[fuqmachine]

> conspiratorially, meaning speculatively

I'm only claiming that it is a convenient coincidence and I tend not to believe in those. I'm not talking absolute corruption. But I believe there is a buddy-buddy effect at the very least

[munk-a]

I think one of the more dangerous aspects of the world we live in right now is how willing people are to immediately assume a conspiracy and making a sweeping a baseless statement only fuels that.

Your comment did call out the fact that you're uncertain, but it then continued to make baseless claims. There are interesting things that need to be dug into especially connected to Pete's payment to this app company and I'll be watching closely - but we simply have next to no information yet.

[fuqmachine]

Again, I claimed no explicit corruption. I said that these events favor Pete and he had his hands in making these events occur. Why is evidence regarded as baseless?

He called in and pulled the poll that was released in a timely manner for 76 years. His adviser is married to the company's founder, and he bought 42k$ worth of "service" from them before. When app crashed, he claims victory like a rat and all of media announces his speech to the public.

Again I'm not claiming Iowa Dem party actively helped him. I'm claiming that he was allowed to help himself in multiple ways and noone stopped him, which is unfair to every other candidate.