I'm not sure but I bet it may be against the rules for you to challenge me for proof after one paragraph, and then make a smartassy comment about me not providing the proof I was challenged to provide after the next paragraph, when it's all in the same response... 
Why do conservatives always look you in the eye and tell you to prove they pulled the trigger when they have the gun in their hand, but you don't have a camera. Denying the attempts to get Obama out of office because they failed like big, fat, smelly losers, doesn't mean they didn't try. It doesn't matter how many times you deny the truth. They tried and FAILED MISERABLY after Benghazi, the FAILED ATTEMPT to prove he isn't American because they had his birth certificate (another attempt to make a lie true by saying it over and over again), the attempt to sue the President of the United States because of of his executive actions,... how many of these do I need to list here?
There is a huge difference between "not doing something" and "doing it and FAILING".
A claim that money has nothing to do with who wins the election is ridiculous. If someone honestly believes that... well thats a very ignorant point of view. Did Obama use money to win? Yes he did. He got the democratic nomination because he spent enough money to make his name recognizable. Can you guess why I'm not president? It isnt about my criminal record, skin color, the fact that I am of the fairer sex, or anything else. Its because I don't have a billion dollars to sponsor my campaign.
i appreciate everybody's right to agree or disagree. And I don't hold people's opinions against them. But I also think its stupid to use a fallacious argument because you are banking on someone not having physical proof.
Rhetoric is NOT the bread and butter of a good argument.
