotel chain you prefer to stay at. Its a preference for sure, but one that doesnt matter much.
People who judge based on instance are only outing themselves anyways. Churlish.
it does say something though about what style of moderation you prefer and who you associate yourself with. that's why it's literally part of the identity you present. it's embedded in your username. it's like your fediverse last name.
I've been on Lemmy for a year and only now I'm learning about instances. I've read a few threads about lemmy.ml being "tankies" and that hexbear is the worst, but haven't had any negative interactions with either. Shit, I don't know the majority of the time which instance I'm interacting with.
Sort of, at best it means that instance hasnt banned that person, yet.
You could argue it means something more than nothing, I'd argue its not enough to matter.
People really want to be allowed to be bigots and currently Communism is "safe" to hate, so they let a few interactions color their opinion of an entire, loosely-affiliated group.
There does seem to be a lot of regional competition I'll call it, between posters. Some really get a kick out of figuring out which country someone is from so they can quickly throw out their argument.
Kind of a wild place. Still lots of different perspectives abound, if you cast a wide enough net.
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.
No. Unless you're a power-tripping mod or admin, they seem to be cool with that. Not so much toward average users. I've seen no drama here on lemm.ee.
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
I would put some effort into switching when you have a weekend. There isn't necessarily a best, just best for you. The ones quill mentioned up the thread are all solid though. I'm a dbzero guy myself but blahaj is cool and I haven't had issues with people from any of the other servers he's mentioned. .ml, .hexbear, .grad, and .vegan whatever that instance is are all no go in my book for various reasons.
exactly! every instance represents an imperfect vision of their admins perfect instance. the trick is finding or founding the instance that most closely reflects what you want to see and experience on the fediverse
I'm already planning on making a new account eventually, I'm just lazy and have a hard time letting go. Any details on why I should expedite the process? Aside from being mainstream, the only argument I have heard is that it has a hard time federating with the other instances due to its size
You don't have to switch, its like email, you can just have multiple. The phone apps for lemmy have an account switch feature so you can use more than one. The sign ups aren't much more difficult than worlds in most cases. Some require a manual approval which can take some time.
Personally I left world because of how antagonistic they are towards vegans. I don't mind a good debate but its crazy to me that the majority opinion there is that veganism is about as taboo as child rape.
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.
Because after r/ChapoTraphouse was kicked out from Reddit for inciting violence, the tankies moved to create lemmy.ml.
CTH was kicked out for saying "John Brown was right actually, killing slavers is good" and made an example of, along with thedonald way after it had been abandoned. Full "antifa is as bad as fascists" garbage but it's what the shareholders want.
And it wasn't all tankies, there were a lot of LateStageCapitalism refugees that git kicked because LSC was just straight tankie. I got kicked for suggesting that North Korea isn't good just because the West says it's bad.
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.
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.
we're also numb to what's happening in ukraine. people got tired around when it hit the one year mark
By “people” I assume you don’t mean Ukrainians.
i mean westerners. it's been very frustrating because it means i have to find out what's going on by seeking firsthand perspectives because journalistic fervor is guided by what will sell ads. my bet is sometime around october seventh people start tuning out again because the novelty will have worn off. i'd love to be wrong, but every single outrage decays as we mistake novelty for news
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.
I don't want the US government selling weapons to Russia to use against Ukrainians. I'm glad we aren't.
Not yet, anyway. That's absolutely Trump's plan though. You want to help prevent that?
You want to quit calling me a trumper every time I speak out against genocide?
Why can’t they? You accuse everyone you talk to of supporting genocide. Quit playing the victim of the exact same shit you do to everyone here.
Avoiding the question.
Putting a question mark at the end of a lie doesn't make it a question. I'm already voting for Harris, and you will never care because all you want in this world is total unquestioning loving support for Netanyahu and the genocide he's committing for you.
You can put "but I'm voting for Harris" in tiny font at the end of one of your countless attacks on Democrats, it doesn't absolve you of the damage you do.
