question for VSEO and UT Alum

[stevenash]

Before the Mueller report is released, I would like each of you to give me your opinion on whether or not there was a legitimate concern about collusion or this was simply a tactic of the left

[Englebert]

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.

[stevenash]

You are  going to be told that, since Hillary isn't President, it doesn't matter what she did.

[baddog]

16 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

Probably was collusion, but the bigger issue is how retarded our country is for believing every piece of fake news they saw on their Facebook newsfeed echo chamber 

 

 

Please explain Trump’s collusion with Russia. Then tell me why you don’t mind illegal aliens voting.

[baddog]

22 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

I’ll wait for the report to come out

 

Regarding your second sentence : what on earth are you talking about?? You guys need help lol 

Don’t blow a gasket. It is all about interfering with American’s right to vote. Russians and aliens are not American and don’t possess the rights that I have. Pretty simple really. 

I was almost certain that enlightened people would catch my drift.

[Englebert]

12 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

A+ logic brother, good use of my time reading this 

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.

[baddog]

5 hours ago, stevenash said:

Before the Mueller report is released, I would like each of you to give me your opinion on whether or not there was a legitimate concern about collusion or this was simply a tactic of the left

Has to be a tactic of the left. If I ever needed anything investigated, I darn sure wouldn’t hire Mueller. He has to be the worst investigator ever. He takes too long, he’s too expensive, and he comes up with nothing!

[UT alum]

5 hours ago, stevenash said:

Before the Mueller report is released, I would like each of you to give me your opinion on whether or not there was a legitimate concern about collusion or this was simply a tactic of the left

Legitimate concern. 

 

5 hours ago, Englebert said:

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.

[stevenash]

Ut Alum- if it was a legitimate concern, that would mean you feel the investigation will bear fruit as it relates to collusion?

[UT alum]

39 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

1137 cases of election fraud going back over three years. Millions and millions of votes cast. Is that statistically significant? If you read the report and check the states, most infractions involve absentee ballot fraud and illegal registrations, not in person voter fraud. Heritage Foundation definitely not a liberal think tank. 

[baddog]

22 minutes ago, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

1137 cases of election fraud going back over three years. Millions and millions of votes cast. Is that statistically significant? If you read the report and check the states, most infractions involve absentee ballot fraud and illegal registrations, not in person voter fraud. Heritage Foundation definitely not a liberal think tank. 

Yes, the dead people were definitely absent.

[Englebert]

32 minutes ago, UT alum said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

1137 cases of election fraud going back over three years. Millions and millions of votes cast. Is that statistically significant? If you read the report and check the states, most infractions involve absentee ballot fraud and illegal registrations, not in person voter fraud. Heritage Foundation definitely not a liberal think tank. 

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?

[UT alum]

43 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Ut Alum- if it was a legitimate concern, that would mean you feel the investigation will bear fruit as it relates to collusion?

Maybe not Trump himself, but something’s going on with people he surrounds himself with. Too many Russians too close. Trump plays to win and win only. Ends always justifies means.

[UT alum]

14 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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?

If correlated with reduced accidents and fatalities, I’d say yes. 

[UT alum]

29 minutes ago, baddog said:

Yes, the dead people were definitely absent.

Still, statistically negligent.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

If correlated with reduced accidents and fatalities, I’d say yes. 

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?

[UT alum]

20 minutes ago, Englebert said:

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?

These are false comparisons. Back in the Olden days white people weren’t convicted for crimes against blacks period. Even not so olden. Through the sixties all white juries acquitted them. Blacks had virtually no protection under the law, particularly in the South.

If voter fraud was as rampant as the vote restrictionists would have you believe there would be statistical correlation. Large numbers reveal patterns pretty clearly. The votes are not just national cycle votes. They include local city and school elections. A staggering number over 3 years for only 1137 infractions. And remember, we’re looking at Heritage Fund numbers, not some liberal think tank.

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, UT alum said:

These are false comparisons. Back in the Olden days white people weren’t convicted for crimes against blacks period. Even not so olden. Through the sixties all white juries acquitted them. Blacks had virtually no protection under the law, particularly in the South.

If voter fraud was as rampant as the vote restrictionists would have you believe there would be statistically correlation. Large numbers reveal patterns pretty clearly. The votes are not just national cycle votes. They include local city and school elections. A staggering number over 3 years for only 1137 infractions. And remember, we’re looking at Heritage Fund numbers, not some liberal think tank.

Most of those infractions were from Russian computers.

[UT alum]

4 minutes ago, baddog said:

Most of those infractions were from Russian computers.

You didn’t read the piece. Computers don’t have names and can’t be convicted. 

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You didn’t read the piece. Computers don’t have names and can’t be convicted. 

Of course not. That was from left field. However, if just one of those fraudulent votes came from Russia in favor of Trump, you would completely forget about statistical negligence. My point can be a little veiled at times. Makes people think.

[UT alum]

29 minutes ago, baddog said:

Of course not. That was from left field. However, if just one of those fraudulent votes came from Russia in favor of Trump, you would completely forget about statistical negligence. My point can be a little veiled at times. Makes people think.

No, I would not. I’ve been in insurance for 40+ years and while not an actuary, I understand the basics behind the law of large numbers and prediction of outcomes. One Russian vote would be statistically insignificant. I don’t think the Russians interfered in the actual voting process. They used social media to spread misinformation in order to cause confusion, suspicion, and instability. If Manafort or anyone else in Trump’s orbit shared polling info with them that enabled them to target more accurately, that’s collusion.

[stevenash]

Manaforts convictions had zero to do with collusion.

[LumRaiderFan]

3 hours ago, UT alum said:

No, I would not. I’ve been in insurance for 40+ years and while not an actuary, I understand the basics behind the law of large numbers and prediction of outcomes. One Russian vote would be statistically insignificant. I don’t think the Russians interfered in the actual voting process. They used social media to spread misinformation in order to cause confusion, suspicion, and instability. If Manafort or anyone else in Trump’s orbit shared polling info with them that enabled them to target more accurately, that’s collusion.

Social media spreads misinformation and causes confusion every day.  It’s very easy because you libs are so easily misinformed, confused and unstable.

The evidence is that you still think there was collusion.

[Englebert]

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

These are false comparisons. Back in the Olden days white people weren’t convicted for crimes against blacks period. Even not so olden. Through the sixties all white juries acquitted them. Blacks had virtually no protection under the law, particularly in the South.

If voter fraud was as rampant as the vote restrictionists would have you believe there would be statistical correlation. Large numbers reveal patterns pretty clearly. The votes are not just national cycle votes. They include local city and school elections. A staggering number over 3 years for only 1137 infractions. And remember, we’re looking at Heritage Fund numbers, not some liberal think tank.

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?

[Englebert]

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).