Are "collusioners" the next "birthers"?

[PSOL]

No, recognizing the fact that Trump is a traitor is not equivalent to being a racist knuckledragger who questioned the legitimacy of a president merely because he was black. (while never sufficiently addressing the fact that his mother was a US citizen, making him a natural-born citizen no matter where he was born...)

True, look at Ted Cruz, did anyone ever question him?

[Flyersfan232]

 No they are the next flat earthers. Go look up the Palmer report if u don’t believe me.

[pbrower2a]

Collusion is far from disproved. It's about the same as journalists describing people who, despite being lazy, stupid, callow bums seem to live very well off income that can only be from illicit sources are 'reputed mobsters'. Real heirs and heiresses don't use underworld jargon, and they usually do interesting, if not particularly showy things. Real heirs and heiresses often act in ways to hide that they have a trust fund -- no flashy clothes or cars. 

[Progressive Pessimist]

Birtherism is both significantly more ridiculous and malicious and yet significantly less harmful to the republic as a whole.

I don't know about that. Being a prominent Birther is what almost single-handedly made Donald Trump a conservative icon.

[JA]

As far as partisan hack groups blindly placing their faith in a poorly imagined conspiracy theory that easily crumbles when scrutinized to try and justifytheir irrational hatred, yes. Those swearing absolute certainty that Trump colluded with Russia over hooker piss tapes have a comparable amount of egg on their face as those convinced the Obamas had the foresight to fake a birth notice in the Honolulu Star all the way back in 1961 or the troofers before them convinced W Bush purposefully cause 9-11, used magic voting machines in 2004 and ordered HAARP to hit New Orleans with a hurricane, or even before them, the deathers who claimed Clinton was killng random associates of his for some reason.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

itt collusioners claiming their conspiracy theory isn't really a conspiracy because multi million dollar news corporations and ex-spooks pushed it

[LBJer]

You know, push too hard on an issue and end up looking like fools when proven wrong?

Why don't your learn to get your facts straight before you start a thread.  We DO NOT know that the Mueller report found "no evidence" of "collusion" with Russia.  All we know is that not enough was found for a criminal charge--that Mueller "did not establish" that there was collusion.  This could mean anything from "no evidence found" to "almost enough evidence found for a criminal charge, but not quite."  Not proving something happened is not the same as proving it didn't happen.

[T'Chenka]

You know, push too hard on an issue and end up looking like fools when proven wrong?

Why don't your learn to get your facts straight before you start a thread.  We DO NOT know that the Mueller report found "no evidence" of "collusion" with Russia.  All we know is that not enough was found for a criminal charge--that Mueller "did not establish" that there was collusion.  This could mean anything from "no evidence found" to "almost enough evidence found for a criminal charge, but not quite."  Not proving something happened is not the same as proving it didn't happen.

This.

That poater seems to HATE nuance and prefers simplified half-truth arguments, and yet they somehow support AOC and not Trump. How bizarre.

[pbrower2a]

Birtherism is both significantly more ridiculous and malicious and yet significantly less harmful to the republic as a whole.

The problem with collusion theories is that they are still possibly true.

The President has a history of commercial ties to Russia. His denials are suspect because he is a habitual liar. People close to the President have been convicted of serious crimes.