Also I'm starting to worry you're getting high on your own supply here - you do recall that I don't actually support Netanyahu and your accusing me of it is just a rhetorical device, right?
Since you keep ignoring that I'm not a trump supporter and keep lying about me, there's no reason for me to take anything you say at face value either.
edit: Elsewhere in the thread, there's someone outright denying genocide. You've chosen to focus your attention on someone who objects to genocide instead.
Okay, cool, just checking
No. You decided to confront me and call me a Trump supporter. You ignored the genocide denier because his cause is your cause.
Well there's a difference between "you are a Trump supporter" and "you are supporting Trump". I accuse you of the latter.
You proactively call opposition to genocide trump support.
You won't say boo to genocide deniers.
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.
Just going to leave this here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/18/how-republicans-and-democrats-are-boosting-third-party-spoiler-candidates-as-trump-lawyer-represents-jill-stein/
Jay Sekulow represented The Green Party in their bid to get on the Nevada ballot.
Anyone who knows that name knows why this is absurd.
And that somehow prevented her from simply calling Putin a war criminal like she did Biden and Netanyahu?
Oh, so she's just spineless, then?
That really clears it up, thanks.
I wonder if Kamala would admit that Biden and Obama are war criminals (or even Netanyahu!).
No one's asked her. But she probably wouldn't hesitate to condemn Putin as one like Jill Stein did.
I mean, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't call any of the guys I mentioned one. Would be nice if Mehdi Hassan asked her though.
Mehdi Hassan has never had an interview with her.
I don't care for Jill Stein and Putin. But the hypocrisy is still astounding. Lets ask Harris to call Biden a war criminal. Because he is one too. This is all just performative politics.
Biden is Harris' boss.
Unless you think Jill Stein works for Putin, which would explain this, it's a different situation.
Exactly! Jill Stein only presumably works for Putin the war criminal, and if so in a far less stringent capacity, compared to Harris who definitely absolutely works for Biden the war criminal.
Absolutely a far worse situation! :D
Do you think you could get away with badmouthing your boss to the press, even if it's a valid thing to say?
Of course not, the Israel lobby would get her before Biden and the democrats could shake themselves out of absolutely flabbergasted horror.
But that just makes the hypocrisy more delicious. Nobody can take the USA seriously any more.
Who is being a hypocrite here exactly?
There doesn't have to be a hypocrite for hypocrisy to exist. Maybe it was spontaneously formed by a preponderance of misinformation and dumbassery?
I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is. Because yes, there does need to be a hypocrite.
Someone has to be making a claim. Who is making the claim and what is the claim?
Oh, it's in the definition! It's suburban life that made the claim!
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
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.
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."
Even Lincoln?
Especially Lincoln. You can argue the ends justified the means, of course, but the Union didn't win the war by keeping their hands clean.
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.
Context clues
Doesn't mean it works
Tell that to Al Gore.
Why?
Are you under the bizarre idea that Al Gore is influencing Lemmy?
Lol, no. Why would you even think that?
Continuity.
I mean if you're ignoring the context of the election and 2000, then maybe you can make that leap.
The 2000 election, when Lemmy didn’t exist? What on Earth are you talking about?
That's what I'm asking. What are you talking about?
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?
No... I'm saying you're mistaking two different commenters as one
No... Because I'm only referring to one post.
I'll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:
And then the very next part of the same sentence is:
Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn't a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.
Why are you making stuff up?
What does Florida's fuckery have to do with independents?
I don't understand that conclusion. According to their table there, Gore lost by ~550 votes and Nader had over 90,000 votes. Do you really think those votes would have been evenly split?
I know reading is harder than looking at the picture, but give it a shot and you will have your answer. Of course, you won't. You will only cherry pick the things that you think will help your case. Problem is, no one believes you, and you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise
Edit: I did a bunch reading for you
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-al-gore-ralph-nader-2000-20160527-snap-story.html
I did read the link. And it still seems like a ton of mental gymnastics to ignore the vote totals.
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.
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.
How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are using toilet humor smhmyhead