Posts made by remydrh

@Frederick:

Trump has not taken credit for it.

I don't know what rock you live under, but Trump has been working night and day, 7 days a week on the economy and healthcare.  People with memories will know that immediately after Trump was elected, the economy rebounded.   Companies started returning and investing in the USA before he was even inaugurated.  Trump has already got a replacement for Obamacare past the House and is now in the Senate.  Trump has his budget already submitted.  That is stimulating the economy.

I didn't say he had, I said he will.

And curious how many of these 24/7 hours of working include golfing at Mar-a-Lago? Or traveling to have campaign rallies?

Not that I'm surprised, Trump voters voted for him because they didn't understand how the economy works. Remember when Trump said the dollar was too strong? It weakened…for about 48 hours.

So explain to me how vaporlegislation has impacted the economy? The bottom line is the bottom line, companies will continue to operate in their best interest until regulations change. It's incredibly hard to explain to your investors that you made a decision based on something you think will happen considering the administration wasted its first 100 days.

The healthcare bill, despite passing the house, will be a disaster for the 14 million jobs created under the ACA. It effectively outprices consumers meaning less demand (not more) for healthcare. This will quickly liquidate many of those 14 million jobs when 20 million+ lose health insurance over the next 10 years plus.

The approved budget doesn't even go to the end of this year.

For extra reading materials:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-presidents-economic-decisions-matter-eventually/

It takes time for reforms and changes to take effect on the economy unless there's a major war somewhere. Most Presidents have to deal with the previous administration's economic policy decisions for most of their first term if not all of it assuming they make no changes to the laws and regulations. The old rule of thumb in economics class was, "The current President gets the economic results of the last President (assuming just 4 years)"

If Trump is still in office for a second term, you will begin to see what his policies have done to the economy at the end of his first term.

Trump can't take responsibility for this (even though he will).

He has enacted no legislation or otherwise to improve the economy. No tax reforms. No new healthcare changes (affects 14 million jobs) etc. The momentum for improved employment has been in place for years before his inauguration. We've yet to see his plans for the economy.

Out of curiosity, what exactly has Trump done that would lead anyone to believe he's responsible for that since he's been in office 5 months with nothing to show for it save Gorsuch?

I believe the graph below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics makes the trend, and its origination, quite clear.

The question of true conservatism versus what has been hijacked by fringe elements like white nationalists, neo-nazis, and the alt-right is important. And trust me, the hijacking of American conservatism was swift and met with the most tepid useless resistance I can find in recent memory. This further serves to muddy the waters of what conservatism is. Has Paul Ryan outright rejected this movement in word and deed? Not really. He'll release a statement now and again when the pressure is high enough to talk about his opinion. Sarah Palin? Hell no, she practically blasted the doors open herself. McCain? Nah, hates Trump but delighted to get a Supreme Court Justice in there. I mean, win 1, lose 47, that evens out, right? Ivanka? Not hardly, cash is cash.

Most of the Republicans are delighted they are in control of all three branches of government in the US at nearly any cost. Many worked in concert after Trump's nomination to get him elected so they could clear the path for their own agenda. History isn't going to look kindly on this. And for those that have fought against the new rise of fascism (looking right at Ana Navarro) most of the others have just…looked the other way.

This complicit nature makes you feel (correctly or not) that the whole of conservatism is on board, even if behind closed doors they wring their hands in terror. Does this literally increase their numbers? Well, depends on how you view the complicit nature. If I disagree with you but I let you have your way, I can still say my ideals and nature are counter to yours but does it matter anymore?

It's a political tool to use fringe elements to your advantage. Conservatives have been faced with a progressive agenda for a long time and by embracing, or at least not rejecting, the fringe elements, they consolidate power and increase the likelihood they will get the votes they need. As it was mentioned here, ultimately more people in the US vote progressive than conservative. Even if you look at popular votes for the years of congressional voting, more people vote democrat at a national level. And that's largely because population centers tend to vote liberal, like NYC and California in recent elections. Smaller population areas in the middle tend to vote conservative. California beats the next largest, Texas, by 12 million people. Conservatives need these fringe elements and the power to draw districts to guarantee their place in government as the demographics shift (the comment about millennials is correct, although it may not mean much, as people age they tend to become less liberal and what may be today's liberal could be considered tomorrows ultra conservative. It's a moving target just like politcal party platforms).

