• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t. I refuted it with just as strong a claim as they made. if you think you can get them to provide a source, go for it. I happen to know it’s untrue, so I don’t care to bicker with them about it.

              • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean…. She did go to a gala celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia Today, which is state controlled propaganda.

                  • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No it doesn’t. Operation mockingbird implies that every government tries to influence the narrative of the free press, and literally always has. And the CIA was no exception.

                    If you see no difference between an attempt to influence the narrative of the free press by the state, and not having a free press at all, only a literal extension of the state serving propaganda as the narrative, I don’t know what to tell you.

    • goldenlocks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      58
      ·
      1 year ago

      Source: your ass

      All you liberals have is a picture of her at a table with Putin as if Democrats you vote for haven’t sat at a table with Putin before

      • https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172

        It’s a well-established fact that a part of her social media campaign was funded by the Russians.

        To be clear: I’m not saying she necessarily did all this in cahoots with Putin. Russia funded divisive ads that boosted Sanders too. Regardless, Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the democrat candidate that a green voter is likely more aligned with. It’s an unfortunate effect of the two-party system. Nonetheless, those effects are well-known and Stein had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. She knew this, but decided to remain on the ballot anyway. Her candidacy therefore did help Trump win the election.

        • goldenlocks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you even read the article? Facebook presented no proof of this and you just take it as fact.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead,

          i can do this too!

          Sanders quit the race whilst Clinton did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the green candidate that a democrat voter is likely more aligned with.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        as if Democrats you vote for haven’t sat at a table with Putin before

        Such as? Apart from, you know, people who were president and were doing it because presidents generally meet other world leaders?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          she’s a presidential candidate. i don’t think there is a meaningful difference in stature, but there is in substance: she never exchanged a word with him or shook his hand, unlike the fascists and fascist-enablers you’re defending.

          • osarusan@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wow. She somehow got herself a seat at Putin’s table, then she sat down quietly, politely ate her sandwich, then got up and left without ever saying a word or interacting with the people at the table?

            How unlucky she must have felt to find herself such an awkward situation. Egg on her face and all that.

              • osarusan@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I see. So Putin sat down at her table, uninvited, didn’t introduce himself, she didn’t comment on it, then he, Michael Flynn, and all the others finished their sandwiches and left Jill Stein in peace to eat her lunch alone.

                I can see how that absolves her. But man, what a shitty thing to happen to someone when they just want to enjoy their soup and crackers in peace. With this one little social faux pas, Putin made millions of people across the country believe she was his stooge.

                When she becomes president, what do you think she is going to do to retaliate against Putin for fucking her image so bad?

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        as if Democrats you vote for haven’t sat at a table with Putin before

        For example?