Jill Stein: So what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is a criminal and murderous war.
Mehdi Hasan: And he’s a war criminal who should be on trial?
Jill Stein: Well, by implication.
Mehdi Hasan: You’re struggling here to say something very simple. This is why people have their doubts about you with Russia. Why is Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but not Vladimir Putin?
???
What does “by implication” mean to Hasan?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.
Jill Stein: With Russia it’s far more complicated.
Mehdi Hasan: Either you’re a war criminal or you’re not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: In so many words, yes he is.
So they’re in agreement. Right?
Mehdi Hasan: I don’t know “what so many words” — Butch [Ware, Stein’s running mate], is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Let me say that whatever you think he is —
Mehdi Hasan: It’s not about what I think. I’m asking you. You’re running for President.
Jill Stein: 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 unless you have a…
Mehdi Hasan: So why have you called Biden and Netanyahu war criminals?
Jill Stein: Because we have a clear strategy and we have very strong support across the world.
Is Hasan trying to defend Biden and Netanyahu?
Because Jill Stein repeatedly agreed with Hasan on Putin being a war criminal. But Hasan keeps doubling back and trying to defend the American President and his Israeli ally from the accusation.
The problem is this: regarding Netanyahu she says “Well he is very clearly a war criminal.” Regarding Putin she says “With Russia it’s far more complicated” and “In so many words, yes.” She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal directly so she can plausibly deny it. She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances but she won’t say it directly so she can go “Oh no, Hasan called him a war criminal, I didn’t, I just agreed that if all of those things were true then he could be considered a war criminal!”
I think her point is moreso that we’re actively funding and giving arms to Isreal to carry out these crimes, therefore we have more power to state things in that way from a geopolitical standpoint.
That difference doesn’t mean she can’t give a direct answer. She’s using the English language nuances to hedge her answer and not commit to her affirmation.
Eh, have you actually heard her talk about her platform? I have, and she seems to believe in it, just seems like Lemmy has a hate boner for her lately 🤷♂️
Hasan won’t take “yes” for an answer. Which is a weird thing to do, given that he keeps looping back around to attack her for her condemnation of Biden and Netanyahu.
She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances
Under what circumstances is Hasan conceding that Netanyahu is a war criminal? All he does is deflect blame for war crimes away from Netanyahu, which is a really weird thing to do across multiple interview questions.
she won’t say it directly
She will and she did. Of course, Hasan keeps cutting her responses off to interject with new defenses of Netanyahu. Which is, again, a very weird way to establish Jill as a Putin-defender. It seems more like Hasan is hedging on Netanyahu and trying to back Jill into recanting her views on Israel.
I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes. And frankly I question why someone can’t use the word yes if it’s such a clear yes
Well, if we prove her quotes accurate we can surmise that she may have said yes, with further investigation. But I’ll tell you, once we get to the bottom of our deep investigation we will find that she may possibly believe putin might be a war criminal given the current political climate of the UN and the ongoing hostilities in nations. After all, we need to address the issue of tariffs in china.
Eh, the OP asking the question is operating in bad faith. They are most likely some disinformation shill or useful idiot who just espouses 3rd party or bust vibes every time I see them. You’re going to have as much luck getting through to them as Hasan had of getting Stein to say “yes.” with no qualifiers attached.
If she’s not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won’t do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.
A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, “Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?” And they replied, “Well…in so many words, yes.”
It’s a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren’t autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.
In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, “You said you would.” They can warp it around with, “I never directly said i would do anything.” Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.
It’s the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It’s half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It’s very easy to read through though and that’s why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.
Unlike Jill Stein, he has no problem calling a war criminal a war criminal. But I am sure that, unlike Putin, Jill Stein would have no problem calling Joe Biden a war criminal immediately.
To get pedantic, which seems fair considering the context of the exchange, he never said “Netanyahu is a war criminal” he simply said “I think he is” which doesn’t seem all too different from her saying “Yes … by implication.” The interviewer didn’t seem to think her answer was satisfactory, but his response was pretty much equivalent to her own.
Mehdi Hasan: Oh, so Putin clearly isn’t a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Well, we don’t have a decision, put it this way, by the International Criminal Court.
Mehdi Hasan: Yes, we do. Yes, actually, actually, you’re wrong. There’s an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn’t an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.
