this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
609 points (84.3% liked)
Political Memes
5707 readers
813 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why, because of some smear about her you read? Let me guess - the dinner at the RT event?
So if you’re a member of the Green Party I can understand why this makes this info harder to take in. If not idk what’s up but here are several sources on the many reasons why folks should be skeptical of her. And no, it was not one dinner.
1
2
3
4
At best she is a useful tool for the russian propaganda machine. It took her way too long to expressly denounce Putin.
Right, so "report commissioned by the Senate", "some account supposedly from Russian troll farm mentioned supporting her", "she's invested in a mutual fund that has bad stocks", etc.
This "thirdway.org" source, on the surface, appears to be most damning, but that's until you start picking apart their claims. Why is this article so biased? Look at this:
But if you follow the link, they clipped out this:
Why'd they leave out the "disarmament" part? And in the PDF, that's in square brackets, meaning there's a whole context here - about nuclear disarmament maybe? - that's just completely omitted. What was the conversation with the Committee about? We can't even see the full context of this quote, because it's only available from this PDF - if you search for it, you get the smear article that you linked, and then that PDF itself.
Look at this heading too:
"and basically everything else"? Is this journalism or a smear? She is a hypocrite on EVERYTHING?
The actual content of the article is focused on the tactic of accusing her of some affiliation with Russia - which they REALLY strain to establish - and then just criticizing her for investing in a random Vanguard mutual fund. Buddy, if I log into my 401(k), Vanguard funds are like half of what they offer. They're not even individual stocks she's invested in, if she has an accountant or financial manager they probably just threw her money into a default set of investments. I'd like to see her not invested in those, sure, but this criticism applies to everyone in Congress a hundred times over, this is such a strain of a criticism.
Believe what you want I really don’t give a shit. I voted Jill Stein in 2012 and I have to live with that forever. At least I can somewhat justify it but barely. Knowing what we know now? It’s impossible to justify. I also notice you chose not to respond to the criticism of how she only denounced Putin a few months ago. These accusations about her have existed for years, she was well aware of them. Ukraine was not invaded just a few months ago. This has been an open question about her for several years now and she should have addressed it well before then. Too little too late.
Yeah, you’re on your own.