“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.”

  • sub_ubi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • sub_ubi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think you’re working deep under cover for Russia.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Hey, at least you got the concept of what I’m saying. Don’t trust opinions. Trust actual, credible journalism.

          • sub_ubi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

              • sub_ubi
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Yes agreed.

                I think I know where you’re confused. Here’s the original claim that begat this thread,

                It’s not controversial to say that the US / NATO helped trigger the war in Ukraine.

                The claim is about an opinion being generally accepted. To confirm or refute the claim requires secondary sources, since the claim is about opinions.

                If the claim were simply,

                US / NATO helped trigger the war in Ukraine.

                Then the claim is concerned directly with what triggered the war in Ukraine. To confirm or refute the claim, you’d benefit more from primary sources (including journalism, as you mentioned.)