Englebert

I'm not saying rampant fraud exists, I'm saying you can't infer that voter fraud does not exist because you only see a few cases of convictions. That is your argument, not mine. What evidence suggests "otherwise"? Again, you can't suggest voter fraud is statistically insignificant based on the fact a very few convictions exist. If you have other evidence that voter fraud is an anomaly, please share.

I guess the best way to pose this question is to create a mathematical equation: A = Number of people who committed voter fraud and were convicted of voter fraud B = Number of people who committed voter fraud but were not caught/not convicted of voter fraud C = Total number of people who committed voter fraud A + B = C Please solve this equation. We can use your number for A. You contend that we can infer C by knowing A, but we have no idea of B. Please solve this equation based on your logic. When you realize this is not solvable, please try an attempt to reiterate your reasoning for knowing that voter fraud is statistically insignificant when you have no idea how many people have successfully committed voter fraud (B).

No, these are not false comparisons. These are very much equivalent comparisons. I contend that many, many crimes were committed by Whites against Blacks, but were never brought to trial because the failure of pursuit by the authorities to bring said crimes to a courtroom. Same with voter fraud...the low instances of conviction rates is due to lackadaisical or even complete failure to investigate/bring charges of any instance of said crime. This will necessarily lead to low conviction rates...not that the crime is not in abundance. So no, there would not be a statistical correlation as you contend. You can only get results from something that you study. If you ignore a problem, no stats exist. Let's try another example...if parents choose to ignore bad behavior from their child, and administer no punishment as a result of ignoring this bad behavior, does this indicate that the child is a snow white angel incapable of bad behavior? Does the bad behavior mysteriously disappear because the parents can claim that they never have to punish their child? Does the lack of convictions of voter fraud indicate that voter fraud doesn't exist or does it indicate that instances of voter fraud has not been diligently pursued. Just like the lack of speeding tickets versus the number of speeders, just like the lack of convictions of White crimes against Blacks, voter fraud can rampantly exist when it is ignored...with low conviction rates. How about one more example: If 20 people are caught illegally crossing the border, does this in any way indicate how many people tried to cross the border? How can you infer how many people successfully crossed the border when you have no idea how many attempted?

Really? You are thinking of safe driving. You made the claim that since a "small" number of convictions of voter fraud exist, that this is somehow an indication that very few occasions of voter fraud exists. Let's try this another way. Back in the olden days, if very few White people were convicted of crimes against Black people, does this indicate that very few instances of crimes were perpetrated on Black people by White people?

If millions and millions of people drive on the road, and only 1000 speeding tickets are issued, is this a sign that very, very few speeders exist?

Ditto on your post. I'm flabbergasted (not really) that you don't understand the relationship baddog pointed out between "Russian collusion" and illegals voting. Why do the Liberals think that Russia trying to influence an election is tantamount to a declaration of war, but others that try to influence our elections by illegally voting is not even frowned upon? I'm sure a pithy "comeback" is in the works. One that will glean with enlightenment that will allow all of us peons to realize that your comment of not knowing what baddog was talking about was our own misinterpretation of your statement, and your explanation will provide the help we need. So please, enlighten us with a response.

Maybe you are baffled because you haven't given any thought as to how the extremist are trying to use an unproven theory for power and wealth re-distribution. These so called enlightened leaders know the average American will not willingly give away our wealth...unless a doomsday crisis is created to persuade the people into believing we are "saving the planet". It's not a hard concept to grasp. Have you read the Paris Agreement? Was converting to reusable grocery bags the main goal of this agreement? Was being economically friendly the main focus? Was basic lifestyle changes a centerpoint of discussion? Or was wealth re-distribution the main and underlining reasoning for this "treaty"? If you don't know the obvious answers, please try to read it then get back to us.

The was definitely collusion. The Hillary campaign undoubtedly colluded with FusionGPS/Christopher Steele/Russian operatives to influence the election. Trump...not so much. There is definitely a cause for concern. After all of the evidence produced showing the guilt of Hillary and many, many on the Left, I'm concerned that not one person will be held accountable. Equal justice does not seem to exist. And I'm with you Nash, I would sure like to hear everyone's opinion on this, especially those on the Left.