The real difference here is that Mehdi Hassan was saying “yes” and Jill Stein was saying “yes, but…”
Yes, but he was not being interviewed. The thing everyone is hung up about is that Stein’s answer about Putin did not match her answer on Netanyahu or Biden.
That’s what Mehdi Hasan is asserting, which is weird when you consider how Netanyahu and Putin are allies.
Why keep putting up this defense of Netanyahu if you’re so focused on getting Jill to denounce Putin? Why does Israel become this backdoor by which you can tacitly trade weapons and fossil fuels internationally?
If you had read the interview, you would have known that.
Have you read the interview? You don’t seem to want to acknowledge anything Hasan has actually said.
its not weird at all? he’s saying their both war criminals because they are. youre whose saying he’s defending netenyahu when theres nothing here to support that, which is what everyone else is saying
He’s telling Jill what she said about Netanyahu, but he doesn’t seem to agree. He keeps doubling back and insisting she needs to condemn Putin (which she then does) and using that as a shield for Netanyahu in follow-up.
Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.
Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all.
Jesus, why are you lying about this when everyone can read the interview?
If we apply equal standards to both of them, then Hasan didn’t call Netanyahu a war criminal and Stein didn’t call Putin a war criminal. They both do this weird word dance around the topic.
Hasan then pivoted to complaining about Jill calling Biden and Netanyahu criminals, while asserting our sponsorship of Israel isn’t relevant to the question of war criminality.
Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.
That’s all you need to read. If you are unable to read that one simple sentence, you are too stupid to even have a real conversation here. If you refuse to read that one simple sentence, then you are intentionally trying not to have a real conversation here.
???
What does “by implication” mean to Hasan?
So they’re in agreement. Right?
Is Hasan trying to defend Biden and Netanyahu?
Because Jill Stein repeatedly agreed with Hasan on Putin being a war criminal. But Hasan keeps doubling back and trying to defend the American President and his Israeli ally from the accusation.
The problem is this: regarding Netanyahu she says “Well he is very clearly a war criminal.” Regarding Putin she says “With Russia it’s far more complicated” and “In so many words, yes.” She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal directly so she can plausibly deny it. She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances but she won’t say it directly so she can go “Oh no, Hasan called him a war criminal, I didn’t, I just agreed that if all of those things were true then he could be considered a war criminal!”
I think her point is moreso that we’re actively funding and giving arms to Isreal to carry out these crimes, therefore we have more power to state things in that way from a geopolitical standpoint.
That’s certainly the point she’s making to avoid giving a direct answer.
Yeah, but it’s a bit of a fair difference to point out I think still.
That difference doesn’t mean she can’t give a direct answer. She’s using the English language nuances to hedge her answer and not commit to her affirmation.
But that doesn’t immediately mean she’s a Russian puppet either lmfao
Only
usingrepeating Kremlin talking points doesEh, have you actually heard her talk about her platform? I have, and she seems to believe in it, just seems like Lemmy has a hate boner for her lately 🤷♂️
Hasan won’t take “yes” for an answer. Which is a weird thing to do, given that he keeps looping back around to attack her for her condemnation of Biden and Netanyahu.
Under what circumstances is Hasan conceding that Netanyahu is a war criminal? All he does is deflect blame for war crimes away from Netanyahu, which is a really weird thing to do across multiple interview questions.
She will and she did. Of course, Hasan keeps cutting her responses off to interject with new defenses of Netanyahu. Which is, again, a very weird way to establish Jill as a Putin-defender. It seems more like Hasan is hedging on Netanyahu and trying to back Jill into recanting her views on Israel.
I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes. And frankly I question why someone can’t use the word yes if it’s such a clear yes
I don’t like Jill Stein but she clearly did say yes up there
In so many words, yes she did. Wait, why does a clear yes have so many words?
Well, if we prove her quotes accurate we can surmise that she may have said yes, with further investigation. But I’ll tell you, once we get to the bottom of our deep investigation we will find that she may possibly believe putin might be a war criminal given the current political climate of the UN and the ongoing hostilities in nations. After all, we need to address the issue of tariffs in china.
Solar is horrible, I’m a big fan of solar energy
Yes she never said yes.
She said the word yes.
How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.
We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.
