715

“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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Your support of genocide is not

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago

When NATO was founded, what did Lord Ismay famously say it was for?

[-] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Something other than stopping Russia for committing genocide. Which means he was incorrect because that's what NATO is currently doing.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

It's not controversial to say that the US / NATO helped trigger the war in Ukraine.

[-] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Not on your state sponsored propaganda instance maybe. Can't wait till they play Swan Lake. Should be soon. What a classic

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

While that's an accurate description of NYTimes and Wikipedia, they're probably not the outlets you had in mind.

Ample evidence suggests that enlarging NATO over the years stoked Moscow’s grievances and heightened Ukraine’s vulnerability. After the Cold War ended, Moscow wanted NATO, previously an anti-Soviet military alliance, to freeze in place and diminish in significance. Instead, Western countries elevated NATO as the premier vehicle for European security and began an open-ended process of eastward expansion. Even though, as the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright noted, the Russians “were strongly opposed to enlargement,” the United States and its allies went ahead anyway

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Don't get your evidence from opinion pieces.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What evidence are you calling into question specifically? That NATO expanded after the fall of the USSR?

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not. I'm not the same person. I'm just telling you that you shouldn't cite an opinion piece as evidence.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh, in this case an opinion piece in US media is evidence. @catsarebadpeople believed that the opinion (NATO's expansion partially caused the war) was limited to Russian / BRICS media.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

I think you're working deep under cover for Russia.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Hey, at least you got the concept of what I'm saying. Don't trust opinions. Trust actual, credible journalism.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I don't even think you need to qualify that with nytimes. Just ignore the op-ed section.

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes agreed.

I think I know where you're confused. Here's the original claim that begat this thread,

It’s not controversial to say that the US / NATO helped trigger the war in Ukraine.

The claim is about an opinion being generally accepted. To confirm or refute the claim requires secondary sources, since the claim is about opinions.

If the claim were simply,

US / NATO helped trigger the war in Ukraine.

Then the claim is concerned directly with what triggered the war in Ukraine. To confirm or refute the claim, you'd benefit more from primary sources (including journalism, as you mentioned.)

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
715 points (93.4% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4183 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS