(02-27-2017 11:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  But no one has ever found a documented case of an illegal vote actually changing the outcome of an election at the federal, state, or local level.

this 82 votes is in regards to Ohio which had roughly six million votes cast and the largest number for a single county was 14 for a county of population of 1.2 million.

so obviously this didn't effect any election result or come even close to doing so.

so it is purely a question of impacting MOV by a trivial amount rather

Again johnny, look down-ballot to local elections where margins of victory can be razor thin.

Several counties in NC had local election won by less than 50 votes this past election, one by as few as 3 votes I believe.

Every effort has to be made to eliminate as much voter fraud as possible.

yes they can be razor thin. was any election in franklin county decided by less than 14 votes?

I remember hearing Former PRES. BHO encourage illegals to vote. He said something to the effect of: "if you are in this country you need to vote, you have the right to vote!"

This statement is encouraging illegal activity.. by the POTUS... unreal!

(02-27-2017 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and I countered with legitimate responses.

Not that I saw..

You ignored the fact that the presidental race is never about the national MOV, MOV never matters. The MOV in specific *STATES* matter.

So show me where fraud handed Trump Michigan, Wisconsin, or any other state and I'm with you, we need to dig into it. But you've not done that, you've never done that.

And all the recounts of those states either benefited Trump or at best made next to no change.

Quote:there are a number of other factors that are more responsible for closing that vote gap. long wait lines

I waited two hours to vote John, and I did it with two kids that did not want to be there... Oh yea, and I did it in a wealthy suburb. There have always been lines to vote.

Quote:AND i must remind you that 82 people don't all vote for the same party.

Citation? I've not seen the breakdown. But it's besides the point. They *COULD* have.

Quote:you are talking a + or - that is going to be a tiny fraction of that 82 figure.

Citation..

Quote:you are the one comparing ohio 2016 to FL 2000 so shaddup about comparing apples to oranges.

LOL... kid, you said, and I quote "But no one has ever found a documented case of an illegal vote actually changing the outcome of an election at the federal, state, or local level."

I pointed out two, big, elections where 82 votes was a huge % of the difference.

Heck..
the 1832 presidential election in Maryland was decided by *4* votes
In 1839 the MA governors election was decided by *2* votes.

But I wanted to stay more contemporary.

I could have said, in 1994 just 21 votes was the difference in a Connecticut congressional election.

I was also trying to "stay big" but hey, lets talk about elections that are smaller scale and where 1 person can swing things.

In 2014 a City Council seat in Mount Dora, Florida, was resolved when Marie Rich’s name was pulled from a felt-top hat on a red-velvet-covered table. Because it was a tie.

In Cook County Minnesota two candidates each received 246 votes for the 1st District commissioner in Cook County, Minnesota.

Quote:I said "change the outcome" not close races. were 82 illegal votes found in FL that year? of course not otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up OH 2016.

Part of the problem, John, is that we don't regularly go and verify who can vote. Fraud happens in every election.

And, often, you're right to say photo id is not always, or usually the culprit. But it can be a tool that helps.

oddly enough: because that 1932 MD election had 19K votes per candidate. That 4 vote difference is technically a wider gap than a 200 or 500 vote difference between candidates with 2.9 million votes.

if you ask for a citation regarding that 82 votes = every vote will be liberal. good grief it's not even worth arguing with you. you do not wish to engage in common sense.

Seems JFK carried the day in 1960 with late night votes from Illinois that Mayor Daley collaborated on.
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=391
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...obbed.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_1960
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wash...tics_N.htm

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have had long Chicago ties. Not far fetched most of the country that were around back then had little trust in those two last November.

Liberal logic means that the 1960 New York Yankees won the World Series because they scored twice as many runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Bottom line is that you strategize based on the rules set at the time.

All that has to be said...logically.

(02-27-2017 12:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if you ask for a citation regarding that 82 votes = every vote will be liberal. good grief it's not even worth arguing with you. you do not wish to engage in common sense.

