How about you link me to something directly so I can engage in the conversation? As I’ve said, I read the news and I’ve read about Putin. None of what I’ve encountered or come across when reading has been evidence of Stein being a Russian asset. You could’ve easily found something by now if you know it exists, but instead you’ve chosen to insult me, accuse me of sealioning, and told me to do my own homework.
Accusing me of sealioning is just as convenient as calling me a troll. I’m not sealioning. I’m just genuinely mystified at this “Stein is a Russian asset” narrative because there’s never been any evidence of it and whenever I question it, I get called a troll or accused of sealioning. It’s very frustrating.
If the evidence is quite accessible, then why is nobody linking it to me? If you can’t back up your claim, don’t claim it. Again, call me a troll all you want. I’m not going to insult you. I’m just asking for evidence.
I’m not answering how old I am because that’s none of your business, frankly. You can call me an idiot or a troll, I don’t really care. I just asked for proof of something and so far all I’ve gotten are replies about it being self-evident because “that’s how Putin works” or other various forms of non-proof.
Based on the other things they’re posting, I doubt it’s sarcasm. This person wants harm to come to people who vote third party. If not, they can reply to this clarifying otherwise or edit their original comment and I’ll happily stand corrected.
Oh, but as you’ve said, nothing has to happen at a dinner right? They could’ve networked outside of the dinner. In fact, Clinton has had many closed door conversations with Putin, whereas Stein hasn’t spoken with him at all to my knowledge. See how disingenuous that is? And how it makes having a conversation about this a little difficult? As does calling me a troll because you have 0 evidence.
Repeating things isn’t providing evidence. As I’ve said in another comment, being at a dinner table with someone isn’t evidence of collusion. Putin sitting at a table with someone, even if he’s the one who chose to seat himself there, isn’t evidence that that person is colluding with him. He’s sat at dinner tables with Hillary Clinton. Does that mean Clinton is a Russian asset? You’d recognize that claim as absurd without evidence surely?
If it’s widely known, then surely you can provide evidence for it right?
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.
What if you’re one of those foreign agent accounts? Who am I to believe??
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.
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.
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.
You made the assertion, so the onus is on you to prove it.
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.
So you want someone to be “rounded up” because of how they are exercising their right to vote, but you aren’t using that same time and energy to push your candidate to change positions to get said vote? This is the embodiment of blue maga lol
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.
deleted by creator
This doesn’t look like the same person as Crooks. I saw a video of someone that looks similar to the dude in this picture make a troll video after the fact saying HE was the shooter and he’s “still out there”. It very much seems like either this same person made an IG account immediately after to mess with people or someone else saw that video and chose to make this account to mess with people. Either way, I don’t think this is the same person as the shooter.
Her being a patsy would be an entirely different claim than her being a consensual and willing Russian asset.