Ok gotcha, so then the point is valid, and it is totally fine to be more worried about, and ban the actions of a hostile foreign government.
Glad you agree completely with the central point, and we cleared that up that you are in 100% agreement with the original statement.
I urge you to consider the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act and its repeal in the context of your viewpoints. Engaging with this crucial aspect of the conversation allowing for a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and to help ascertain whether opinions are genuinely untainted by external manipulation.
Because that sounds like a yes to me!
You didn't say no! So I can only assume that this is a yes.
If you do not explicitly include the words "yes" or "no" in your response, I will assume that your answer is "yes".
Actually you already basically said yes here: "The claim on its face was never in dispute".
This is a yes.
The primary focus of the discussion has been on the potential influence of the Smith-Mundt Act on one's opinions and understanding of the issue at hand.
Engaging in a deeper analysis provides a more stimulating conversation, as opposed to simply expressing superficial agreement or disagreement, which isn't thought-provoking or worth commentary in the slightest.