Eh, the OP asking the question is operating in bad faith. They are most likely some disinformation shill or useful idiot who just espouses 3rd party or bust vibes every time I see them. You’re going to have as much luck getting through to them as Hasan had of getting Stein to say “yes.” with no qualifiers attached.
Say weird some more. We aren’t going to be desensitized to it. The right will still be fucking weird
It looks like you’re being forced to notice the contradictions at last.
Oooooooh got 'imm!!!1!
If she’s not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won’t do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.
A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, “Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?” And they replied, “Well…in so many words, yes.”
It’s a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren’t autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.
In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, “You said you would.” They can warp it around with, “I never directly said i would do anything.” Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.
It’s the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It’s half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It’s very easy to read through though and that’s why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.
Almost the very beginning of the interview:
Unlike Jill Stein, he has no problem calling a war criminal a war criminal. But I am sure that, unlike Putin, Jill Stein would have no problem calling Joe Biden a war criminal immediately.
Who does he call a war criminal in the interview?
You asked if he was trying to defend Netanyahu.
I literally quoted him calling Netanyahu a war criminal. At the beginning of the interview you apparently didn’t read.
And now you’re doubling down on it? Really?
To get pedantic, which seems fair considering the context of the exchange, he never said “Netanyahu is a war criminal” he simply said “I think he is” which doesn’t seem all too different from her saying “Yes … by implication.” The interviewer didn’t seem to think her answer was satisfactory, but his response was pretty much equivalent to her own.
Sure, but add the other things he said.
There was also this exchange:
The real difference here is that Mehdi Hassan was saying “yes” and Jill Stein was saying “yes, but…”
Yes, but he was not being interviewed. The thing everyone is hung up about is that Stein’s answer about Putin did not match her answer on Netanyahu or Biden.
Why keep raising this question? Why not focus on Putin alone? Why does Hasan need to inject Biden into this conversation?
I’m asking questions. You don’t seem comfortable thinking about the answers?
Irrelevant. You asked if he was trying to defend Netanyahu and he literally called him a war criminal at the top.
If you had read the interview, you would have known that. So either you didn’t read it or you were being dishonest.
That’s what Mehdi Hasan is asserting, which is weird when you consider how Netanyahu and Putin are allies.
Why keep putting up this defense of Netanyahu if you’re so focused on getting Jill to denounce Putin? Why does Israel become this backdoor by which you can tacitly trade weapons and fossil fuels internationally?
Have you read the interview? You don’t seem to want to acknowledge anything Hasan has actually said.
You:
Hasan:
This can’t be clearer. Just stop.
its not weird at all? he’s saying their both war criminals because they are. youre whose saying he’s defending netenyahu when theres nothing here to support that, which is what everyone else is saying
Yeah, he’s really trying to defend them. Sure…
He’s telling Jill what she said about Netanyahu, but he doesn’t seem to agree. He keeps doubling back and insisting she needs to condemn Putin (which she then does) and using that as a shield for Netanyahu in follow-up.
Jesus, why are you lying about this when everyone can read the interview?
Removed by mod
Dude, you said he didn’t agree with her when he literally agreed with her.
Stop lying.
Removed by mod
This is really pathetic.
Is now a bad time to point out that Netanyahu and Putin are allies?
Weird that Hasan would work so hard to defend Netanyahu.
By your same logic, Stein didn’t call Putin a war criminal
That’s what I’m seeing.
If we apply equal standards to both of them, then Hasan didn’t call Netanyahu a war criminal and Stein didn’t call Putin a war criminal. They both do this weird word dance around the topic.
They’re both really frustrating here.
Sorry, I know better than to engage with you. Better luck next time
???
She agreed that he was a criminal when asked.
Hasan then pivoted to complaining about Jill calling Biden and Netanyahu criminals, while asserting our sponsorship of Israel isn’t relevant to the question of war criminality.
He literally said he didn’t disagree that Netanyahu is a war criminal. This is your own logic you are arguing with. Absolutely amazing
Removed by mod
That’s all you need to read. If you are unable to read that one simple sentence, you are too stupid to even have a real conversation here. If you refuse to read that one simple sentence, then you are intentionally trying not to have a real conversation here.
The fact that you think this tells me you’re utterly insincere.
The things you yourself quoted show he is not trying to defend biden and netanyahu.