Liberals and the crazy things they champion for...Why?

[BrokeLoser]

Guess I'll have to expand post three:

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education still can't distinguish between "Liberal", "the left", "the Democratic Party" and "Barak [sic] Obama".. Let alone between "politics" and "social mores".

Let alone what a Composition Fallacy is.

I guess "with a 3rd grade education" is the crucial phrase.

Those are the same people who continue to push false accusations while having zero evidence.

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Ask yourself if you've ever heard or seen a Liberal champion for anything normal and or positive.

Ummm..... I got your positive right here --

Haha...now that's some funny shit. Way to spin it!
You can't be serious?

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education can't see things fundamentally wrong with the twisted ideologies from the Left.

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education still can't distinguish between "Liberal", "the left" and "the Democratic Party".

I guess "with a 3rd grade education" is the crucial phrase.

There is no difference anymore...you whackos are all the same. All Regressives.

Then you should have no problem proving that every single liberal in the US is as you have described....

Nobody's really cares to acknowledge the 2% of anything...it's kind of a waste of time and effort. Democrats and traditional Libs have fallen prey to and embraced the new age Progressive loon hood.

I haven't yet, you may assume I have, just to help you"argument"..

Well, if thats true...I congratulate you. You're part of a dying (almost dead) breed.

 

[BlindBoo]

Kewl, another conflating disingenuous denigrating thread.

 

[Moonglow]

Ummm..... I got your positive right here --

Haha...now that's some funny shit. Way to spin it!
You can't be serious?

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education still can't distinguish between "Liberal", "the left" and "the Democratic Party".

I guess "with a 3rd grade education" is the crucial phrase.

There is no difference anymore...you whackos are all the same. All Regressives.

Then you should have no problem proving that every single liberal in the US is as you have described....

Nobody's really cares to acknowledge the 2% of anything...it's kind of a waste of time and effort. Democrats and traditional Libs have fallen prey to and embraced the new age Progressive loon hood.

I haven't yet, you may assume I have, just to help you"argument"..

Well, if thats true...I congratulate you. You're part of a dying (almost dead) breed.

nothing new, yet,
I prefer to stay calm even in the roughest seas..

 

[Pogo]

Guess I'll have to expand post three:

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education still can't distinguish between "Liberal", "the left", "the Democratic Party" and "Barak [sic] Obama".. Let alone between "politics" and "social mores".

Let alone what a Composition Fallacy is.

I guess "with a 3rd grade education" is the crucial phrase.

Those are the same people who continue to push false accusations while having zero evidence.

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

 

[Dragonlady]

Guess I'll have to expand post three:

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education still can't distinguish between "Liberal", "the left", "the Democratic Party" and "Barak [sic] Obama".. Let alone between "politics" and "social mores".

Let alone what a Composition Fallacy is.

I guess "with a 3rd grade education" is the crucial phrase.

Those are the same people who continue to push false accusations while having zero evidence.

You mean 30 plus years of Clinton investigations, which turned up no evidence, no witnesses and no charges? Like that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Abortion
Criminals
illegals
Trannys
Gays and Lesbians
Welfare dependents
Big government
Legalization of drugs
Pay attention and you will hear and see Liberals debate and fight for the aforementioned with passion and conviction. Ask yourself if you've ever heard or seen a Liberal champion for anything normal and or positive. I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education can't see things fundamentally wrong with the twisted ideologies from the Left.
We raise our children on advice such as; "hang with dogs, you'll get fleas", "choose your friends wisely", "winners hang with winners"....blah, blah, blah
We say these things to encourage our children to surround themselves with good influence...it's kind of a fundamental thing that good parenting includes.
Do Liberals tell their children; " Now Johnny, you go seek the weirdest, least productive, drug using illegal criminals and make them your best friends?"
Is this just part of the twisted ideologies that have caused mass decay at the core of the Democratic Party?

Another stupid thread by a broken looser. You are the one who needs to pay arrtention because you have no clue as to ehat liberals think, believe or want for the country and the reasoning behind it.

Abortion ??


