RE: Noteworthy News
September 6, 2024 at 9:05 am
(This post was last modified: September 6, 2024 at 9:21 am by Angrboda.)
(September 6, 2024 at 8:49 am)Belacqua Wrote:(September 6, 2024 at 8:28 am)Angrboda Wrote: And that, if true, would be a problem because why exactly?
Because there are a whole lot of "alleges" and "the Justice Department says" and guilt by association. There are links to documents which are completely unsourced.
The documents are completely sourced with respect to the point in question. It links directly to the charging document for fuxxake.
(September 6, 2024 at 8:49 am)Belacqua Wrote: There are Republican talking points which may or may not be credible, put near to allegations about Russian interference, but with no connection established. For example, the idea that Walz is doing "stolen valor" is brought up, and maybe that's true or maybe not, but there is no evidence given that Russia is playing that up.
We also know that people in government lie to support their preferred candidate. So it would be nice to have some sort of real evidence, and not this mish-mash of allegations and accusations that some media company that no one had ever heard of had hosted guests who support Trump because Russia asked them to.
Those parts of the article are irrelevant to the question of whether the charging documents do or do not support the section quoted. You're just making a lazy ad hominem argument completely disconnected from the charging documents themselves.
And yes, governments do lie to support their current administration. However that alone is not enough to discredit any source lacking further evidence that the government lied or misrepresented in this specific case. That is simply a case of ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion because even if it is true that governments do this, they do not generally do so with sufficient regularity to consider the idea that they are misrepresenting things to be the reasonable presumption. That's just the paranoid ranting of an anti-institutional cuck.
The fact is, the government has made a charge, supported by evidence, toward that conclusion, which makes your claim that it is not based in fact absurdly false.
Quote:The Justice Department today announced the ongoing seizure of 32 internet domains used in Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns colloquially referred to as “Doppelganger,” in violation of U.S. money laundering and criminal trademark laws. As alleged in an unsealed affidavit, the Russian companies Social Design Agency (SDA), Structura National Technology (Structura), and ANO Dialog, operating under the direction and control of the Russian Presidential Administration, and in particular First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Sergei Vladilenovich Kiriyenko, used these domains, among others, to covertly spread Russian government propaganda with the aim of reducing international support for Ukraine, bolstering pro-Russian policies and interests, and influencing voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the U.S. 2024 Presidential Election.
(source)
See Exhibit 9A for the relevant Russian documents.
(September 6, 2024 at 8:49 am)Belacqua Wrote: Then you've got this sentence:
Quote:Trump has publicly complimented Russian President Vladimir Putin, an autocrat known for imprisoning and killing critics.
And that links you to a blistering editorial in which Trump is quoted several times as saying that Putin is "smart." Well, Putin is smart. Have you heard him speak? It makes you realize how extremely bad most US politicians (since Obama) are at speaking. A lot of smart people do evil things. And Trump's description of the war in Ukraine quoted in that article was pretty accurate at the time. Despite what wishful thinking makes Americans say, Ukraine has lost 20% of its land, and that's never coming back. So the headline and the editorializing are trying to make a big deal of what is, essentially, true but impolitic to say.
None of which has any relevance here.
(September 6, 2024 at 8:49 am)Belacqua Wrote: Confirmation bias, decades of anti-Russia propaganda, and lots and lots of partisan rhetoric can make things seem way more conclusive than they really are.
This, beyond the earlier criticism, is an example of moving the goalposts. Nowhere have I claimed these accusations and the evidence are conclusive, nor is such required to rebut your claim that the idea that Russia prefers Trump is not based in fact. You're simply playing motte-and-bailey here.