Zeke, why, when someone disagrees, do you have to make it personal? Why is your response ridicule rather than facts? I find it rather insulting and irritating. You say "It was a concerted effort to quash the progressives." - Yet, once again, provide no examples of how this was done. To save you some trouble, I've read through the Intercept's oh-so-unbiased reportage, and even there it is more accusation than substance.
This is the kind of response that I find so infuriating. "That you don't want to see the truth is understandable. There is nothing more disturbing than having one's illusions dashed. I get it." What unmitigated bullsh!t. I'm simply pointing out that this conspiracy theory, like so many others, has no substance, merely innuendo.
It ain't personal.
Why would high ranking executives write the emails that really do exist? Why would the party that is supposed to be impartial show bias? You said that (they "preferred her"), not me.
The emails show a lot.It is that simple. It is logic.
Why would they prefer Clinton to Sanders or Sanders to Clinton? The argument is silly. There is no proof that those emails didn't mean more than "water-cooler". We (neither of us) know what was going on in the heads of the top tier of the DNC. And we don't know if any action was taken.
It's not personal,
NW, it is purely rational. Something lacking in your argument.
To call it a conspiracy theory is to assume it without fact. It is an opinion. I disagree. I have emails which trump conjecture on what one may think they mean. Hence your argument is based on something whose results no one can possibly know - i.e., the results of emails THAT ACTUALLY DO EXIST.
