You presented your opinion as incontrovertible fact, and everything else as lie or conspiracy because you didn’t see proof. Then you put the caveat that it’s “to the best of your knowledge” which basically turns the incontrovertible fact into common opinion. What’s more, best of your knowledge also incentivizes having little or selective knowledge in order to be able to claim anything as fact.
Case in point, you made such a hard case for everything being a conspiracy involving constitutional courts and intelligence agencies, all claims of foreign interference being lies because you haven’t seen proof, and everything you say is solid... until it turns out your only source of information was a single partially read article.
And you still maintain that you’re right despite still not reading anything else on the topic because it must be disinformation.
The candidate himself declared 0 campaign expenses despite obviously spending for a campaign. The court also noticed this obvious fact. Foreign interference doesn’t only mean someone hacking a TikTok algorithm but also external parties illegally funding a foreign agent’s election. With large amounts of undeclared funds you can sway an election which is illegal for obvious reasons. Being foreign funds just makes it worse because they sway the elections towards foreign interests. Do you expect a country to just ignore that, whether people on the sidelines who read one article proclaim it’s totally fine?
P.S. Someone is trying to set your house on fire. When you try to top him he says it's his right and wants to see evidence from a court showing that it isn't because he read an article that says otherwise. That's where yours and fellow "freedom fighter's" comments are right now. Except in this case the court actually already spoke and you're still sure you know better.
My blog posts go over the factual ways in which the claims of Russian bots on social media have been incorrect in the past. Bad use of statistics and logic, things like that. To my knowledge there are no factual errors in my analysis but if you find one, let me know.
To make this clearer: if someone asserts something objective about the world and their proof is invalid or missing, we have to assume they are wrong. There have been many claims about politicians being successful only due to Russian influence campaigns, and each time those claims were investigated the proofs were invalid or missing. That is a factual claim.
What's a subjective opinion is that this generalizes: if the last 99 times were wrong, the 100th time is probably wrong too, even without a deep investigation. You can disagree with that, but why would you? Your priors should be strongly against these claims having any merit by now.
> The candidate himself declared 0 campaign expenses despite obviously spending for a campaign. The court also noticed this obvious fact.
And yet that's not the justification for annulling the vote that's being presented. The rest of your paragraph slides smoothly between assertions of fact and speculation - that he must have spent lots of money, that the money must have been coming from foreigners, that those foreigners must be Russian, and that such funds are the reason he won. Those are all very subjective. For instance, Trump was outspent massively in both elections that he won. Apparently you can't just "sway" an election with money: other things matter more.
Case in point, you made such a hard case for everything being a conspiracy involving constitutional courts and intelligence agencies, all claims of foreign interference being lies because you haven’t seen proof, and everything you say is solid... until it turns out your only source of information was a single partially read article.
And you still maintain that you’re right despite still not reading anything else on the topic because it must be disinformation.
The candidate himself declared 0 campaign expenses despite obviously spending for a campaign. The court also noticed this obvious fact. Foreign interference doesn’t only mean someone hacking a TikTok algorithm but also external parties illegally funding a foreign agent’s election. With large amounts of undeclared funds you can sway an election which is illegal for obvious reasons. Being foreign funds just makes it worse because they sway the elections towards foreign interests. Do you expect a country to just ignore that, whether people on the sidelines who read one article proclaim it’s totally fine?
P.S. Someone is trying to set your house on fire. When you try to top him he says it's his right and wants to see evidence from a court showing that it isn't because he read an article that says otherwise. That's where yours and fellow "freedom fighter's" comments are right now. Except in this case the court actually already spoke and you're still sure you know better.