That's generally what happens when you state something as fact John... I'll ask you to cite the fact, not because I believed every vote was for the liberal but because I want to know what proportion was.

But I just showed you three election in the last 4 years in which *one* vote of a person saying they are "john doe" and voting without an ID would have changed the result.

(02-27-2017 12:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if you ask for a citation regarding that 82 votes = every vote will be liberal. good grief it's not even worth arguing with you. you do not wish to engage in common sense.

That's generally what happens when you state something as fact John... I'll ask you to cite the fact, not because I believed every vote was for the liberal but because I want to know what proportion was.

But I just showed you three election in the last 4 years in which *one* vote of a person saying they are "john doe" and voting without an ID would have changed the result.

you are denying something that basic logic agrees with something that is 99% likely to be true on a technicality. when one goes down that road it proves they have a weak argument and do not have a strong case if they are resorting to a technicality.

*But I just showed you three election in the last 4 years in which *one* vote of a person saying they are "john doe" and voting without an ID would have changed the result.*

But no one ever did.

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are denying something that basic logic agrees with something that is 99% likely to be true on a technicality. when one goes down that road it proves they have a weak argument and do not have a strong case if they are resorting to a technicality.

Than, FFS, state it as a likelihood and not as a fact. Because it's not a fact. When one tries to turn a likelihood into an assumed fact it shows they have a shaq argument.

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

(02-27-2017 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  But no one has ever found a documented case of an illegal vote actually changing the outcome of an election at the federal, state, or local level.

this 82 votes is in regards to Ohio which had roughly six million votes cast and the largest number for a single county was 14 for a county of population of 1.2 million.

so obviously this didn't effect any election result or come even close to doing so.

so it is purely a question of impacting MOV by a trivial amount rather

Again johnny, look down-ballot to local elections where margins of victory can be razor thin.

Several counties in NC had local election won by less than 50 votes this past election, one by as few as 3 votes I believe.

Every effort has to be made to eliminate as much voter fraud as possible.

yes they can be razor thin. was any election in franklin county decided by less than 14 votes?

So until it happens, it isn't an issue huh? Sounds like typical liberal logic.

(02-27-2017 01:06 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are denying something that basic logic agrees with something that is 99% likely to be true on a technicality. when one goes down that road it proves they have a weak argument and do not have a strong case if they are resorting to a technicality.

Than, FFS, state it as a likelihood and not as a fact. Because it's not a fact. When one tries to turn a likelihood into an assumed fact it shows they have a shaq argument.

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

The key legal term is beyond a reasonable doubt. Claiming 82 voters will al vote the same way is unreasonable

(02-27-2017 01:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 01:06 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are denying something that basic logic agrees with something that is 99% likely to be true on a technicality. when one goes down that road it proves they have a weak argument and do not have a strong case if they are resorting to a technicality.

Than, FFS, state it as a likelihood and not as a fact. Because it's not a fact. When one tries to turn a likelihood into an assumed fact it shows they have a shaq argument.

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

The key legal term is beyond a reasonable doubt. Claiming 82 voters will al vote the same way is unreasonable

SMH, Did.... You.... Not.... See....

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

Why are several posters on here, against enforcing the law of the land ? I'd be more specific about whom, however, the post would some how be deleted.

Someone take away john's computer as well as any shiny or sharp objects before he hurts himself. The fact that this needs to be explained shows that you are not capable of logical thought.

Total votes don't matter in a presidential election.

Total votes do matter in statewide elections.

Illegals voting is a crime, thus it should be treated as one.

John, You were given a VERY reasonable and accurate answer and yet you continue to deflect and chase rabbits.

You started with what you implied was 'false logic'. It isn't false logic at all... You're simply trying to apply an argument in ONE situation (The Presidential Election, which is NOT a national popular vote) with a different situation... The state elections (including for Presidential electors in each state) that ARE popular votes.

