Saurok

You have to ask "At whose expense?"

You could always use native grasses and plants. There's nothing inherently wrong with grass, but it's important to have grasses that make sense within your ecological context. Using a bunch of non-native grasses may help for soil retention on your hill, but native grasses would do the same thing -- arguably better since you can use ones with root systems that grow deeper into the soil and they're more drought tolerant -- and they'd be multipurpose (food, cover, nest materials, etc.) for native animal species. They're often prettier and more colorful during the various seasons and take fewer resources to maintain once established.

Her being a patsy would be an entirely different claim than her being a consensual and willing Russian asset.

How about you link me to something directly so I can engage in the conversation? As I've said, I read the news and I've read about Putin. None of what I've encountered or come across when reading has been evidence of Stein being a Russian asset. You could've easily found something by now if you know it exists, but instead you've chosen to insult me, accuse me of sealioning, and told me to do my own homework.

Accusing me of sealioning is just as convenient as calling me a troll. I'm not sealioning. I'm just genuinely mystified at this "Stein is a Russian asset" narrative because there's never been any evidence of it and whenever I question it, I get called a troll or accused of sealioning. It's very frustrating.

If the evidence is quite accessible, then why is nobody linking it to me? If you can't back up your claim, don't claim it. Again, call me a troll all you want. I'm not going to insult you. I'm just asking for evidence.

I'm not answering how old I am because that's none of your business, frankly. You can call me an idiot or a troll, I don't really care. I just asked for proof of something and so far all I've gotten are replies about it being self-evident because "that's how Putin works" or other various forms of non-proof.

Based on the other things they're posting, I doubt it's sarcasm. This person wants harm to come to people who vote third party. If not, they can reply to this clarifying otherwise or edit their original comment and I'll happily stand corrected.

Oh, but as you've said, nothing has to happen at a dinner right? They could've networked outside of the dinner. In fact, Clinton has had many closed door conversations with Putin, whereas Stein hasn't spoken with him at all to my knowledge. See how disingenuous that is? And how it makes having a conversation about this a little difficult? As does calling me a troll because you have 0 evidence.

Repeating things isn't providing evidence. As I've said in another comment, being at a dinner table with someone isn't evidence of collusion. Putin sitting at a table with someone, even if he's the one who chose to seat himself there, isn't evidence that that person is colluding with him. He's sat at dinner tables with Hillary Clinton. Does that mean Clinton is a Russian asset? You'd recognize that claim as absurd without evidence surely?

If it's widely known, then surely you can provide evidence for it right?

I've read all of your replies. Why would I believe that happened without evidence? Have you proven that she's networked with Russians or Putin? Suggesting something might have happened isn't evidence of the thing happening.