Liberals do not fight for abortion. We do not think that abortion is a good or pleasant thing. We fight for a woman right to have domain over their own bodies. I'll tell you what we also fight for. We fight for programs that will minimize unwanted pregnancies.

We fight for access to birth control. We also fight for programs and policies that will provide supports and assistance to women and families so that they are more likely to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term instead of aborting it.
You can outlaw legal abortion but you can't stop women from having abortions and those abortions will be unsafe. We want to minimize the need for abortions, you want to criminalize it and create pain and suffering.
Criminals ??

What about criminals? We support a fair and rational system of law enforcement and criminal justice. We support the police while recognizing the fact that some cops use excessive for and that more controls are needed to reign in some departments. We do not support mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses which clog our jails at taxpayers expense, and ruin lives.
illegals

We should and in fact have secured our boarders using practical, common sense means. Many undocumented people have been here many years and have built a life here. Their children know only this country. The work, put money back into the economy, and pay taxes. At the same time, they often must forgo government services and are unable to collect tax refunds. They should have a path to citizenship.

Trannys, Gays and Lesbians

Transsexuals, Gays and Lesbians are human beings and live among us. They have families and children. They hold jobs and pay taxes. They are not bothering you so get over it. Many conservatives also support LGBT rights as do various religious denominations. It is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is those who believe in equality and value diversity vs. the bigots who are still living in the last century and wish to once again create a shadow society and all of the social ills that would breed.

Welfare dependents. ??

Yes we have people who are welfare. Public assistance is a by product of capitalism . As the free market economy that conservative love so much expands or contracts due to market forces and world events, so does the need for labor. Public assistance keeps many of those people afloat so that when they are need in the workforce that are healthy and ready to work again. Conservatives rail against socialism but don't understand that it is welfare to supports capitalism. You can't have it both ways

Big government. ??

No, we don't believe in big government for the sake of big government. We believe in a smart and efficient government that is focused to the security of the US, the general welfare of the people, and the promotion of economic opportunity, and reversing income and wealth disparity. We believe in a government that does not shirk it's responsibility for protecting the environment, and protecting consumers from predatory corporations.

Legalization of drugs ??
Wrong again. We are for the legalization and taxation of marijuana only. Other drugs should be decriminalized and their abuse should be treated as a public health issue.

Most conservative positions are stupid, short sighted cruel, and result in and increased social and fiscal cost to society. So stuff it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Guess I'll have to expand post three:

I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education still can't distinguish between "Liberal", "the left", "the Democratic Party" and "Barak [sic] Obama".. Let alone between "politics" and "social mores".

Let alone what a Composition Fallacy is.

I guess "with a 3rd grade education" is the crucial phrase.

Those are the same people who continue to push false accusations while having zero evidence.

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those are the same people who continue to push false accusations while having zero evidence.

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

 

[danielpalos]

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

Do you really mean;
"lets pretend we don't have laws so long as we have a "large economy"?
20 trillion in debt and shameless, classless humans ruining job markets and destroying one neighborhood at a time all around us and we should pretend it's okay because we have a "large economy"?
And you Libtards wonder how you lost all of D.C. and have zero credibility among intelligent, REAL American's....haha
Keep up the good work!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

Do you really mean;
"lets pretend we don't have laws so long as we have a "large economy"?
20 trillion in debt and shameless, classless humans ruining job markets and destroying one neighborhood at a time all around us and we should pretend it's okay because we have a "large economy"?
And you Libtards wonder how you lost all of D.C. and have zero credibility among intelligent, REAL American's....haha
Keep up the good work!

