“That is not an ad hominem. Please go look at what an ad hominem is. I in no way attacked you personally; I claimed that your statement was Russian propagandist.”
Ehm: Claiming that a statement is “propaganda” is an address to the author and an attempt to invoke a feeling of guilt by association. It is basically the definition of what an ad-hominem is; attempting to tarnish the messenger rather that argue the message.
“You claimed that Putin had brought economic success to Russia via deregulation.”
No I didn’t: I never made that claim. I do not think that that particular claim was an ad-hominem. I just think it was a case of the lazy confirmation bias that I am used to hearing. I was very clear that Putin is not responsible for the beginning of the recovery in Russia, but he certainly has encouraged it. But I do not, and I did not credit him for it. I simply suggested that he was right to continue it.
I also know that economies tend to fluctuate, and a two year low is hardly a sign of anything when the economy has been improving for over twenty years despite the sanctions designed to prevent that. You are talking about a country that is just recovering from a century of communism; and also dealing with constant hostility on its borders and constant attempts from the west to undermine its economy.
I also know that both life expectancy rates and birth rates have improved enormously. Another sign of recovery:
“You did the same thing when you claimed that Trump had merely “criticized” the media. You and I both know he has gone far, far beyond simply “criticizing” the media.”
Really? Specifics please: What has he done other than criticise? And not just examples of journalists barred from press conferences because everyone understands that for every journalist in a press conference at that level, there are hundreds that are barred from entry. But what has Trump done in terms of the press that Obama didn’t do?