Probably not. What we are talking about is a tolerance. At SOME point we have to, for lack of a better word, employ faith.
Even if you yourself made a finding- there are plenty of high profile or every day and obscure cases of researchers findings not being reproducible even by the originator. Almost always an error in the observations or methods and processes that produced a result that was anomalous.
The question is how much scrutiny you’ll apply before your tolerance satisfied to take the rest on faith.
So there is where it gets interesting.
You can find everyone from arm chair loonies and literal children on YouTube to accomplished and accredited academics or strong amateurs.
Most lab experiments aren’t filmed start to finish and most people can’t watch them- on YouTube you can often actually watch the process and methods and results in real time with your own eyes. As far as being close to the data, in many cases it is as close the layperson can get to actual first hand

But…. Who checks the citations? If you cite harpers press book of science, where did harpers press get the information? If they got it from Penguin books book of science, where did penguin get it? The Bridges 2020 almanac of sciences? Where did they get it? Regardless, most people won’t actually go all the way to the original, often dry academic source, and confirm the information to that level. What’s more- the original source, even if academic, isn’t necessarily credible. You know that anyone can call themselves a scientist and learn or look up how to write a paper right? We’ve seen several very high profile hoaxes exposed from false publishings about cloning and stem cells to the Theranos scandal that took in many. Peer review itself is only as credible as the peers, but even if you check the source, did you check that the peers were credible and the methodology of the review was credible?

Your cereal company probably didn’t measure it themselves and likely doesn’t have a crack academic team writing their box facts. More likely they took the fact from somewhere else. Where? Who knows. Unless the cite the source and you go back to the source, and it is unlikely they browse scientific journals and such to get “fun facts” so their source probably has a source and so on. So yes, who is providing the data can factor in to credibility based on what their qualifications are and what confidence we can place in their methods. It is also true that the further you get from a direct source, the more suspicious data gets, so indeed that is a matter of credibility too.

The weak aren’t able to make what they desire real and will generally have a bad time unless the strong lend their power to the weak to help them have the world they want to live in.
We do not lack strong people, strong wills, strong abilities, strong values. We have those.
We find ourselves lacking the kind, the honorable, the benevolent, the gregarious, the responsible.
Wish less for strong men and more for responsible and kind men.

So here is the spoiler. Strong men have made good times. They made good times for strong men. The richest humans enjoy wealth and luxury unprecedented in all of history. Those with the will and power to realize their desires can now literally travel to space- the heavens- long the realm of “gods” beyond reach of even the “god emperors” of the past.
YOU probably can’t go to space. YOU probably don’t have 8+ homes around the globe that are built and designed exactly as you want, and YOU probably can’t buy Twitter because you feel like it and still not be broke etc etc. because the strong are doing very well at the expense of those who do not have their strength. You might say: “I have everything I want, I don’t want all that. I’m simple!” Good for you. You might be strong too then. If strength is realizing what you want in the world and you have what you want… you’re strong. If you made what you want… those are good times for you aren’t they…? So the strong are having a great time.

Strong, weak, from our perspective it’s pretty relative. The bar gets raised over time. In 1990 you’d be the office tech whiz most places if you could email a document or hook up a modem, stuff kids do today.
Objectively the only way we can measure strength is through action. We can say many things are or take “strength” but at the end of the day, in context to this oft repeated phrase, strength is your ability to take what you desire and make that reality into the world, and the character that what you make can endure.

and the citizens ourselves and the corporations with our everyday choices that are making most of the impact you feel in your daily life. It’s complex and big. It’s difficult to find a place to vent your feelings or to feel like you have power in that situation, so the president is largely an effigy to focus all those emotions and give you a tangible and simple place to focus blame and gratitude and accountability.

And that’s what Putin will do to his own people. Imagine what he wants for America in order to make his dreams of a new iron curtain come true?
So that, chuckleheads, is interference.
American politicians and business people and citizens looking at Israel and, again, ignoring all the morals and ethics and histories, just saying pragmatically: “it’s a real good thing for us that these guys are there.” And looking at the ponies in that race and seeing that one that looks like a winner and least likely to bite you or trample you to death if they win- saying “this is the king to back…” and deciding to back that bet- that doesn’t even take influence. All you’d have to do is read 15 minutes of news and history and you’d probably conclude that the pragmatic decision favors an obvious course.

Let’s be very clear here- the Russia government of Vladimir Putin is a neo Soviet dictatorship. It has thrown away the promise of giving Russia to the Russian people after the fall of the iron curtain and thrown the lives of brave and good Russian citizens and foreign fighters to crash and die on the cliffs of a pointless war of aggression waged to bring some old Soviets a fleeting semi hard reaction at dreams of recreating their so called “Soviet glory days.”
They have trampled the dreams of Ukrainians and are responsible for the deaths of so many- to satisfy ego and a need to be the big bad red monolith once more, when your average Russian citizen doesn’t want that. They just want to go to work and hug their kids when they come home. Have heat in the winter and food and the things we almost all want. And their politicians forced them into giving up their children for a death sentence cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and threats of ghosts.

