Nah, we were discussing transparency, which is what I replied to. Then you made it about elections being "free and fair", which again, the OSCE report does not dispute, because they are not in the business of ultra‑summarizing to push an agenda. What they did is raise reasonable concerns about unequal media exposure and obstacles faced by prospective candidates, chief among them "fundamental freedoms" being restricted. This bit refers specifically to the right of assembly, which has been violated repeatedly by governments in Europe and the US (remember that pipeline?) for one reason or another.
No doubt OSCE would have preferred if Navalny had been allowed to be a candidate, but it's probably a good thing that he wasn't because he would have faceplanted pretty hard, what with his popularity being in the vicinity of 2%. A failed candidate is nowhere near as attractive as a martyr. Overall, the report falls short of being an indictment, because the fact is that Putin simply does not need to cheat in order to win. And Russians consistently voting "wrong" causes an absolutely fantastic amount of butthurt in the West. But I digress.
Then you went and brought up how, in contrast to Russia, the US elections are "free and fair" despite the Big Five's disproportionate coverage of big party candidates, and super PAC and "dark money" groups' (transparency schmarency) contributions completely destroying any illusion that politics in the US has become anything other than money exchanging hands. Apparently, the definition of free and fair is choosing between two bought and paid for candidates of the same establishment that... well, we've been down that road before.
Indeed, we've been at this before, terms will continue to be redefined to mean whatever you need them to mean depending on the circumstances and I'm not really in the mood for your particular brand of intellectual dishonesty. Goodbye.