What the hell are you jabbering about. Who said anything about ignoring the laws. The point is to enforce then humanly and rationally, and not like jack booted thugs ala Trump. Care to provide some documentation on how and where undocumented people are " destroying neighborhoods' and destroying the job market" We lost DC because there are just too many stupid people like you that bought into his racist and bigoted bullshit, but that is going to come back to bite you. Promise !! Interesting how you never were able to respond to my point by point rebuttal of your moronic OP

 

[Dragonlady]

Abortion
Criminals
illegals
Trannys
Gays and Lesbians
Welfare dependents
Big government
Legalization of drugs
Pay attention and you will hear and see Liberals debate and fight for the aforementioned with passion and conviction. Ask yourself if you've ever heard or seen a Liberal champion for anything normal and or positive. I'll never understand how anyone with a 3rd grade education can't see things fundamentally wrong with the twisted ideologies from the Left.
We raise our children on advice such as; "hang with dogs, you'll get fleas", "choose your friends wisely", "winners hang with winners"....blah, blah, blah
We say these things to encourage our children to surround themselves with good influence...it's kind of a fundamental thing that good parenting includes.
Do Liberals tell their children; " Now Johnny, you go seek the weirdest, least productive, drug using illegal criminals and make them your best friends?"
Is this just part of the twisted ideologies that have caused mass decay at the core of the Democratic Party?

Another stupid thread by a broken looser. You are the one who needs to pay arrtention because you have no clue as to ehat liberals think, believe or want for the country and the reasoning behind it.

Abortion ??


Liberals do not fight for abortion. We do not think that abortion is a good or pleasant thing. We fight for a woman right to have domain over their own bodies. I'll tell you what we also fight for. We fight for programs that will minimize unwanted pregnancies.

We fight for access to birth control. We also fight for programs and policies that will provide supports and assistance to women and families so that they are more likely to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term instead of aborting it.
You can outlaw legal abortion but you can't stop women from having abortions and those abortions will be unsafe. We want to minimize the need for abortions, you want to criminalize it and create pain and suffering.
Criminals ??

What about criminals? We support a fair and rational system of law enforcement and criminal justice. We support the police while recognizing the fact that some cops use excessive for and that more controls are needed to reign in some departments. We do not support mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses which clog our jails at taxpayers expense, and ruin lives.
illegals

We should and in fact have secured our boarders using practical, common sense means. Many undocumented people have been here many years and have built a life here. Their children know only this country. The work, put money back into the economy, and pay taxes. At the same time, they often must forgo government services and are unable to collect tax refunds. They should have a path to citizenship.

Trannys, Gays and Lesbians

Transsexuals, Gays and Lesbians are human beings and live among us. They have families and children. They hold jobs and pay taxes. They are not bothering you so get over it. Many conservatives also support LGBT rights as do various religious denominations. It is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is those who believe in equality and value diversity vs. the bigots who are still living in the last century and wish to once again create a shadow society and all of the social ills that would breed.

Welfare dependents. ??

Yes we have people who are welfare. Public assistance is a by product of capitalism . As the free market economy that conservative love so much expands or contracts due to market forces and world events, so does the need for labor. Public assistance keeps many of those people afloat so that when they are need in the workforce that are healthy and ready to work again. Conservatives rail against socialism but don't understand that it is welfare to supports capitalism. You can't have it both ways

Big government. ??

No, we don't believe in big government for the sake of big government. We believe in a smart and efficient government that is focused to the security of the US, the general welfare of the people, and the promotion of economic opportunity, and reversing income and wealth disparity. We believe in a government that does not shirk it's responsibility for protecting the environment, and protecting consumers from predatory corporations.

Legalization of drugs ??
Wrong again. We are for the legalization and taxation of marijuana only. Other drugs should be decriminalized and their abuse should be treated as a public health issue.

Most conservative positions are stupid, short sighted cruel, and result in and increased social and fiscal cost to society. So stuff it.

This post is the BEST statement of liberal policy positions I've read on this board.

Bravo!

 

[Pogo]

Those are the same people who continue to push false accusations while having zero evidence.

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

A shitload of words to make zero point.

You STILL have no evidence. Period.
And "no evidence" refers to the number as well as the subject. The simple fact is, the entire idea of "three million illegals voted" comes, WITH its number, not from reports, not from any evidence, not from counting of any disallowed votes, but simply from some hack tweeter who pulled the idea out of his own ass, specifying "three million" specifically when it became clear that that would be the number necessary to pretend Hillary Clinton's PV plurality did not exist, because that was the upper range of the difference.

