Printable View
...considering the dems foreswear cheating.
At least they do until they are caught red-handed.
Imagine...a government-funded voter-registration organization, run exclusively by democrats, for democrats.
Since Obama and ACORN go way, way, back, I wonder how this fits into his "change and hope" spiel.
BTW-
This story only recounts events in Nevada; there are similar investigations taking place in (I think) twelve other "battleground" states.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...es_raided.html
Good.
I wonder if the Dems can illegally register voters faster than the Repubs can illegally disenfranchise em?
As noted in the report you linked to Acorn had been proactive in trying to prevent fraudulent registration. Obviously they needed to try harder and perhaps take potential employee vetting a little more seriously.
Quote:
For Immediate Release: October 7, 2008 ACORN Statement from Bertha Lewis, Interim Chief Organizer, on Incident in Las Vegas:
"Over the past year, ACORN has worked hard to help over 80,000 people in Clark County register to vote. As part of our nonpartisan voter registration program, we have review all the applications submitted by our canvassers. When we have identified suspicious applications, we have separated them out and flagged them for election officials. We have zero tolerance for fraudulent registrations. We immediately dismiss employees we suspect of submitting fraudulent registrations.
For the past 10 months, any time ACORN has identified a potentially fraudulent application, we turn that application into election officials separately and offer to provide election officials with the information they would need to pursue an investigation or prosecution of the individual.
Election officials routinely ignored this information and failed to act. In early July, ACORN asked to meet with election officials to express our concerns that they were not acting on information ACORN had presented to them. ACORN met with Clark County elections officials and a representative of the Secretary of State on July 17th. ACORN pleaded with them to take our concerns about fraudulent applications seriously. One week later, elections officials asked us to provide them with a second copy of what we had previously provided to them. ACORN responded by giving election officials copies of 46 "problem application packages," which involved 33 former canvassers.
On September 23, ACORN had received a subpoena dated September 19th requesting information on 15 employees, all of whom had been included in the packages we had previously submitted to election officials. ACORN provided our personnel records on these 15 employees on September 29.
Today's raid by the Secretary of State's Office is a stunt that serves no useful purpose other than discredit our work registering Nevadans and distracting us from the important work ahead of getting every eligible voter to the polls."
So, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Saying you are serious about fraudulent registration is sufficient to avoid blame, even while fraud is rampant.
Reminds me of our current situation with the banks, et al, and Wall Street.
Clocker-
Republican "efforts" to disenfranchise dem voters are, by and large, anecdotal liberal lore, nothing more.
Bush won Florida; even the dems who continued to count the votes after the court refused to sanction them admitted it about eight months later.
If disenfranchisement had been an issue of any substance whatsoever it is safe to assume the dems would have several republican scalps on permanent display.
Fact.
Why do you assume I'm referring to the 2000 election?
Nothing anecdotal about Repub efforts in Michigan- LAST MONTH!- to disqualify voters based on foreclosure lists.
Nothing anecdotal about Virginia Repubs sending flyers to Virginia Tech students telling them if they vote they may lose their scholarships, dependent status or insurance coverage.
Oh, that was last month also.
Nothing anecdotal or "lorish" about either example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
While disturbing hardly rampant. The Nevada office had something like 7-800 canvassers and reported 33 themselves. Of the 33 they reported information for only 15 was subpoenaed and if you dig into the story it seems the problem was employment fraud, along the lines of being paid to deliver leaflets and instead dumping them in a ditch, except these people were making up names and addresses which is a tad more serious.
Hopefully the investigation will be swift and any guilty people punished.
I know you want to make political mischief with this and suggest that ACORN officials were complicit in the fraudulent canvasser's actions and by default the democratic party because they do only register democrats after all:whistling, but much like Palin's troopergate investigation, the pointing finger doesn't equal guilt.
Had they not reported the issues to the relevant authority and fired the offenders then perhaps your case would be stronger. If however the investigation uncovers wrongdoing on their part then screw them.
I've already laid blame with their applicant processing. Other than that they appear to be at the same mercy from the behavior of employees as any other employer.
That's rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
While disturbing hardly rampant. The Nevada office had something like 7-800 canvassers and reported 33 themselves. Of the 33 they reported information for only 15 was subpoenaed and if you dig into the story it seems the problem was employment fraud, along the lines of being paid to deliver leaflets and instead dumping them in a ditch, except these people were making up names and addresses which is a tad more serious.
Hopefully the investigation will be swift and any guilty people punished.
I know you want to make political mischief with this and suggest that ACORN officials were complicit in the fraudulent canvasser's actions and by default the democratic party because they do only register democrats after all:whistling, but much like Palin's troopergate investigation, the pointing finger doesn't equal guilt.
Had they not reported the issues to the relevant authority and fired the offenders then perhaps your case would be stronger. If however the investigation uncovers wrongdoing on their part then screw them.
I've already laid blame with their applicant processing. Other than that they appear to be at the same mercy from the behavior of employees as any other employer.
I take note of political mischief, and you accuse me of political mischief for doing so.
An old and revered liberal tactic.
Links, please. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
http://michiganmessenger.com/4076/lo...lose-your-vote
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/09...s-from-voting/
(Sorry, not on my PC ATM and this one is acting wonky re:links).
I submit for evidence your original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/p-this-surprising-story-post2995750/postcount1
I'm more worried about this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us...hp&oref=slogin
I absolutely oppose anyone not entitled to vote from casting a vote. But removing even one eligible vote is unacceptable.
