You basically refuse to explain what could happen that would constitute for “bad” or “unwanted” if Navalny is supported.
You refuse to explain what exactly do you mean by right wing (exact bad stuff about it) and instead rely on your readers’ own interpretation to convince them that person should not be supported.
By providing exact example you could be more specific. And I could find some stream piece with Navalny’s point of view on something exact to show you that he would not actually do what you think he would do.
If you still want to avoid exact examples and only rely on those old clips about immigrants then you have no chance of proving me wrong. In his presidential program there was a proposition to require visa from them, and this can’t be viewed as bad. Else you’d have to tell me countries like US/EU are controlled by right wing shitheads already. It’s like telling your readers “hey don’t forget, this guy seems to be at least as bad as your own government, don’t support him”.
It goes a long way that you are avoiding.
You basically refuse to explain what could happen that would constitute for “bad” or “unwanted” if Navalny is supported.
You refuse to explain what exactly do you mean by right wing (exact bad stuff about it) and instead rely on your readers’ own interpretation to convince them that person should not be supported.
By providing exact example you could be more specific. And I could find some stream piece with Navalny’s point of view on something exact to show you that he would not actually do what you think he would do.
If you still want to avoid exact examples and only rely on those old clips about immigrants then you have no chance of proving me wrong. In his presidential program there was a proposition to require visa from them, and this can’t be viewed as bad. Else you’d have to tell me countries like US/EU are controlled by right wing shitheads already. It’s like telling your readers “hey don’t forget, this guy seems to be at least as bad as your own government, don’t support him”.