Is this all you have for your rationale that Trump is a wanna-be dictator? Please tell me you have something pertinent to draw such a wild judgement. I've heard many Liberal pundits making this same accusation, but have yet to hear a sane or even close to rational argument for such a conclusion...and I'm still waiting.

Ooops, I forgot about his quip. Makes more sense to me now.

Yes, Obama did make it law. Congress writes and passes legislation, the President signs that legislation into law. Without the President's signature, it would not have become law. And please share some of the acts you feel qualify Trump as a dictator. What actions has he taken that is above and beyond usurping the constitution? When you list these acts, make sure to keep in mind the actions of other presidents so we can see if you feel that they should be labeled wanna-be dictators as well. And if the actions you list describe other presidents, why didn't the media label those as dictators? As far as you last little quip, does TDS come to mind?

Can you name a few policies that Obama enacted that started this wave? What factors do you attribute to Obama that got the economy on the upward trend? Maybe Obamacare?

I sure hope you are right. One thing that scares me is that the Dems seem to be looking for someone out of the old mainstream ideology, meaning the old guard like Hillary and Biden (just like Trump winning the nomination by basically bucking the old guard). The more Liberal, the better. I could be wrong, but I think one of these far, far Left candidates will catch fire and win the nomination. I have no idea who, but I doubt Biden or even Bernie will be the one. Whoever does win the nomination, I'm not sure if the whole party will rally around a uber Left candidate...but that might just be wishful thinking on my part. I don't see a semi-moderate pulling out the nomination. Beto fits the bill of bucking the established ideology, so I'm not so sure he should be written off just yet. But again, I sure hope you are right. Although he scares me, I don't see a Dem candidate that scares me less.

What question is he running from? Oops, I'm still stuck in the recent past. I guess a pertinent question would be: does he stand a chance? I've had the unfortune of hearing some of his platform, which should scare the heck out of any sane American. But then again, most (if not all) of the ones that are already in the race propose the same things. So, in comparison to the other Socialists (formerly Democrat party) running, how does he differentiate himself?

And still you run. What is so hard about defending your own words? What type of person levies accusations, then refuses to stand by them?

Can you backup your allegations? Run little one, run.

Run some more little one. Since you won't/can't come up with a talking point, let's just discuss your latest absurd comment. What deviation from the party standards do you feel gets you branded as a traitor? Let's debate that little gem. Please provide examples of these deviation behaviors. I bet you run again.

Get to work. You have some absurd talking points that need revealing.

But yet you won't or can't deliver any of those talking points that abhor you. It's easy to complain, it's revealing when you have to provide evidence for those complaints. And as we can all plainly see, you can't deliver.

You must watch a lot of Fox News to know what the talking points are. And let's see if you will embarrass yourself some more. Name one single Fox News talking point that you think I or Nash has regurgitated. You are a scared little boy that can only make up stuff then run when challenged to defend your own comments. Really, who could take you serious. You lie, can't defend those lies, then run on to the next subject to insult some more. It's predictable but somehow still comical to witness your immature antics.

My first reply in this thread has pretty much been proven to be spot on. I have a feeling once his enlightened brain comes to the realization of his obvious but oblivious error, he will slink away to another topic. Hopefully he will continue on his current path, considering the entertainment value. When do we reach the point where it becomes unethical to laugh at the obvious mentally challenged? I think we are getting close.

Please enlightened us as to how we are not understanding you. Are our boisterous laughs directed at you preventing your genius mind from functioning? Do you think tagging an insult to your obvious clueless assertion will somehow frightened us into a non-response, thereby saving you from more embarrassment? Just more evidence.

You were challenged to provide evidence for you contention of "hardcore republicans". You can't do it, run like a frightened schoolgirl, then try to insult us like you're somehow enlightened. Can the embarrassment for you get any stronger? So yes, limited creativity in free thought seems to identify you to a tee. You prove it with each post. More evidence is just keystrokes away.

But somehow you feel the need to engage with insults. Do you feel threatened? How does an enlightened mind internalize such threats to their...well actually, I have no idea why you feel threatened, but it shows loud and clear. Does the fact that us laughing at your limited creativity in free thought threaten you?

How does someone so enlightened not even understand the context and meaning of stevenash's quote. Based on your response, that SR-71 Blackbird is working overtime today.