The committee has largely kept quiet about the Green party nominee. But that’s now changing.

“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.”

  • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1136·
    2 months ago

    It…is when the question is literally “is putin a war criminal?”

      • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        932·
        2 months ago

        “Yes he is” does. Im sorry but the headlines youve been given are an outright lie this time

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          264·
          2 months ago

          “Yes he is” is a subordinate to “in so many words”.

          https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in-so-many-words

          “If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way.”

          Is he a war criminal?

          “In so many words, yes he is.”

          “I’m not going to say he is, but he is.”

          Not the same thing as:

          “Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal,”

          (What she said about Netanyahu).

          The comparison between what she’s willing to say about Netanyahu and unwilling to say about Putin, in the same interview, to the same journalist, is striking.

          • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
            623·
            2 months ago

            Youve got it backwards

            “If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way.”

            Scroll down for the inverse

            in so many words in American English in unequivocal terms; explicitly She told them in so many words to get out

            • Skeezix@lemmy.world
              101·
              2 months ago

              It’s not working blazera. You’re not getting anywhere. Keep at it though so that you can keep yourself convinced.

          • Cadeillac@lemmy.worldEnglish
            201·
            2 months ago

            This is the second time today this argument has happened. They aren’t even trying anymore. You can quote anything and they will tell you that isn’t what it means

            The interviewer agreed with her twice about Netanyahu, yet they kept screaming he was defending Netanyahu

            • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
              111·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, they were arguing with FlyingSquid about it and even when faced with direct evidence blazera kept lying and lying. Obviously bad faith.

      • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
        162·
        2 months ago

        Just FYI, somebody else already tried explaining all this to blazera and blazera was completely unreasonable about it. You’re not going to get anything through their thick skull.