>Yeah, but I can't decide if the Russian collusion angle was pushed more by the right or the left.
For me there's no "right" and "left" as much, as an ok-with-Trump and "not-ok-with-Trump".
The right Republican establishment also didn't like Trump -- coming from outside the party, with no social grace (which I don't care for, I don't care about optics or what a politician is like as a person, only for their politics), and with some bizarro ideas of his own that break the traditional two-party consensus (e.g. on "more war", or on "limits to globalization" -- which, as a left-inclined person [1], I quite liked. I remember when some parts of the left were against globalization too -- e.g. in Seattle 1999 WTO protests. How time flies...).
>I mean, there IS a ton of evidence that Russian propaganda interference was real, and that it had an impact on the election.
I'd say a ton of noise more than evidence (and not for impact, just for propaganda). At worst they have some "social media" factories, which are par for the course today. In my country both major parties have their own, and publish BS against one another, pose as the other etc. The US surely has it's own (e.g. judging from things like this: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/feds-probe-fake-messages-to-f... ).
I also remember (from actually reading world news) that they have all kinds of sponsored ties, with government and opposition parties around the world, with NGOs, with think tanks, etc, which pretend to be "neutral" but are mostly fronts for national interest promotional work. Thousands of those, all over the world. Plus all the mainstream media eating off their official stories. I doubt Russia has 1/10th the budget or reach for those, which is probably why they have to content themselves with twitter posts and fake blogs.
[1] non US one, so not the modern vegan liberal that passes for one there.
For me there's no "right" and "left" as much, as an ok-with-Trump and "not-ok-with-Trump".
The right Republican establishment also didn't like Trump -- coming from outside the party, with no social grace (which I don't care for, I don't care about optics or what a politician is like as a person, only for their politics), and with some bizarro ideas of his own that break the traditional two-party consensus (e.g. on "more war", or on "limits to globalization" -- which, as a left-inclined person [1], I quite liked. I remember when some parts of the left were against globalization too -- e.g. in Seattle 1999 WTO protests. How time flies...).
>I mean, there IS a ton of evidence that Russian propaganda interference was real, and that it had an impact on the election.
I'd say a ton of noise more than evidence (and not for impact, just for propaganda). At worst they have some "social media" factories, which are par for the course today. In my country both major parties have their own, and publish BS against one another, pose as the other etc. The US surely has it's own (e.g. judging from things like this: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/feds-probe-fake-messages-to-f... ).
I also remember (from actually reading world news) that they have all kinds of sponsored ties, with government and opposition parties around the world, with NGOs, with think tanks, etc, which pretend to be "neutral" but are mostly fronts for national interest promotional work. Thousands of those, all over the world. Plus all the mainstream media eating off their official stories. I doubt Russia has 1/10th the budget or reach for those, which is probably why they have to content themselves with twitter posts and fake blogs.
[1] non US one, so not the modern vegan liberal that passes for one there.