Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.
“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/jill-stein-says-nothing-happened-at-her-dinner-with-putin/ https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-ties-vladimir-putin-explained-1842620 I’ll never get tired of posting this in response.
Of course she says nothing happened. It’s like a child getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar covered in crumbs, and they will insist they did nothing wrong. Never expect someone to be honest when it’s against their interests.
F to doubt what she says
No one is saying anything had to happen, but she was certainly invited there there for a reason.
Well, sure. I’m not saying that Russians didn’t have a nefarious reason to invite her there. It’s entirely possible and maybe even likely that they did it because they saw a third party candidate as a useful tool to sow some sort of election discord in the US. But that claim would be entirely different than the claim that Jill Stein did it because she’s an asset or that this was her idea or purpose for being there. I’m disputing the latter, not the former, because her attending a gala for RT is not evidence of collusion and this was the implication being made. I can find all sorts of pictures online of Hillary Clinton and other politicians having dinners with Trump or Putin, but that doesn’t mean the photos are evidence that they were in collusion with either of them.
I like how you are completely overlooking the fact that I never made any actual claim about her being a Russian asset.
You kept bringing up the asset thing.
This is what I wrote:
The asset part was a complete invention of yours.
Did you know Clinton was a Putin asset too?
So your response to me telling someone I never said anything about her being an asset is to suggest I said she was an asset?
Are you reading any of my posts or are you just intentionally doing this sort of lying?
So are you saying she’s not an asset?
You keep putting words in my mouth and now you expect me to answer your questions, huh?
Nah, first you apologize.
You don’t get put at a dinner table in Moscow with Putin unless Putin has a good reason for wanting you there.
He doesn’t just sit down with random people and hope they have a good time.
Shit, and all this time I thought he just had a passion for entertaining!
That’s basically what this person seems to be suggesting. Like she just happened to be sitting there and Putin and all of his closest people were like, “let’s go see who this lady is and what she’s up to!”
Ah yes the dude is such an all-knowing chessmaster chad dangerous dictator but he lets people take photoshoot of his secret election interference meeting.
I did not say it was a secret election interference meeting. Do not put words in my mouth. That’s just dishonest.
Ah so you’re just dogwhistling to let people have their own conclusions or something? Kindof like fascists with what we should do with brown people?
Please name this particular group you think I work for beyond ‘people who don’t trust someone who sits at a dinner table with the dictator of Russia at a state celebration in Moscow for English-language Russian state TV.’
Except it’s not what I’m suggesting at all. I haven’t suggested anything. I’ve posted what Stein has said happened, which she says was a dinner at a RT anniversary gala where Putin only briefly sat at their table, no introductions were made, and no English-Russian conversations happened. If you have evidence of something else happening there, as you seem to be suggesting, then provide it.
Ah, I see the problem. You aren’t reading my posts. Let me help you:
I’ve read all of your replies. Why would I believe that happened without evidence? Have you proven that she’s networked with Russians or Putin? Suggesting something might have happened isn’t evidence of the thing happening.
You get that nothing had to happen at the dinner, right? That’s not how networking works.
Okay, then prove that something happened. I’m not the one implying she’s some sort of Russian asset with 0 evidence beyond a photo. That’s you.
I don’t have to prove anything happened. She was put at a dinner table with Putin in Moscow. Something that only happens if Putin finds you useful. He doesn’t sit at random tables and strike up conversations with whoever he finds.
You put the rest together.
Putin and his regime himself are US ideas. They sponsored fascists in the name of realpolitik and are now whining they are making fascist things. The brave mujhaideen of afghanistan all over again
Vatnik delusions have reached new heights lmao
Your evidence for Jill Stein being bribed by Putin in her sitting next to a German ambassador at a table, and Putin sitting down in a seat at the other side of the table?
The Democrat misinformation campaign is in full swing here.
I said nothing about bribery.
Why are you making up lies about me?
Also, pretending that Putin and his cronies just sat down at a random table where Jill Stein happened to be sitting is silly and I think you know that.
You made the assertion, so the onus is on you to prove it.
I did in my previous comment. You just don’t like the fact that you are only put at a table with the extremely calculating dictator of Russia unless he has good reason for you to be there.
And if you expect me to prove that about Putin, you’re just a troll.
Calling me a troll is an incredibly convenient way for you to get out from under the burden of proof here. Kind of hard to have a discussion with someone if they’re just going to call you a troll when you ask them to provide proof of something they’re claiming.
Yeah, it is hard to have a discussion with someone under those circumstances. But when you refute widely known information because they don’t have an affidavit, you get called a troll.
If it’s widely known, then surely you can provide evidence for it right?