question for VSEO and UT Alum

[UT alum]

6 hours ago, Englebert said:

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).

So, who is perpetrating the fraud? You think someone who loses an election and suspects fraud just slinks away? They pursue legal remedies. You can use that little formula to confirm or deny any crime. Common sense says a fraud epidemic you suggest would have empirical evidence to support it. All you can do is offer meaningless suppositions. The evidence suggests otherwise. 

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

So, who is perpetrating the fraud? You think someone who loses an election and suspects fraud just slinks away? They pursue legal remedies. You can use that little formula to confirm or deny any crime. Common sense says a fraud epidemic you suggest would have empirical evidence to support it. All you can do is offer meaningless suppositions. The evidence suggests otherwise. 

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.

[stevenash]

There is no voter fraud, the border situation is not an emergency, but the planet is gone in 12 years unless we elect a democrat.

[stevenash]

13 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

Wow Nash has switched from Fox to MSNBC!

Am I now classified as "enlightened"?

[Englebert]

17 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

You become enlightened when you stop blindly following either party and turn off cable TV news 

Would you care to show evidence of why you think stevenash blindly follows either party? What led you to this conclusion? History has shown that no answer will be forthcoming.

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

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 never suggested it didn’t exist. I said incidences are statistically insignificant as impacting outcomes. Even if it’s off by a factor of 10, it is still insignificant given the sheer number of votes cast in all elections. Overall the system is safe. I’ve worked it, am familiar with the rules, and know from my experience as an election official that in person voter fraud is not easy to pull off. I think I speak for many poll workers when I say we don’t volunteer for the job to put our butts on the line to go to jail. Disclaimer: the job does pay $8.00 an hour.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

That was more of a general statement, and not directed at Nash, hence the “blindly following either party” part. I’m confident Nash does not blindly the Democratic Party, at a minimum.

 

thank you for your contribution however!

You've made this same accusation (directly in the other cases) on multiple occasions about me, stevenash, and the entire board. You have been asked repeatedly to show what has led you to this conclusion...and you always run from the question. This instance was just a continuation of all the other instances. So once again, can you backup your claims that we blindly follow any party? Will you continue to levy this accusation with zero evidence?

[Englebert]

16 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

I wouldn’t say the entire board. There are a small number of active users who do use their brain. I do not believe you are one of them. I do think Nash is a smart guy, however often we disagree. 

So again, you won't backup your claims as usual. Why do you run from such a simple question?

[Englebert]

11 minutes ago, VeryStableEnlightenedOne said:

Brother - scroll through the pages of this sub forum and see the endless pro-Republican anti-democrat topics! 

Thanks pal!

More deflection. Who would have guessed?