In other words it was Denialist Prep, and that's all it ever was. A fabricated excuse for those who don't have anywhere near the cojones to face reality. Which is why Donald Rump jumped on it as if it were factual.

It ain't.

Sorry but on our planet you don't get to just go "here's what I wish would have happened, therefore it happened" --- which is your entire argument.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

Do you really mean;
"lets pretend we don't have laws so long as we have a "large economy"?
20 trillion in debt and shameless, classless humans ruining job markets and destroying one neighborhood at a time all around us and we should pretend it's okay because we have a "large economy"?
And you Libtards wonder how you lost all of D.C. and have zero credibility among intelligent, REAL American's....haha
Keep up the good work!

What the hell are you jabbering about. Who said anything about ignoring the laws. The point is to enforce then humanly and rationally, and not like jack booted thugs ala Trump. Care to provide some documentation on how and where undocumented people are " destroying neighborhoods' and destroying the job market" We lost DC because there are just too many stupid people like you that bought into his racist and bigoted bullshit, but that is going to come back to bite you. Promise !! Interesting how you never were able to respond to my point by point rebuttal of your moronic OP

Hey bud...I don't have the time or energy to respond to nonsense. You throw your bleeding heart bullshit spin over the top of everything...it's what you and all your Loony friends do. You enable and often times glamorize our lowest grade and you perpetuate more of the same with your excuse providing bullshit. AND...frankly, I have a real hard time taking anyone in a do-rag and a mullet serious at all.

Like the Clintoon murders..

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

A shitload of words to make zero point.

You STILL have no evidence. Period.
And "no evidence" refers to the number as well as the subject. The simple fact is, the entire idea of "three million illegals voted" comes, WITH its number, not from reports, not from any evidence, not from counting of any disallowed votes, but simply from some hack tweeter who pulled the idea out of his own ass, specifying "three million" specifically when it became clear that that would be the number necessary to pretend Hillary Clinton's PV plurality did not exist, because that was the upper range of the difference.

In other words it was Denialist Prep, and that's all it ever was. A fabricated excuse for those who don't have anywhere near the cojones to face reality. Which is why Donald Rump jumped on it as if it were factual.

It ain't.

Sorry but on our planet you don't get to just go "here's what I wish would have happened, therefore it happened" --- which is your entire argument.

People are convicted of murder in this country everyday on circumstantial evidence alone...Only a Loony would suggest that it's not plausible to think that illegals voted in this election in masses.
As you know...WE GOT OUR GUY so It really doesn't matter how many illegals voted...haha
Again, THANK GOD the low-life's, weirdos and un-American fuck-ups in CA and NY can't determine our POTUS.

 

[whitehall]

You have to scratch your head when the democrat party manages to coerce the NBA into threatening sanctions against North Carolina because the state refused to allow confused men to powder their noses in the ladies room. I can't imagine macho guys in the NBA being so concerned about letting a confused boy into the girls shower room that they would disrupt their entire schedule to blackmail a state. The dirty little secret is that the hypocrite politicians and the basketball players wouldn't subject their own wives and daughters to embarrassment and possible injury at the hands of perverts. They are making a statement to appease the dwindling democrat base and they don't even realize that they lost almost every election since Obama was inaugurated.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

Do you really mean;
"lets pretend we don't have laws so long as we have a "large economy"?
20 trillion in debt and shameless, classless humans ruining job markets and destroying one neighborhood at a time all around us and we should pretend it's okay because we have a "large economy"?
And you Libtards wonder how you lost all of D.C. and have zero credibility among intelligent, REAL American's....haha
Keep up the good work!