*Coincidentally the left has a fringe element in the US cultivated by Bernie Sanders and it was not effectively harnessed for votes as the Republicans did their fringe. I personally view them as the other side of the extremist coin. Equally unrealistic and driven by emotion rather than facts, I'm hopeful the larger middle majority stays intact.

I don't think looking at the people of this forum is a large enough sample, it's certainly a narrow demographic.

And I'm not convinced everyone here is really giving their opinion or just trolling. Although some of the trolls have a load of internalized self-hate it feels like some days. Happily furthering the agenda of people that would love to see you dead/imprisoned/silenced/etc. speaks to a deeper problem…but I digress.

I'm also not sure it's real conservatism or fascism/reactionary politics. When things go poorly for someone, or at least they feel like it's going poorly, they seek reasons for it. And they don't often blame their self. Since the dawn of time people have relied on placing the blame with a less popular group or at least a more comfortable target. The current remaking of racists and bigots to something more palatable called the "alt-right" is less about conservatism and more about muddying the waters of hate groups so they can more easily blend in with classic conservatism I think.

Recent events, at least in the US, has taken a group that has always been around and energized them, given them a voice and shoved them into the limelight. And since the internet has no gatekeeper, they can bang around as much as they like to make it sound like 400 when there's really 40.

The problem is it really only takes one to make things miserable for others if they're given enough power.

@raphjd:

@remydrh:

No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.

Sorry, but being gay is nothing more than same sex attraction.

sigh Sorry about what? They're describing the current condition, not that either they or you agree with it. In fact, you make the same point, that gay means same-sex attraction. But that Thiel's detractors conflate gay with behavior and that's not historically true.

You're agreeing with the article on The Advocate without realizing it.

The article explains that the demarcation between being "gay" and having same-sex desire is a societal claim. So people claiming "gay" requires Thiel be on board with all the political leanings of gays buy into the recent societal prescription. But that this label in itself is meaningless to the origins of the term and only recently used as a definition that includes behavior outside of same-sex attraction.

But to many people, if you don't wear "assless chaps and dance" you don't meet the new definition of gay. Or least not gay "enough". The article makes it clear that's just a new definition people have made up. So the Advocate is actually describing the "why" of Thiel's detractors, they make no claim to define who is and isn't really gay.

@raphjd:

Obama-care is anti-male sexist.

Unlike every other form of insurance, Obama-care charges everyone the same amount regardless of need or want.    Women use a lot more health care than men do, yet both are charged the same amount.

Until all insurance goes gender blind, then this is discriminatory.

The EU went gender blind because women got butt hurt about having to pay more on certain types of insurance, but then had a hissy fit because other types of insurance went up to match male insurance costs.

Um, isn't charging the same amount regardless of gender part of being gender blind? Or is this sarcasm?

If all the sexes are equal, then equal cost makes it gender-blind. You end up paying part of the costs you need instead of an up-front increase based on having a vagina.

For example, Your doctor visits all cost the same. Your premiums cost the same. Your deductible is the same, etc. And when it comes time to deliver a baby, those associated costs (deducible, etc) are also paid, so in that way, as a woman with extra medical needs, you're covering your part without paying more for everything. Just the parts that are specific.

@aadam101:

The whole argument over capping medical malpractice lawsuits is bogus.  Texas capped their lawsuits and it had no impact on the cost of healthcare.  When poor people sue for malpractice the lawyers often take it on a contingency.  If the lawsuit is capped lawyers aren't going to be as willing to take these cases and poor people won't have the resources to sue.

Capping these lawsuits is just a way to protect the 1% so I'm sure it will be at the top of the Republicans agenda.  To hell with everybody else…..

This is typically referred to as tort reform.

I have a conflict here. For one, yes, Americans like to sue all the time, anytime, and often for way more than they deserve.

