So if you’re a member of the Green Party I can understand why this makes this info harder to take in. If not idk what’s up but here are several sources on the many reasons why folks should be skeptical of her. And no, it was not one dinner.
Right, so “report commissioned by the Senate”, “some account supposedly from Russian troll farm mentioned supporting her”, “she’s invested in a mutual fund that has bad stocks”, etc.
This “thirdway.org” source, on the surface, appears to be most damning, but that’s until you start picking apart their claims. Why is this article so biased? Look at this:
Stein told the Committee that her motive for seeking these meetings with Russian government officials was that ‘my campaign said ‘go to the top. Ask to meet with Putin.’ Why not? So, Putin. Lavrov. They badly needed to hear what I have to say…”
But if you follow the link, they clipped out this:
(U) Stein told the Committee that her motive for seeking these meetings with Russian
government officials was that “my campaign said ‘go to the top. Ask to meet with Putin.’ Why
not? So, Putin. Lavrov. They badly needed to hear_what I have to say [about disarmament].”
Why’d they leave out the “disarmament” part? And in the PDF, that’s in square brackets, meaning there’s a whole context here - about nuclear disarmament maybe? - that’s just completely omitted. What was the conversation with the Committee about? We can’t even see the full context of this quote, because it’s only available from this PDF - if you search for it, you get the smear article that you linked, and then that PDF itself.
Look at this heading too:
Jill Stein is a hypocrite on war, the environment, abortion rights, and basically everything else.
“and basically everything else”? Is this journalism or a smear? She is a hypocrite on EVERYTHING?
The actual content of the article is focused on the tactic of accusing her of some affiliation with Russia - which they REALLY strain to establish - and then just criticizing her for investing in a random Vanguard mutual fund. Buddy, if I log into my 401(k), Vanguard funds are like half of what they offer. They’re not even individual stocks she’s invested in, if she has an accountant or financial manager they probably just threw her money into a default set of investments. I’d like to see her not invested in those, sure, but this criticism applies to everyone in Congress a hundred times over, this is such a strain of a criticism.
Believe what you want I really don’t give a shit. I voted Jill Stein in 2012 and I have to live with that forever. At least I can somewhat justify it but barely. Knowing what we know now? It’s impossible to justify. I also notice you chose not to respond to the criticism of how she only denounced Putin a few months ago. These accusations about her have existed for years, she was well aware of them. Ukraine was not invaded just a few months ago. This has been an open question about her for several years now and she should have addressed it well before then. Too little too late.
When the Green Party ditches Jill Stein they can re-enter the conversation. Do I really need to explain myself here?
I will concede I forget they actually hold some seats.
Why, because of some smear about her you read? Let me guess - the dinner at the RT event?
So if you’re a member of the Green Party I can understand why this makes this info harder to take in. If not idk what’s up but here are several sources on the many reasons why folks should be skeptical of her. And no, it was not one dinner.
1
2
3
4
At best she is a useful tool for the russian propaganda machine. It took her way too long to expressly denounce Putin.
Right, so “report commissioned by the Senate”, “some account supposedly from Russian troll farm mentioned supporting her”, “she’s invested in a mutual fund that has bad stocks”, etc.
This “thirdway.org” source, on the surface, appears to be most damning, but that’s until you start picking apart their claims. Why is this article so biased? Look at this:
But if you follow the link, they clipped out this:
Why’d they leave out the “disarmament” part? And in the PDF, that’s in square brackets, meaning there’s a whole context here - about nuclear disarmament maybe? - that’s just completely omitted. What was the conversation with the Committee about? We can’t even see the full context of this quote, because it’s only available from this PDF - if you search for it, you get the smear article that you linked, and then that PDF itself.
Look at this heading too:
“and basically everything else”? Is this journalism or a smear? She is a hypocrite on EVERYTHING?
The actual content of the article is focused on the tactic of accusing her of some affiliation with Russia - which they REALLY strain to establish - and then just criticizing her for investing in a random Vanguard mutual fund. Buddy, if I log into my 401(k), Vanguard funds are like half of what they offer. They’re not even individual stocks she’s invested in, if she has an accountant or financial manager they probably just threw her money into a default set of investments. I’d like to see her not invested in those, sure, but this criticism applies to everyone in Congress a hundred times over, this is such a strain of a criticism.
Believe what you want I really don’t give a shit. I voted Jill Stein in 2012 and I have to live with that forever. At least I can somewhat justify it but barely. Knowing what we know now? It’s impossible to justify. I also notice you chose not to respond to the criticism of how she only denounced Putin a few months ago. These accusations about her have existed for years, she was well aware of them. Ukraine was not invaded just a few months ago. This has been an open question about her for several years now and she should have addressed it well before then. Too little too late.
Yeah, you’re on your own.