“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.”
What evidence are you calling into question specifically? That NATO expanded after the fall of the USSR?
I’m not. I’m not the same person. I’m just telling you that you shouldn’t cite an opinion piece as evidence.
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.
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.
I think you’re working deep under cover for Russia.
Hey, at least you got the concept of what I’m saying. Don’t trust opinions. Trust actual, credible journalism.
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.
I don’t even think you need to qualify that with nytimes. Just ignore the op-ed section.
Yes, not a new point and well agreed.
Now let me show you where you’re confused. Here’s the claim,
The claim is about the non-existence of a controversy. It’s not about the factual evidence under-girding the non-controversial satement, as you seem to assume.
e.g. “It’s not controversial to say that World War I was partially caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.”
To refute or confirm this claim about a commonly held opinion requires the citation of opinions. You can convince me that Franz Ferdinand factually had nothing to do with the war, but it wouldn’t refute the statement.