However, without the ability to hold people accountable and in significant ways, there's no way to reduce the recurrence. If I can take you for $1000 and get a slap on the wrist, I'll probably do it again.

As for the ACA, everyone will, at some point, need to use healthcare. So it makes sense to pay into the system as a requirement. On top of this, you benefit in a few significant ways:

1. Just like buying in bulk, the more people paying into an insurance the pool, the cheaper it gets.
2. The cost of stage 1 cancer is less burden on the paying public than stage 5 with no insurance. The incentive to go to the doctor is higher sooner when you're feeling ill.
3. Having a healthy population means less disease being spread (cost), more people in the workforce (output), people working longer (in a lifetime, increasing available experience), and improved economic output overall.
4. You were already paying for the uninsured in increased costs. This is the part that galls me the most. When you go to the ER without insurance, SOMEONE pays for it. So effectively everyone was paying for this in some form anyway. So paying the up-front costs of having insurance was probably a huge bargain.
5. The "Death Panel" conversation was the opposite of reality. Previously you had a lifetime benefits cap. With the ACA there is no lifetime cap. If you have a terminal disease and live longer than expected, your healthcare cannot be cut off. You can continue to receive care as long as you live. I was so pissed at this "Death Panel" shit circulating. Without the law you…will...die...from a terminal disease when your limit is up (unless you're filthy rich).

Repealing this law will cost lives, without any question people will die without timely care, affordable care, or preventative medicine. The message from Republicans is clear: "Once you're out of the womb, good fucking luck."

@raphjd:

Sooooooooo, the Advocate is advocating what I have been saying for ages.   Being "gay" is a hive mind thing.   I guess I have to turn in my "gay" membership card then.

We fought for the right to be different, but Generation Special Snowflake has decided that "different" is evil when it comes to the hive mind.

No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.

So they aren't making a judgment call. They're just saying you can be whatever you want without fitting into the gay "mold" or the hive mind as you put it. Because "gay" is a label, not a real thing. Rather than attack Thiel's position, they're explaining his mindset: I can love men without being "gay" and this is why he also rejects the usual political activism. They're doing the opposite of what Breitbart claims, they're attempting to explain why Thiel can be so contrary to what people would expect from a "gay".

Is he "gay" by the usual definition? No.
Is the gay definition meaningful? Only as a societal construct to lump people together. It's a term used for this that's probably less than 100 years old. (Anyone else remember the Flintstones having a gay ole time?)
Are there people outside that construct that reject it? Well obviously.
So why is Thiel so hostile to gay political goals? Because he doesn't identify as "gay" in the accepted definition.

@raphjd

Your better chance, if either you or your husband's industries are on the needed skills list, or you're management, is to find a UK company with US offices. There is an inter-office visa that allows the company to transfer you to the US without running a lottery.

This is the L1 visa for the employee and the L2 for the spouse. You cannot do this for the express purpose of becoming a citizen or permanent immigration (meaning you can't make that statement of fact, it's just for the job man!)

Caveat: You do not build time for citizenship. You can apply for a green card eventually.

I got super long winded again.

TL;DR

The Advocate says this:

Peter Thiel is not "gay" in the sense that the term is loaded to mean a single homogenous community that must be a certain way, act a certain way, dress a certain way, vote a certain way. Thiel rejects this definition of gay. The definition of "gay" as understood today is a social construct and not real or even long-lived historically.

Is Thiel a homosexual? Yes. He likes dick.

I do not think Thiel would disagree.

@viscous:

This headline from the above-referenced Breitbart article is what's truly stupid: "The Advocate: Peter Thiel Can’t Be Gay Because He’s a Conservative."

Ummm, that's not "The Advocate" saying that. It's an op-ed, or opinion piece, and is clearly labeled "commentary," by someone who appears to have written all of three commentaries for that magazine. I know the half-wits at Breitbart don't make such brainy, vaguely sissified distinctions, but please learn the difference between news and opinion before tilting at the windmill of theSJWsofthegaycommunity…

I'm glad you read the piece they cite. Their interpretation intentionally misconstrues the thrust of the argument in an attempt to create a wedge (seems successful in here anyway). The opinion piece they reference talks at length that the actual definition of homosexuality and its subsets known as "LGBTQ" are a modern construct.

