I feel that, while you're not wrong about the ongoing de-legitimization of the presidency, there's a danger of drawing a false equivalence here.
The 2000 election really was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees (in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother, under circumstances of serious, fraudulent voter disenfranchisement). And there really was foreign interference in our last election, in favour of the winning candidate - it's not really a "conspiracy theory" when President Obama literally called Putin on the red phone to ask him to stop. Whether you think it was effective or not (and there's no possible way you can know), there's no doubt at all they tried.
Conversely, Obama was definitely not in any shape or form born in Kenya, and Clinton's lack of popular vote was as immaterial as Trump's.
The 2000 election really was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees (in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother, under circumstances of serious, fraudulent voter disenfranchisement). And there really was foreign interference in our last election, in favour of the winning candidate - it's not really a "conspiracy theory" when President Obama literally called Putin on the red phone to ask him to stop. Whether you think it was effective or not (and there's no possible way you can know), there's no doubt at all they tried.
Conversely, Obama was definitely not in any shape or form born in Kenya, and Clinton's lack of popular vote was as immaterial as Trump's.
Only one of these sides looks "fringe" to me.