Word of the day: quisling: a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor or collaborator.
Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to? Jill Stein? Because of this article or the rioters? Or both? I don’t think I would refer to any of them as traitors. Idiots, maybe, but nah, not traitors.
Friend, I think with you and I, it’s just best if I don’t reply to you. No matter what I say, I think it’s going to frustrate you. So I’ll just pass on discussing things with you.
Your words, correct? And yet you then reply to me just moments later. Troll.
Ok, I thought your most recent comment was interesting. Geesh. A wee bit of an over-reaction there.
Interesting how you also significantly changed the comment I replied to, without noting how you changed it.
How did I “significantly change” the comment? I asked you if you were talking about jill stein. Then on further thought, I realized that you might be referring to the rioters if it wasn’t Jill, so added that on.
That’s not a significant change, friend. You need to relax. There’s not some vast conspiracy going on.
Now that I have replied to you again, because I answered your question, are you gonna accuse me of being a troll again?
Because I can stop responding if you want me to.
Your initial reply was just the first sentence:
Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to?
I replied and then you added all the rest. Poor etiquette to change something that someone has replied to without noting the edit. And you didn’t even bother to correct the misspelling
Plus your reply to me had nothing to do with my reply–either before or after the clarification. You didn’t reference my comment at all. All you did was quote me from an earlier comment when I mentioned that I’m gonna refrain from answering you.
Then you called me a troll.
So were you referring to Jill Stein or the rioters?
My guess would be Stein herself (for collaborating with Russians, even tho that’s not exactly what a “useful idiot” does).
Anyways, Stein’s actual take is more reasonable:
When I look at January 6 it was dangerous, people broke laws, they should be held accountable for breaking laws
it was a serious and problematic event,
whether the sentences were reasonable, I would have to dive more into the weeds than I have done.Basically she would have to individually review to ensure sentences are not unduly long, harsh, etc. And there’s no commitment to actually pardon anyone, it may be no more than a check that due process was followed and punishment is not cruel and unusual, etc. (Of course, this is a politician using the usual vague words, etc.)
In fact, there’s to commitment to actually do the review, this was just in response to being asked if she thought the sentences were fair - “i don’t know, i’d have to get into the weeds to see if they were or not” perhaps with an implied “and i can’t be bothered to do that”.
Makes sense.
Russian shill.
Are you calling Jill Stein a russian shill or the reporter?
Probably the one that would consider pardoning terrorists in the imaginary world where her worthless “campaign” ended in the power to do so.
I can’t believe I voted for this chucklefuck in 2016
God damn. You give Jill Stein like 20 chances to answer a question the right way, and she fucks it up EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.
What absolute fools are voting for this woman?
Apparantly enough of them to make the Democrats pretty anxious about it all.
Apparently you misunderstood anxiety for anger that a fraudulant candidate is very openly collaborating with an opposing political party to affect the outcome of an election.
Well, then easy solution, if they are just angry. Ignore her. Maybe she’ll go away.
Apparently you mistake ignorance for a solution.
Well, is she a threat or not? If not, ignore. If she is, then the Dem party needs to figure out what why they are not appealing to Stein’s voting block.
She is absolutely not a contender to EVER get elected or hold office, so she’s no threat there. As a purely obstructionist piece of garbage who can siphone votes away from other legitimate contenders, yeah, she’s a fucking problem.
So what’s your point? She’s a piece of shit so we shouldn’t worry? She’s a piece of shit so we should worry?
I like her, so meh, none of that concerns me.
We’re just asking questions. Thank you!!
This is like the only thing Stein would have power to do without the need of congressional support that she’s mentioned doing, and it’s the wrong answer
It makes me want to puke that we had proven pro-Trump Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and yet here we are on a “leftist” platform watching this happen without any effective type of ban hammer striking down, on the off chance that this behavior isn’t exactly what it looks like. Fucking enraging.
Websites that have permanently banned this user:
- https://reddit.com/user/universalmonkartist/
- https://lemmy.ca/u/UniversalMonk@lemmy.world
- https://dubvee.org/u/universalmonk@lemmy.world
It seems likely the reason each one banned him is the same reason their every post and comment is sitting at < -25. People detest the anti-democrat messaging and the way it’s delivered. It’s undeniable that this user rubs enough people the wrong way that they get a lot of attention for that alone.
During an election year especially, I expect better of any social media website than to just let this shit happen.
deleted by creator
I like her, but she is out of her mind if she thinks this was a good thing to say. lmao
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