In the United States and many parts of Europe, the development of these categories led to the broader cultural understanding that these sexual acts created identities.

The understanding that sex had the power to define identity led to the demarcation of homosexual and heterosexual people — as well as the subsequent stigma that those who were marked as homosexual were aberrant, criminally deviant, and socially unacceptable.

The article then goes on to say this:

The gay liberation movement has left us a powerful legacy, and protecting that legacy requires understanding the meaning of the term "gay" and not using it simply as a synonym for same-sex desire and intimacy.

So my question becomes: Did Breitbart read the same article I read? The piece on the Advocate not only explains the evolution of the term "gay" but that, in the end, being "gay" is not a single subset that's possible to define solely as sexual intercourse. As a social construct people expect "gay" to mean many things by default. It's a loaded term meaning to be "gay" is to be a certain way, act a certain way, believe certain things…etc. The quote above illustrates this.

The article itself expands the definition of being gay beyond sexual desire as a cultural shift (see the above quote where it mentions historical context.) This is the opposite of what Breitbart claims it does. They never claim Thiel isn't gay. In fact, they reaffirm that, despite Thiel distancing himself of the typical definition of the LGBT identity, the identity itself isn't traditionally narrow and he desn't follow the modern identity of "gay".

Bretibart takes this part out of context

By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.

The beginning of this quote is, "By the logic of gay liberation…" but they purposefully leave out the explanation in the rest of the article. Thiel is not "gay" in the sense that we expect everyone to follow the same definition. Personally, I don't live in the gayborhood. I hate going to beaches shirtless with 100s of other men, I'm okay with balding, and I don't shave or wax. I'm definitely homosexual, but I don't identify with what people may construe as being "gay". I was once told, "But you don't dress gay." Whatever the fuck that means. The article is explaining you can be gay (sexually) without following the "logic of gay liberation" that being gay means you have to believe or act a certain way.

In this way, Thiel reaffirmed his own sexual choices — while separating himself from gay identity. His notion that transgender people’s predicament is somehow a distraction effectively rejects the conception of LGBT as a cultural identity that requires political struggle to defend.

Translation: Thiel is a homosexual, but Thiel doesn't subscribe to the culture people have expected or defined as "gay". In fact, he rejects it hardcore.

Somehow I don't think Thiel can disagree with that statement. In fact, I think he would say it's accurate, 100%

Bretibart distils "gay" and inserts it as a wedge between people that subscribe to the scene and people that don't. Sadly, we don't need Breitbart's help in saying some people are too gay or "into the scene" etc. and making judgment calls on who is and isn't gay "enough". And in the end they got what they wanted and what Thiel likes to create: a demarcation between being a human with feelings and desires and being something some has labeled as a certain way and generally beneath contempt.

Bravo Breitbart and Peter Thiel, you've managed to take your own contempt for "icky gay things" and spread it to actual homosexuals and self-loathing gays.

@Eridanos:

Thanks for the thoroughly explanation! :3

Well, it sure looks like a big hassle, but is worth it in my opinion.  In USA you can do more with 10 dollars than here with 10 pesos, healthcare is relatively better…  And yes, there are people willing to take the risk and walk that hazardous path.

Giving sanctuary to illegals is like a slap in the face to those who make the effort to migrate legally.

I can agree that amnesty without reform is pretty shit. I have many friends here legally who are now afraid of their visas not being renewed under the new administration. If Trump pulls out of the NAFTA Treaty then that's very much what might happen. So the ones that are punished are the ones that are here legally.

@raphjd:

I live in the UK because GWB gave amnesty and priority to illegals in the green card queue.   My (now) husband's green card application was pushed back and wouldn't be finished before his work visa expired, so he had to leave.

Prime example.