What the hell are you jabbering about. Who said anything about ignoring the laws. The point is to enforce then humanly and rationally, and not like jack booted thugs ala Trump. Care to provide some documentation on how and where undocumented people are " destroying neighborhoods' and destroying the job market" We lost DC because there are just too many stupid people like you that bought into his racist and bigoted bullshit, but that is going to come back to bite you. Promise !! Interesting how you never were able to respond to my point by point rebuttal of your moronic OP

Hey bud...I don't have the time or energy to respond to nonsense. You throw your bleeding heart bullshit spin over the top of everything...it's what you and all your Loony friends do. You enable and often times glamorize our lowest grade and you perpetuate more of the same with your excuse providing bullshit. AND...frankly, I have a real hard time taking anyone in a do-rag and a mullet serious at all.

Like "three million illegals voted".

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

A shitload of words to make zero point.

You STILL have no evidence. Period.
And "no evidence" refers to the number as well as the subject. The simple fact is, the entire idea of "three million illegals voted" comes, WITH its number, not from reports, not from any evidence, not from counting of any disallowed votes, but simply from some hack tweeter who pulled the idea out of his own ass, specifying "three million" specifically when it became clear that that would be the number necessary to pretend Hillary Clinton's PV plurality did not exist, because that was the upper range of the difference.

In other words it was Denialist Prep, and that's all it ever was. A fabricated excuse for those who don't have anywhere near the cojones to face reality. Which is why Donald Rump jumped on it as if it were factual.

It ain't.

Sorry but on our planet you don't get to just go "here's what I wish would have happened, therefore it happened" --- which is your entire argument.

People are convicted of murder in this country everyday on circumstantial evidence alone...Only a Loony would suggest that it's not plausible to think that illegals voted in this election in masses.
As you know...WE GOT OUR GUY so It really doesn't matter how many illegals voted...haha
Again, THANK GOD the low-life's, weirdos and un-American fuck-ups in CA and NY can't determine our POTUS.

Just a pathetic attempt to dodge the questions that I posed to you above. You obviously have no real grasp of the issues or the humanitarian aspects of things like immigration. Rather you are so invested in your narrow minded, bigoted and cruel rhetoric that you cant see beyond the end of your own nose.

 

[danielpalos]

OT I know.....You seem pretty sure of yourself...so, what's the "real" number?
I'm guessing zero...right?

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

Do you really mean;
"lets pretend we don't have laws so long as we have a "large economy"?
20 trillion in debt and shameless, classless humans ruining job markets and destroying one neighborhood at a time all around us and we should pretend it's okay because we have a "large economy"?
And you Libtards wonder how you lost all of D.C. and have zero credibility among intelligent, REAL American's....haha
Keep up the good work!

Care to try to stay focused. Illegals are not causing all of those problems. I would agree with you, if we were in the bottom one hundred.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Bravo Madge. "Zero" is exactly the amount of evidence there is. Pass it on.

A free lesson for you...you're welcome for the enlightenment in advance.
FACT- the U.S. harbors 12-20 million illegals
FACT- millions of illegals had the ability and opportunity to vote
FACT- illegals have never been more encouraged or motivated to vote

Most Liberals can't pull their head from their ass and their lips from the wetback penis long enough to seek the truth and connect the dots. The question isn't IF illegals voted the question is how many voted...and let's be honest, the desperate dumbasses threw logic and reason out a long time ago. Libs especially want to play dumb to this issue...so unless someone presents them with video footage of X number of human cockroaches voting they won't believe any figure.
Circumstantial evidence
For other uses, see Circumstantial Evidence (disambiguation).
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidencesupports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inferenceover another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility

Just one thing......the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is closer to 50 million.

Why do we have the largest economy in the world, if illegal immigration is a problem?

Do you really mean;
"lets pretend we don't have laws so long as we have a "large economy"?
20 trillion in debt and shameless, classless humans ruining job markets and destroying one neighborhood at a time all around us and we should pretend it's okay because we have a "large economy"?
And you Libtards wonder how you lost all of D.C. and have zero credibility among intelligent, REAL American's....haha
Keep up the good work!

Care to try to stay focused. Illegals are not causing all of those problems. I would agree with you, if we were in the bottom one hundred.

Saw another thread that made me think of this one.
Yo Danny from the FAR south....tell me, what problems do illegals "cause"?
(PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A TEST)