5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: +
Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (view source)
Revision as of 17:22, November 7, 2008
, 17:22, November 7, 2008→OK People: but how do you know it's beyond a reasonable doubt? You don't have any evidence to back it up
:As I said before, there is a difference between fraudulant ''registrations'' and fraudulant ''votes''. You can't simply make up a name and go vote. When I went to vote, they took my state-issued ID and compared it against the name I used to register. If you are alleging that, without a doubt, ACORN supplied fake IDs to homeless people and then, again without a doubt, at least one of them voted for Obama, then you need a citation. But you can't say that for certain. It is your ''opinion'' that ACORN ''probably'' helped Obama win, based on the tenuous relationship between Obama and ACORN, but you can't actually say with certainty that that is what happened. If you want to change the statement to "Given ACORN's affinity for Obama, had any of the fraudulant registrations resulted in fraudulant votes, they likely helped Obama win." But I suspect you don't like that statement, since it lacks a certain polemical knack. Or maybe we should do as Ema suggests, and just state as fact that ACORN contributed to McCain's votes as well? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:As I said before, there is a difference between fraudulant ''registrations'' and fraudulant ''votes''. You can't simply make up a name and go vote. When I went to vote, they took my state-issued ID and compared it against the name I used to register. If you are alleging that, without a doubt, ACORN supplied fake IDs to homeless people and then, again without a doubt, at least one of them voted for Obama, then you need a citation. But you can't say that for certain. It is your ''opinion'' that ACORN ''probably'' helped Obama win, based on the tenuous relationship between Obama and ACORN, but you can't actually say with certainty that that is what happened. If you want to change the statement to "Given ACORN's affinity for Obama, had any of the fraudulant registrations resulted in fraudulant votes, they likely helped Obama win." But I suspect you don't like that statement, since it lacks a certain polemical knack. Or maybe we should do as Ema suggests, and just state as fact that ACORN contributed to McCain's votes as well? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::I cannot say with '''absolute''' certainty, but I can say with certainty '''beyond reasonable doubt''' that illegal voting would have taken place, and that the balance of votes, even if some had been for McCain, would have been in favour of Obama. Surely the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has some resonance? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::I cannot say with '''absolute''' certainty, but I can say with certainty '''beyond reasonable doubt''' that illegal voting would have taken place, and that the balance of votes, even if some had been for McCain, would have been in favour of Obama. Surely the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has some resonance? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:::But where is the evidence? You must have evidence that makes you ''believe'' that illegal voting happened. The only evidence we have is that agents of ACORN, in an effort to make more money, put down fake names on their registration forms. And they got caught. There is simply zero evidence that (a) any of these registrations were made with the intention to actually use the votes and (b) ACORN took any efforts to falisify government identification, a necessary requirement to cast a false ballot. You believe beyond a reasonable doubt, but where is the testimony and the evidence that led you to this verdict? I have yet to seen Exibit A, and your case is entirely circumstantial. Activist judges maybe? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:22, 7 November 2008 (EST)