I can understand wanting to help people that cannot afford it or necessarily qualify (chances are if you want a better life, you're not already  an in-demand brain surgeon, so what do you do? You sneak across the border.) But failing to reform the immigration system, screwing pretty much everyone legal and not is beyond the pale. And without reform, you basically encourage people to hide.

People coming in the front gate might get turned away just as your husband was.

People sneaking in the back might actually make it, at least for awhile.

Seems…stupid, no? But it helps explain the "why" of illegal immigration. This is one of those complicated black holes most people don't understand but have strong opinions about anyway. The beginning of my knowledge began when I asked a friend that's here legally, "Why do people sneak across the border?" And then my own experience on what it would take to immigrate to the UK, and well, I get it. It's a shit system where no one really wins.

@raphjd:

You need to go back to that PDF, specifically page 5.

You are right that on 7 Jan 2009,  GWB did a civil filing.

HOWEVER, in the paragraph before that,  it says that in July 2009 the AAG declined to file criminal charges.

But curiously you weren't upset that the GWB administration and local officials also declined to file criminal charges. So technically everyone failed to seek criminal charges but only one participant gets the blame. Even now, it's sort of an "ah-ha!" moment that the Obama Administration also declined criminal charges. Where's the "ah-ha" about the GWB administration?

I feel like thorough and equitable analysis isn't at the forefront of your consideration.

In any event, it's a pretty poor pattern for politics overall. Everyone makes outlandish promises they can't hope to actually succeed. From Sander's Universal Healthcare (which might succeed…in 2104) to Trump's border wall paid for by the Mexican Government, everyone wants whatever the demagogue is peddling.

Then they fail to deliver the impossible. Confidence in the government continues to erode.

Rinse and repeat. Except each time there's a repeat the rhetoric amplifies. Eventually, there's a breaking point where words aren't quite good enough and I think we're getting closer to that more quickly than many expected.

As the above example probably illustrates, people don't tend to spend time looking for facts, understanding economics/science/law/history, or contemplating consequences beyond the end of their own nose. They operate on knee-jerk reactions, snap judgment, and emotional appeals. Poor education, laziness, and general disaffection aren't really the politician's fault. If the public chose more intelligently when it came time to vet a candidate the field would look completely different than the choices we had.

As the celebration of ignorance continues I'm reminded of a quote by the vacuous Food Babe, "these issues are too important to leave up to the experts."

Pray tell, if not the experts, then who the fuck should we ask?

The only problem with impeachment is that Pence is next. And after Pence, Ryan.

It's a long ways to go before you actually remove the bigots. It would be great to get a Republican that can say "gay" in a positive or at least neutral way without their face contorting like they swallowed a fly.

@Eridanos:

As a MEXICAN who lives in MEXICO I must say…

This is revolting.

And I'm talking about the students.

Honestly, if some had been brought to USA as children, by now they should be able to become legal citizens.  Why them or their parents never bothered to legalize their status is beyond me. Can someone actually explain how legalization status works?

Here in Mexico we are having a backlash against Trump in the media, newspapers publishing stories of immigrants whose 'American Dreams' were shattered. I only see sloth and self-entitlement.

Also, most of USA seemed to have voted for Trump so they are right to backlash against the students' behavior, after all, the funding comes from taxpayers.

Students need to realize that having access to higher education doesn't make them special, but makes them more indebted to their country and society. Instead of protesting they should be thinking in solutions agreeable to both ends.

Firstly, most people did not vote for Trump, he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

Secondly, I suppose you could look at what it takes to become a citizen and compare that to the typical economic status of a Mexican.

Applications take money and risk. If you're denied, you lose the money and you're deported if you're in the country. You don't get a refund.

For example, under NAFTA you can apply for a work visa that allows you to work for a specific company (sponsor) for about $420 plus attorney fees. This is the TN Visa. This lasts 3 years. You must reapply every 3 years and pay the new fee. You must also be in an industry or field that needs workers each time. You don't get in because you can afford it, you get in by meeting multiple criteria. This takes 2-3 months. Expedited processing (if you're in danger of being deported) adds about $1000. Your sponsor/employer must also re-up the agreement. If you lose the job for any reason and cannot find a new sponsor (I think the window is a few days at most) you must leave the US. You do not build time towards citizenship. So you could, in theory, do this every 3 years until Armageddon.

