I told you exactly what they were doing, and how they were doing it. I gave you a link to a database of more that 30,000 emails where the DNC themselves spell out what they've been doing, and how they've been doing it. And that's to say nothing of the dozens of sites on the web that have done detailed breakdowns of everything contained in the DNC leak. I'm all for a healthy skepticism, especially when it comes to politics, but there is a fine line between skepticism and willful ignorance.
Ill tell you there's a flying pink elephant outside my window, is the burden of proof on you or me? I can point outside my window and tell you to go look just as easily.
As noted below I will continue looking into the Hillary Victory Fund issue, however my research to date seems to show no concrete evidence that any law was actually broken there either, only insinuation under broad journalistic interpretations of FEC rules.
Politics so easily becomes about belief rather than hard evidence and strict logic. I choose not to engage in religious zealotry, especially in concern to politics. I have no horse in this race, no banner to follow, I truly do not care who you vote for.
Ill tell you there's a flying pink elephant outside my window, is the burden of proof on you or me? I can point outside my window and tell you to go look just as easily.
Right, but if you gave me a video of the flying pink elephant, pictures of it's tracks in the ground outside your window, a statement from a zoologist that confirms that it is indeed a flying pink elephant, and numerous witness statements that all substantiate your claim that at that time, and in that place, a pink elephant did fly, then at some point it's no longer that you didn't provide evidence, it's that I don't believe you simply because I don't want to believe you.
You keep missing the entire concept that you point at a pile of 30,000 emails and say 'see!' Pick out specifics if you want me to agree on a concept.
I have read several dozen articles all with cleverly provocative titles to ensure readership, however beyond some basic favoritism there is still no smoking gun. There's nothing that was actually done, no action, no details of the dastardy plot complete with moustache twirling that people of the mindset to accept it seem to believe is there. Ill refer to my original post in which I asked someone to: "do tell exactly how democracy was subverted and this was revealed in the emails"
You keep missing the entire concept that you point at a pile of 30,000 emails and say 'see!'
You keep missing the entire concept that I'm not your damn research department. You asked for an example and I gave you one.
I'm not "pointing to a pile of 30,000 emails", I'm giving you a link to a searchable database of 30,000 emails. If you can use Google you can use WikiLeaks.
Which is why I also gave you the link to the searchable database of the rest of the more than 30,000 emails, and said:
Sorry if people are going to assert it's the end of democracy as we know it they could at least point to some substantiation.
I told you exactly what they were doing, and how they were doing it. I gave you a link to a database of more that 30,000 emails where the DNC themselves spell out what they've been doing, and how they've been doing it. And that's to say nothing of the dozens of sites on the web that have done detailed breakdowns of everything contained in the DNC leak. I'm all for a healthy skepticism, especially when it comes to politics, but there is a fine line between skepticism and willful ignorance.
Ill tell you there's a flying pink elephant outside my window, is the burden of proof on you or me? I can point outside my window and tell you to go look just as easily.
As noted below I will continue looking into the Hillary Victory Fund issue, however my research to date seems to show no concrete evidence that any law was actually broken there either, only insinuation under broad journalistic interpretations of FEC rules.
Politics so easily becomes about belief rather than hard evidence and strict logic. I choose not to engage in religious zealotry, especially in concern to politics. I have no horse in this race, no banner to follow, I truly do not care who you vote for.
Right, but if you gave me a video of the flying pink elephant, pictures of it's tracks in the ground outside your window, a statement from a zoologist that confirms that it is indeed a flying pink elephant, and numerous witness statements that all substantiate your claim that at that time, and in that place, a pink elephant did fly, then at some point it's no longer that you didn't provide evidence, it's that I don't believe you simply because I don't want to believe you.
You keep missing the entire concept that you point at a pile of 30,000 emails and say 'see!' Pick out specifics if you want me to agree on a concept.
I have read several dozen articles all with cleverly provocative titles to ensure readership, however beyond some basic favoritism there is still no smoking gun. There's nothing that was actually done, no action, no details of the dastardy plot complete with moustache twirling that people of the mindset to accept it seem to believe is there. Ill refer to my original post in which I asked someone to: "do tell exactly how democracy was subverted and this was revealed in the emails"
You keep missing the entire concept that I'm not your damn research department. You asked for an example and I gave you one.
I'm not "pointing to a pile of 30,000 emails", I'm giving you a link to a searchable database of 30,000 emails. If you can use Google you can use WikiLeaks.