Changes

Line 45: Line 45:  
Bugler: It may be completely, transparently obvious ''right now'' that ACORN's fraudulent votes would have counted for Obama, but what about the long-term viability of this project? People reading this page don't just include those who are currently paying attention to the American election. What about teenagers who are not yet politically aware? Or people five years from now who won't remember all the specifics? Assume for a moment that you're a new user reading about ACORN for the first time when you see this page. Does it tell you everything you need to know and not rely on unsourced common knowledge? --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)
 
Bugler: It may be completely, transparently obvious ''right now'' that ACORN's fraudulent votes would have counted for Obama, but what about the long-term viability of this project? People reading this page don't just include those who are currently paying attention to the American election. What about teenagers who are not yet politically aware? Or people five years from now who won't remember all the specifics? Assume for a moment that you're a new user reading about ACORN for the first time when you see this page. Does it tell you everything you need to know and not rely on unsourced common knowledge? --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:00, 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)
 
: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)
3,303

edits