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