I didn’t. I refuted it with just as strong a claim as they made. if you think you can get them to provide a source, go for it. I happen to know it’s untrue, so I don’t care to bicker with them about it.
No it doesn’t. Operation mockingbird implies that every government tries to influence the narrative of the free press, and literally always has. And the CIA was no exception.
If you see no difference between an attempt to influence the narrative of the free press by the state, and not having a free press at all, only a literal extension of the state serving propaganda as the narrative, I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s a well-established fact that a part of her social media campaign was funded by the Russians.
To be clear: I’m not saying she necessarily did all this in cahoots with Putin. Russia funded divisive ads that boosted Sanders too.
Regardless, Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the democrat candidate that a green voter is likely more aligned with. It’s an unfortunate effect of the two-party system.
Nonetheless, those effects are well-known and Stein had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. She knew this, but decided to remain on the ballot anyway. Her candidacy therefore did help Trump win the election.
Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead,
i can do this too!
Sanders quit the race whilst Clinton did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the green candidate that a democrat voter is likely more aligned with.
Apparently she received some funding that was traced back to Russia and is effectively acting as a spoiler candidate.
that’s not true.
Excellent rebuttal backed with facts.
I provided just as much evidence as the comment to which I was responding
You could have asked them for a source then instead of doing something as useless?
I didn’t. I refuted it with just as strong a claim as they made. if you think you can get them to provide a source, go for it. I happen to know it’s untrue, so I don’t care to bicker with them about it.
I mean…. She did go to a gala celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia Today, which is state controlled propaganda.
so? operation mocking bird implies every us news company is a CIA asset.
No it doesn’t. Operation mockingbird implies that every government tries to influence the narrative of the free press, and literally always has. And the CIA was no exception.
If you see no difference between an attempt to influence the narrative of the free press by the state, and not having a free press at all, only a literal extension of the state serving propaganda as the narrative, I don’t know what to tell you.
Source: your ass
All you liberals have is a picture of her at a table with Putin as if Democrats you vote for haven’t sat at a table with Putin before
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172
It’s a well-established fact that a part of her social media campaign was funded by the Russians.
To be clear: I’m not saying she necessarily did all this in cahoots with Putin. Russia funded divisive ads that boosted Sanders too. Regardless, Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the democrat candidate that a green voter is likely more aligned with. It’s an unfortunate effect of the two-party system. Nonetheless, those effects are well-known and Stein had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. She knew this, but decided to remain on the ballot anyway. Her candidacy therefore did help Trump win the election.
Did you even read the article? Facebook presented no proof of this and you just take it as fact.
no, it wasn’t.
i can do this too!
Sanders quit the race whilst Clinton did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the green candidate that a democrat voter is likely more aligned with.
For example?
https://images.app.goo.gl/mnWN3T5Rhi7Rs8Dr5
OMG she’s a Putin puppet you see that??
deleted by creator