However, you're never a citizen and cannot apply for it since this visa doesn't count for time. This means you will pay taxes to the US Government but you cannot:

• Get Medicare
• Social Security benefits
• Unemployment benefits

So despite what you may have heard, these programs like healthcare are not available to all legal immigrants but you do pay into these accounts as if you were a citizen. Illegal immigrants, of course, don't have access to these either but they avoid the tax penalty.

What about being a citizen? Well, more complicated, especially if you have no family or spousal reason to immigrate.

This becomes an H1B visa. This visa has several significant hurdles.

• It requires corporate sponsorship. You cannot pay this yourself, it must be paid by the employer, it's about $8,000 to 10,000 for a company that employs more than 50 people, the cost doubled during Obama's tenure as President.
• You must be a skilled worker that cannot be found in the US and employed
• The employer must file a petition for your entrance and prove you're unique.
• There are limited numbers each year of these available.
• It can later be revoked. You have a few days to leave the country.
• You lose your job for any reason, you're also out.

I'm thinking (may have changed) you have to have 3 years for attaining residency and 5 to apply for citizenship. You have restrictions on travel and more. If you apply to a U.S. consulate for a new entry visa stamp, you run the risk that your application will be denied. If you're here on a TN visa and return to your home country to visit, you must reapply to enter and can be denied.

So, it's complicated.

Imagine being here legally and needing to go home to see your dying mother, well good luck. You may be denied re-entry even after going through the process again.

If you have a citizen relative, they can apply for your admission, but this can take, more or less, a decade.

If you're here on a student visa, you're not allowed to work.

So yeah, if you want to be a citizen legally, the burdens are significant based on limits, need, and cost. Curiously, as an American with immigrant friends, I thought this was a US thing. But I did look at moving to the UK for a job and it's the same thing. The rules are very similar. In the end, after the cost of moving myself to the UK and the hurdles involved, it was not worth it.

I thought it was so ironic when I told American friends and family the hoops I had to jump through to get into the UK, they were appalled! Why is it so hard?! (See also: Brexit) It was stupid, I had a job offer! But meanwhile in the US, with similar rules it's apparently not hard enough. So perspective matters….

@raphjd:

Maybe you should go back and check that PDF again.     Look at the name of the author and do a bit of research.     Thomas E Perez

He was one of Obama's boys, not GWB's.

He chose to only do a civil enforcement, not a criminal prosecution.   He made a career out of defending people like the ones he's supposed to prosecute as AAG in this case.

You keep stating that but it's not true.

The civil charges were brought on January 9th under the GWB administration and he was found guilty of those civil charges under the Obama administration, making both of your points false.

1. Civil Charges brought on January 9th, this is 11 days before the Obama Administration.
2. He was found guilty:

Given the facts presented, the injunction sought by the Department prohibited Minister
King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on
any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b), (see
Order of May 18, 2009, at 4). The Department considers this injunction tailored appropriately to
the scope of the violation and the requirements of the First Amendment, and will fully enforce
the injunction’s terms.

3. Thomas E Perez was the one to write the summary because by the time the case was complete it was under the Obama Administration.

So to sum it up, no, the charges were not dropped, he was found guilty of the civil charges, and the lack of criminal charges were because the GWB administration didn't charge him criminally. It's that simple.

@Eridanos:

Remember Trump is pure bravado, he might make incendiary comments concerning LGBT people to stay in the limelight or keep the Christian-Religious members of the Conservative party and their supporters happy.  Thing is that you distinguish words from actions and don't lose your cool.

The problem isn't really Trump pe se, it's the fact he represents the pen to sign the laws of his party. A party that is now in control of all three branches of government.

And his party is hell bent on turning the clock back. If he was presented with a law, not unlike "Religious Freedom", do you think he would veto it? I find it unlikely he would refuse to sign it.

