Lots of conspiracy theories are bogus, but rejecting them all just because of how they’re framed is not wise. The way it is today, a gang of conspirators could get away with anything: they just need to start an Internet rumor of what they just did, framing it as a conspiracy theory, and anyone who tries to talk about it will be ignored.
While it would be difficult to prove, this story fits the modus operandi of propagandists, who are masters at spreading false claims of scandals and then discrediting those spreading false claims once they get some traction among dissidents.
Or
Like, in 2004, CBS anchorman Dan Rather was baited with doctored memos of Bush going AWOL in the National Guard – the scandal was real but the memos were not, so Rather became the issue, not W.
I personally could care less if he is not eligible, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit. Not in a “he is a manchurian candidate from the muslim world” way more “All mainstream candidates are preselected by the real powers in charge” way and if he is their man they could make him a citizen. The ironic thing is the vitriol in which people argue over which of the two corporate stooge candidates would do a better job than the other, when the differences between the two is paper thing besides packaging. You people are fooling yourselves.