That's really simple and obvious.

You then pick a comment that 82 legitimate votes had their results cancelled out by 82 illegal ones.

First let's note that the number is purely arbitrary. It may apply to a specific situation, but that isn't an 'all-inclusive' number.

Second, It doesn't matter WHO those 82 illegal votes supported... because they were illegal, they shouldn't have been counted. They were, and that means that 82 LEGAL votes for 'the other' candidate were nullified. I don't care if the breakdown is 41-41 or 82-0. You don't know, because if you did, we wouldn't have counted the illegal votes. Even if you catch someone later, you generally can't pull their ballot to see how they voted and eliminate their votes from the total. Since you can't do that, you can't EVER know if it would have changed any outcome... but statistically, the number of elections that even just a few votes would change is FAR greater than 1, and that is an issue.

iirc, the 2000 Presidential Election swung on 146 or so votes in one county in Florida. If there were 500 illegal votes in that county... and 346 were for Bush and 200 for Gore, GORE would have won that county, and thus Florida, and thus the Presidency. Talking about the 146 'illegal' votes that would have made up the difference as opposed to the 500 actually cast is a matter of semantics... I chose 500. It COULD have been 146 ALL stuffed for Bush, or it COULD have been 5,000 illegal votes with a 146 + vote margin.

The odds that 82 illegal votes (wherever that number came from) were split 41-41 is close to zero, which means that SOME election results were wrong. Given the number of down-ballot votes that are cast and the number of those down-ballot votes that are decided by double digit or smaller margins... the probability that some official was wrongly elected or some initiative was wrongly decided is close to 100%

Every year there are dozens of claims that people are illegally disenfranchised from voting. Every year there is at least one challenge to the election results. TENS if not hundreds of millions of dollars are spent (by BOTH sides) to try and prove that outcomes are at risk of being changed...

THAT is the logic, and no amount of your feigned ignorance (you aren't stupid) nor deflections changes it.

Explain this logic to me, liberals...
If we're supposed to 'accept the results of elections', something Hillary and the left specifically challenged Trump on, then why did Gore challenge Florida? Why were there challenges THIS year? Why are SOME results automatically challenged? The reason is that the integrity of our elections is important... even when the results don't change. Confidence in those results is paramount.

And for all of the bluster Democrats make about their opposition to voter ID laws, I have yet to see why they are against it. Who would be wronged?

(02-27-2017 01:13 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 01:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 01:06 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are denying something that basic logic agrees with something that is 99% likely to be true on a technicality. when one goes down that road it proves they have a weak argument and do not have a strong case if they are resorting to a technicality.

Than, FFS, state it as a likelihood and not as a fact. Because it's not a fact. When one tries to turn a likelihood into an assumed fact it shows they have a shaq argument.

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

The key legal term is beyond a reasonable doubt. Claiming 82 voters will al vote the same way is unreasonable

SMH, Did.... You.... Not.... See....

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

Only inner cities vote at 90%. Everywhere else is closer to 50% than 100%. Basic math regarding probability (classic coin flip question) disagrees with you.

(02-27-2017 03:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 01:13 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 01:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 01:06 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you are denying something that basic logic agrees with something that is 99% likely to be true on a technicality. when one goes down that road it proves they have a weak argument and do not have a strong case if they are resorting to a technicality.

Than, FFS, state it as a likelihood and not as a fact. Because it's not a fact. When one tries to turn a likelihood into an assumed fact it shows they have a shaq argument.

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

The key legal term is beyond a reasonable doubt. Claiming 82 voters will al vote the same way is unreasonable

SMH, Did.... You.... Not.... See....

Many, many things in this world don't break down to 50/50... Many are 90/10 or 10/90.

Only inner cities vote at 90%. Everywhere else is closer to 50% than 100%. Basic math regarding probability (classic coin flip question) disagrees with you.

Not true. Inner cities such as Detroit voted at greater than 100%. Hence, the problem.