“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.”
Not directly though, that’s why she got roasted. It was a lot of dissembly.
Yes, directly and specifically about Putin. The quote is right there.
“Yes we did condemn…” is not the same as “Yes, Putin is a war criminal.”
The passive accusations run all through it.
“So, what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is criminal. It’s a criminal and murderous war,”
“Well, by implication, by implication,” Stein said.
“In so many words, yes he is,” Stein said. “If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal.”
It…is when the question is literally “is putin a war criminal?”
No, it’s not. “In so many words” does not have a direct meaning.
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.
“Yes he is” does. Im sorry but the headlines youve been given are an outright lie this time
“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.
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
Yeah, they were arguing with FlyingSquid about it and even when faced with direct evidence blazera kept lying and lying. Obviously bad faith.
Youve got it backwards
Scroll down for the inverse