It’s stupid if you ignore the context of why people would have a problem with it, Taco.
I’m not ignoring any context. It was a picture provided with no context.
The context you’ve now provided “There is no good reason for her to be having dinner with Vladimir Putin,” is stated as if it is a priori, but it’s not.
And that seems to be your whole point: it’s damning because she shouldn’t have been there, because I say it’s damning that she is there. It’s circular. The reality is that because you can’t explain it, it’s suspicious, not damning. And I agree with that. It should raise suspicions. You’re confusing your suspicion with knowing something.
You still haven’t explained why it’s okay for Stein to be having dinner with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin.
That’s not how it works. You’re the one claiming something nefarious. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying the evidence provided of your claim is “r/conspiracy levels of stupid” as it’s one of their favorite pieces of non-evidence.
I’m not ignoring any context. It was a picture provided with no context.
The context you’ve now provided “There is no good reason for her to be having dinner with Vladimir Putin,” is stated as if it is a priori, but it’s not.
And that seems to be your whole point: it’s damning because she shouldn’t have been there, because I say it’s damning that she is there. It’s circular. The reality is that because you can’t explain it, it’s suspicious, not damning. And I agree with that. It should raise suspicions. You’re confusing your suspicion with knowing something.
That’s not how it works. You’re the one claiming something nefarious. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying the evidence provided of your claim is “r/conspiracy levels of stupid” as it’s one of their favorite pieces of non-evidence.