Why?
Do you apply this same standard when debugging software, or do you discard the realization of all observed patterns for which you lack an immediate explanation?
It's interesting to observe how the manner in which logic is executed changes when the topic of conversation changes in various ways.
What's interesting is that IT folks are typically rather curious about mysterious behaviors in software, but this curiosity often vanishes when it comes to the real world (but only on certain topics).
Regardless, back to my question:
>> If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is.
> Why?
Why is it ok to discuss theories about some portions of reality, but not others? I'm not insisting that we must, I would just like some day for people that assert or imply that we cannot, to explain (in logically consistent detail, using objectively true statements) why we cannot (or will not). But to be crystal clear, I'd never insist that the majority needs to explain or justify their behavior or unwritten rules, here or elsewhere - I realize this is simply one of the fringe benefits of being the majority.
If you're alleging single-actor control you need to have some idea of who that single actor allegedly is.
A lot of this stuff is simply .. more chaotic. That goes for the question of Russian involvement. Reducing it to a single yes/no binary doesn't help; it's almost certainly not true that Putin has been personally, directly issuing orders to Trump, but there definitely have been a lot of Trump associates who also associated with Russians, in some cases took money from them, lied to Federal investigators about it, and as a result were jailed or at least indicted.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cases-fac...