> Russia did meddle in the elections to trumps benefit, but that’s not the “only” reason.
So the talks of "Russian asset" and "elected thanks to Russia" are conspiracy theories, right?
> A coup attempt does not require military involvement
A coup is the taking over of the government by groups (military, political, institutional) that are prepared and organised to do so. When violent protesters invade a government building, it's a violent protest.
> If your post requires a throwaway account, you already know it’s wrong.
>When Trump lost it was a stolen election, when Clinton lost it was Russian hackers.
And an important distinction here: Those attributing Clinton's loss to Russian hackers are referring to Russian propaganda efforts to influence the decisions of voters, not that Russia actually tampered with the vote tallies. Those who believe the stolen 2020 election theory believe that the votes were actually tampered with. One of these has ample evidence, the other has none.
I agree that many right-wing conspiracy theories are completely unhinged, while the corresponding left-wing ones are merely wild exaggerations.
On the flip side, the unhinged theories remain mostly fringe, while the wild exaggerations are repeated as well-known facts by most mainstream media. See the assault to the Congress made by a few hundred nobodies, now normally claimed to have been nothing less than a "coup attempt".
So the talks of "Russian asset" and "elected thanks to Russia" are conspiracy theories, right?
> A coup attempt does not require military involvement
A coup is the taking over of the government by groups (military, political, institutional) that are prepared and organised to do so. When violent protesters invade a government building, it's a violent protest.
> If your post requires a throwaway account, you already know it’s wrong.
It's not a throwaway account.