View Single Post
Old 1st July 2019, 10:37 AM   #29
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I was the first to point out that this was a Trump Campaign project, not a White House one.
But someone "official" in the Trump campaign must have agreed to this and keeps signing the cheques.
So I see nothing wrong with calling this a "Trump campaign official" project.
Are you sure about all this? I mean, it's plausible. It's just as plausible that someone skilled in the art shelled out some of his own time and money, hobbyist-style, to make a parody website using the skills and tools he was already well familiar with.

Someone in the Trump Campaign ordered it and is paying for it? That's a claim that requires more evidence. Or maybe not. This wouldn't be the first time political partisans have indicted each other on nothing more than innuendo, circumstance, and their own partisan bias.

Hell, there's a lot more evidence that Hillary Clinton committed crimes, and the State Department and DOJ suppressed them, than there is that this guy actually got paid by the Trump Campaign for this site.

Not that it matters much to me. I'm not seeing a big problem here either way. I'm more interested in the epistemological question, and how it interacts with our partisan biases in debate.

You want people to believe this is an official Trump campaign website. You want me to admit that it's an official Trump campaign website. The partisan in me says, of course you want that, but can you prove it? The contrarian in me says you can claim this stuff all you want, but until you bring evidence, it didn't happen.

---

In before, "you're just defending Dear Leader because of how racist you are!" and assorted other deranged crap.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top