3 ms·
> Denying that the ruling Russian oligarch is corrupt is not credible without big proof, which was not provided. It's about Putin and you need proof for this c
by antibuddy 6y ago
> Denying that the ruling Russian oligarch is corrupt is not credible without big proof, which was not provided.
It's about Putin and you need proof for this claim (against Putin) and not the other way around. Proving a negative is pretty much impossible in this case.
> I assume you think navalny faked his novichok poisoning or do you at least admit Putin is ruthless and attempts to poison his enemies.Putin’s henchmen poisoning navalny is fake in your opinion right?
Red Herring.
> A bunch of unsupported statements against widely believed concepts ...
Appeal to the people.
PS.: I downvote nothing.
- mint2 6y agoThe content of your replies really speak for themselves, all readers will be able to judge conclusively from what has been said so far. The one part I want to clarify is the part about downvoting. That was addressed to readers in general, not you.
- antibuddy 6y agoYou can provide no evidence. The source provides no evidence, because it bases its article solely on Navalny('s allies). Navalny is Putin's political opponent and has therefore obvious vested interests and provides also no real evidence. So essentially what remains is a smear campaign. Occam/Hitchen's Razor. > The one part I want to clarify is the part about downvoting. That was addressed to readers in general, not you. So you actually don't reply to my argument, but to your "audience", however technically replying to my post. You see the issue?