Well, that's pretty convenient isn't it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith either, so I'm going to ignore everything you're saying.
As I see it, I did not ignore everything GP said. I read all of their original statements, over half of the evidence, and their 2 additional comments. I admitted that I did not have 30 minutes to watch the videos at first. I explained why my reading of the rest of their comments made me less inclined to spend 30 minutes watching videos. GP seemed confused about HN's reaction, so I attempted to explain my thought process.
Which part of my comment is in bad faith? If I did not disregard all of GP, why should all of my comment be disregarded?
P.S. I did end up watching most of the videos when I had time. I'm still not totally convinced, and since they are entirely about D's, it doesn't help GP seem less partisan.
There's a lot of editing, and I tend to be skeptical of what was edited out (like when ACORN was 'exposed'). Were these people led in a certain direction? Are some of the comments made by someone other than who they're attributed to? A lot of the time you can't see the person speaking.
But, a lot of the commentary in the videos is quite troubling, infuriating even. Given that there appears to be admission of crimes across multiple jurisdictions, why has there not been further prosecution? Especially since some of the allegations occur in majority R states, I'd think they'd jump at the chance to prove D's are cheats.
Both parties are cheats. I think GP agrees, it just didn't come across that way at first.
Podesta did not say "US not a democracy". That was a forward he received about a study by Princeton. There's a solid academic debate to be had on the nature of democracy and representation. I don't see how this is somehow malicious or cynical on Podesta's part. I would hope that people involved with politics have some clue about what political scientists are saying.
Additionally, oversampling is a common polling technique[0]. I don't see how using oversampling for their internal polls means that Podesta forced other polls to be conducted in the exact same manner. To claim that multiple polls by separate organizations are rigged, you need much, much stronger evidence.
I'm also not sure that a stump speech by an opponent ever rises to the level of evidence.
Even if I accept all of your claims on face value, they don't add up to "we know this election is rigged".
After that, it didn't seem worth watching the videos because you have lost credibility in my eyes because I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith. I can tell from your two other comments that you're not just attacking, but your first post comes across as overly partisan (only accusations against Ds, citing Trump as evidence), so your larger point becomes muddled.
I'm still not totally certain whether you think this a problem with Ds or both major parties or an inherent problem to a party based system or something else entirely. At the end of the day, I think we probably agree. "The bigger idea here is that political parties are willing to do anything to advance their interests and it is a mistake to allow them to self-regulate when it comes to respecting the will of the people." If that was your original comment, I think the upvotes would be rolling in.
Finally, complaining about downvotes tends to make the problem worse.
[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/s...