So, like people that like to complain that Obama didn't accomplish as much as he said he would: It's Congress that's the problem. The President doesn't make laws, he signs them, let's them lapse into law (10 days), or vetos it.

This is why the hullaballoo over Presidential Elections is misplaced. Congressional Elections are probably multiple times more important.

@raphjd:

No matter what, there will always be illegal ballots cast.   It's just something that happens.  Mentioning it doesn't mean he's saying he isn't actually President.

If the Dems stop pandering to the SJWs, then they have a good chance of winning the midterms and beating Trump in 4 years.   Identity politics drove a lot of traditional liberals away from the Democrats.

The problem is the repeated comments about illegal ballots isn't about their existence, it's about their supposed numbers.

Voter fraud is amazingly insignificant. It sits at about 0.000000002% of all votes (give or take the timeframe and government source of prosecutions). You can see the definition, methodology, and identification of voter fraud here: http://nullrefer.com/?https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/57.PDF

Between 2000 and 2010 there were 649 million votes cast in general elections and 13 cases of in-person voter impersonation convictions.

53 people die of bee stings each year.

Trump maintains the numbers are in the millions. His numbers fluctuate constantly but it's always high. I find it interesting that:
1. When he mentions it, it's dismissed by supporters as, "Well it DOES happen." So does death by lightning strike, but I don't know that the US is as terrified of lighting as they seem to be about voter fraud (death by a lightning strike is more likely when you compare actual deaths versus voter fraud convictions.)
2. He attempts to make the election (either for or against his position) seem illegitimate. So the argument others are trying to undermine him seems to overlook that he's doing a great job of that himself. Can he identify the illegal ballots? Better yet, can he say those votes were for his opponent? The typical result is people assume he means minorities and illegal immigrants voted against him. (He has said outright illegal immigrants at one point). But voter fraud is a two-way street. Even if there was fraud you can't assume (unless, well, you're racist) that it was all against him as he claims without any evidence.

@raphjd:

If you want to whine about the KKK intimidating black voters, do you also whine about the New Black Panthers intimidating white voters in Phili in 2008?   GWB arrested and charged them and Obama/Holder dropped all charges.    I'm betting race had a part in why the charges were dropped.

Also, NO ONE IS A SAINT, THAT'S BEYOND REPROACH.

The best part about this quote above? It's not true, the charges were civil charges under GWB appointees, January 9th, 2009.

This means those outside the Obama administration also declined to pursue charges including local law enforcement and the district. These are all public record and easily searched. Or if facts are super important, there's Lexus Nexus. http://nullrefer.com/?http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/Perez_05-14-2010.pdf

Section II will be your most interesting read.

Finally, the civil conviction happened, but there is no criminal punishment for the crime under the law (hence the civil charges). So saying, "He should be in jail" like many pundits do shows a complete ignorance of the statute and the charges. The pertinent part is here:

Given the facts presented, the injunction sought by the Department prohibited Minister
King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on
any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b), (see
Order of May 18, 2009, at 4). The Department considers this injunction tailored appropriately to
the scope of the violation and the requirements of the First Amendment, and will fully enforce
the injunction’s terms. Section 11(b) does not authorize other kinds of relief, such as criminal
penalties, monetary damages, or other civil penalties.

The Department concluded that the allegations in the complaint against Jerry Jackson, the
other defendant present at the Philadelphia polling place, did not have sufficient evidentiary
support. The Department’s determination was based on the totality of the evidence. In reaching
this conclusion, the Department placed significant weight on the response of the law enforcement
first responder to the Philadelphia polling place on Election Day. A report of the local police
officer who responded to the scene, which is included in the Department’s production to the
Commission, indicates that the officer interviewed Mr. Jackson, confirmed that he in fact was a
certified poll watcher, and concluded that his actions did not warrant his removal from the
premises.

Took 30 seconds on Lexis Nexis. Maybe 20 seconds on Google. For things like this, it's best to get the actual results, presented evidence, and the resulting legal opinion. This is in addition to when (GWB Administration Appointees) made civil charges and how. Most people's propensity to obtain their news from Facebook is more or less what led to the results of this last election.