- cross-posted to:
- politicsunfiltered
- cross-posted to:
- politicsunfiltered
“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”
Which could have been influenced by Russian media. You and I don’t know because it’s an opinion piece. It’s not a researched piece of journalism.
I think you’re working deep under cover for Russia.
Hey, at least you got the concept of what I’m saying. Don’t trust opinions. Trust actual, credible journalism.
I have to agree that completely ignoring the nytimes op-ed section is healthy and brings you closer to the truth. I’m glad we’ve established that.
I don’t even think you need to qualify that with nytimes. Just ignore the op-ed section.
Yes, not a new point and well agreed.
Now let me show you where you’re confused. Here’s the claim,
The claim is about the non-existence of a controversy. It’s not about the factual evidence under-girding the non-controversial satement, as you seem to assume.
e.g. “It’s not controversial to say that World War I was partially caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.”
To refute or confirm this claim about a commonly held opinion requires the citation of opinions. You can convince me that Franz Ferdinand factually had nothing to do with the war, but it wouldn’t refute the statement.