So to compare Israeli presence in US politics and policies to Russia goes beyond a straw man. It’s so absurd that it isn’t even a message that criticizes US relations with Israel as much as it tries to normalize and down play Russia as a threat to American security and interests as well as the global community.

It doesn’t matter what you think about Israel or the politics or ethics. I’m not talking about that. I’m not talking about who should or shouldn’t be there or who is right or wrong or whatever else. I’m talking pragmatism.
Who in that area do you think has the military might and force application to maintain a stable long term government, provide the same general level of security, act as a nuclear partner, maligns to western interests and philosophy, and is friendly to the US?
Pragmatism. Russia is not friendly to the U.S. Russia does not align to western policy. Russia is not a nuclear security partner or candidate. Russia is and long has been openly anti west and anti American.

Let me spell it out.
The US supports Israel for many reasons. Some are ideological and subjective- you can debate those to yourself.
Others are pragmatic and practical.
Israel is one of if not the only western aligned country politically and ideologically in their region.
Israel offers many advantages to national security and global intelligence as an ally.
Israel is a major long term source of income and through their policies creates long term stable prospects for the worlds largest employer and defense industry.
Israel is one of the most stable and consistent governments in the region, and of the runners up is one of the only US friendly ones with western aligned policies.

In short, influence is a trade or relationship whereby you are compelled to consider another’s interests in forwarding your own and decide with informed consent to do so.
Interference is when another uses force or subversion to control your processes and effectively take away your ability to make informed decisions, to manipulate an outcome that is desirable to them without your Informed consent.

Let’s recap.
- it is inherent to the fabric of the US that our politics and government intertwine with foreign interests and biases.
- it is inherent to a global capitalism that foreign interests would influence the flow of money.
- it is inherent to a world power that other nations would seek influence on your policy as it directly or indirectly shapes the globe.
- it is literally diplomacy, they ability to coexist with others outside a group or self to be influenced by outside forces.
- influence is not interference.
- just because something benefits another country does not mean that it doesn’t benefit the US as well.
- a key difference in deciding Interference vs. Influence is that interference will generally be for the unilateral benefit of another country at the cost of your own interests whereas influence is when policy is swayed by exterior factors but still benefits your country.

It’s almost as if…. Conflict can be profitable. Almost as if…. Regardless of any ethics or ideologies, there are strong economic forces that favor supporting certain governments regardless of any direct influence. Because you see- and that’s the thing- you don’t have to convince most people too hard to do what is good for them. Most Americans like money. They like the halo effect that all that defense spending brings, wether they are in the service or work for a contractor or defense industry, a supplier or wether their business or community rely on the money that gets spent from people connected to that. Very few if any American companies and industries are not somehow connected to the defense industry.

But influence and interference are not the same thing.
No duh the USA is very pro Israel in general at a government level. No duh that Israelis and Jews are US citizens or live and work and do business here and with the USA.
Here is a big no duh: the US military is the worlds largest employer.
The US defense industry and related contracts and support work feed everyone from farmers and the few US suppliers or metals and materials to computer programmers and analysts and welders from the ship yards of New England to to the air bases of Florida, through the industrial centers of the north east and the fields of the Midwest and into the scientific stations of the Pacific Northwest down to the technology and engineering firms of Northern California right down to the Mexico border with the marine bases of the desert and inland to the nuclear test sites and labs, and then scattered across the globe with service personnel and various U.S. interests and suppliers and such.

So you’d be rather ignorant, foolish even, to think that foreign influence isn’t inherently part of US elections. Of course it is. There are no laws against it and the native peoples of the Americas weren’t even allowed to vote or hold office when the country was young- so from the beginning foreign influence has been part of elections. Hell- the systems of law and government were even based off of foreign systems that were tweaked and refined.

As a general rule, capitalist countries don’t have borders. The company is not loyal to the country. In fact by law, a public company must be loyal to providing profit to share holders. They can’t commit outright treason and get away with it or anything, but they also aren’t required or even really encouraged to use an America first policy or anything. A company serves the board or private owners interests, which are generally profit. Companies move countries and states all the time. If they can pay less taxes or have legal advantages etc. they move, because it’s good business. They don’t generally factor in what that means for US policy or long term US interest because that’s not their business is it? Their business is making money.

Even an American born businessman who sells American made products and donates money to political causes like campaigns is likely recieving some- probably sizable- chunk of their profits and wealth from foreign sources. Try and find a large company that doesn’t have either direct ownership and management overseas or which doesn’t have foreign markets or suppliers as major interests.
If a policy or candidate for office would impact is foreign relations in a way which could impact the profits and growth of a company like Goldman or Intel do you think that they aren’t going to try and influence our relations and laws and policies even if what works best for their profits serves the other country and their company more than American interests as a whole?

Well played.