Before we do this, you really shouldnt get worked up emotionally as this leads to attacks against my person rather than my arguments.
Quote:
|
Which official narrative?
|
The USG and US mainstream media one ofc regarding the elections overall. For example did FBI (or other agencies) claim that there was interference (ie hacking voting machines)?
Quote:
If you mean the narrative of the data and activities surrounding the questions of influence or interference, I refer you to the multitude of reports and documents fully indicating something serious has occurred which warrants further investigation, if only to put to rest any questions and to ensure, if there has been any wrongdoing, it is appropriately addressed, and measures put in place to prevent a recurrence...
This attempt to shift the question from the actual core issues to a quibble over "influence" or "interference" is little more than a weak ploy to deflect from the issue; it is essentially a newer take on the old "What is is" question. It strongly gives the impression of, failing to adequately argue the facts or core issues, a fallback has been made to turn the argument from the substantive to the stylistic: we can't win the argument, so let's talk about the suits they're wearing. Weak...
If you really want to know if its influence or interference, I have a really great new suggestion: let's investigate properly and get a definitive answer...
|
First of all there is a significant difference between influence and interference, as it was already described by Platapus and there is no known evidence regarding Russian interference into the elections.
Secondly if we are discussing the influence then we are discussing degrees of influence Russia had over the US presidential elections as Russia would invariably have some degree of (indirect) influence by merely existing. As does for example Somalia.
Thridly the "evidence" that you have posted in the past regarding the influence (ie DNC hack stuff) is weak, especially in regards to attribution, as I have said before. Morever in that specific example I would view evidence as tainted and thus not credible because it was provided by a third party with vested interests (crowdstrike).