So,
@mebeblue2 , can I ask, as someone who is genuinely curious... how do you come up with this?
The Obama/Muslim thing I think everyone knows is fake. There is literally nothing to support it, and the fact that the guy had a pastor and went to church before he was a public figure and all of that makes it clear.
But how do you equate something so demonstrably false with something that isn't? I mean... Russian collusion is literally believable enough that a former head of the FBI has spent years looking into it, Trump has been connected to a number of people who have been found guilty (note: GUILTY) of crimes, including some illicit dealings involving Russia (Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, van der Zwaan, and 13 Russian nationals), we know that Trumps son had a meeting with Russians which they denied for a long time and in many ways, a former CIA head said "Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash," and Trump himself stood up in front of the world next to the President of Russia and publicly denounced the US intelligence community and instead sided with Russia involving Russian involvement in our election (all after saying, publicly, that he wanted Russia to hack his political opponent... and the Russians then tried to hack Clinton's personal emails for the first time that night.)
Note that all of this stuff I just posted is factual. Like, actual fact. I can give you links for all of them, even links to Fox News that confirms it all.
So help me understand. How do you equate what is provably false with something that is not? Are you just trolling? Do you genuinely believe it? If you DO genuinely believe it, how do you balance this belief all of the facts I posted earlier?