I'll be back for more, later, but in response to your Michigan Messenger link, how about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2008/09/...l-blog-re.html
And this?
http://www.outsidelansing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=283
There's much, much more...
Probably better to post a link from a non partisan source
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...g_to_keep.html
Would it be partisan of me to point out that the investigation in Nevada has been instigated by the Democrat Attorney General, whom, I will add, is demonstrating a forthrightness and integrity seldom witnessed in such matters. :whistling
Wasn't that in the original story?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What's your point?
I would argue that he is a little on the late side given that ACORN had reported and supplied evidence some time ago.
I posted the factcheck link because it removes any accusation of bias.
The fact of party affiliation has bearing on the question of bias, I think you are bound to agree(though perhaps not, considering it's you).Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateWasn't that in the original story?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What's your point?
I would argue that he is a little on the late side given that ACORN had reported and supplied evidence some time ago.
BTW-
The AG is a she, not a he.
Okay I was talking about non partisan reporting of facts in the story as being more reliable when it came to the foreclosed home list story. It appears you jumped back and are talking about partisan led investigations. BTW as it stands ACORN is not accused of any wrongdoing, they are investigating the canvassers.
But I'm still wondering where you are going with the partisan thing when it's a democrat Ag investigating what you call a democrat orginisation.
I think the AG may be engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the raid method. Considering ACORN was not only cooperating, they were the ones pushing for an investigation, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have just asked for access to the records.
I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
BTW-
How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
It's just that easy.
ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
BTW-
If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?
If so, tell me why.
First off I wouldn't be happy about a court arbitrarily disallowing registrations no matter who collected them. County elections departments should be verifying registrations, not a judge en mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.
Order forgive following for me, woman like conversation it's with yesterdays up brings subject the having a a who from conversation context without discussion in today
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
All you had to do is say that, no you don't have to ask but do I have to ask if I wish to ask a question about it?
BTW-
How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
I thought I had already answered that
Quote:
I've already laid blame with their applicant processing. Other than that they appear to be at the same mercy from the behavior of employees as any other employer
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.
It's just that easy.
I'm not asking about integrity of the AG, the question came from you asking if it would be partisan of you to point out the AG is a democrat.
ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
Thus far I've only been posting about the original article, at this time I have no information about any other investigations. I will point out again that being investigated doesn't mean anything wrong was actually done. There are many investigations going on.
BTW-
If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?
If so, tell me why.
In answer
If a court disallows all then yes, the investigation is into a tiny problem compared to the bulk of the work.
If a court disallows even one eligible citizen from voting then yes. It may just be a single disenfranchisement but it still counts
If it only disqualifies phony registrations and the ruling allows for any eligible voter lumped in wrongly to have their vote counted then no.
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations should be disqualified by a court?
Problem is, we're up against it, time-wise, which I think was part of ACORN's strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateFirst off I wouldn't be happy about a court arbitrarily disallowing registrations no matter who collected them. County elections departments should be verifying registrations, not a judge en mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.
Order forgive following for me, woman like conversation it's with yesterdays up brings subject the having a a who from conversation context without discussion in today
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
All you had to do is say that, no you don't have to ask but do I have to ask if I wish to ask a question about it?
BTW-
How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
I thought I had already answered that
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.
It's just that easy.
I'm not asking about integrity of the AG, the question came from you asking if it would be partisan of you to point out the AG is a democrat.
ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
Thus far I've only been posting about the original article, at this time I have no information about any other investigations. I will point out again that being investigated doesn't mean anything wrong was actually done. There are many investigations going on.
BTW-
If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?
If so, tell me why.
In answer
If a court disallows all then yes, the investigation is into a tiny problem compared to the bulk of the work.
If a court disallows even one eligible citizen from voting then yes. It may just be a single disenfranchisement but it still counts
If it only disqualifies phony registrations and the ruling allows for any eligible voter lumped in wrongly to have their vote counted then no.
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations should be disqualified by a court?
Do you think it better to allow several thousand bogus registrations rather than disallow a single one?
Sure seems that way.
This is just a conspiracy 911 truther, the commies are coming, the democrats are going to take your gun away, give it to an illegal alien and shoot your bible with it type theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
This isn't a political statement , it's a not buying into a paranoid unsubstantiated talking point conspiracy theory statement.
I don't think any bogus registrations should be allowed. I don't think eligible registrations should be disallowed. County election departments should be verifying registrations.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Please answer my question with an answer, I was good enough to answer yours.
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations collected by ACORN should be disqualified by a court?
BTW. It appears most states have laws requiring voter registration groups to hand in ALL registration forms collected, even if the group suspects or knows it's a fake.
And if those to whom you charge with the task of verification beg off on account of time constraints?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateI don't think any bogus registrations should be allowed. I don't think eligible registrations should be disallowed. County election departments should be verifying registrations.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That last bears on my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Do you count some, or all?
Let's say you have 50,000 registrations to verify, and time to do only half of them...what's your solution?
It's not me charging them with this task, that is their task. If they find themselves overwhelmed then they need to find a solution so the can cope.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Remember that the apparent problem is canvassers returning phony registrations, so it's registration fraud NOT voter fraud. The is no evidence that anyone has voted using a fraudulently registered name. Heck even in the court cases where the voter ID laws were challenged the states couldn't offer any evidence of voter fraud.
Why won't you answer a simple question?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That last bears on my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Do you count some, or all?
Let's say you have 50,000 registrations to verify, and time to do only half of them...what's your solution?
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations collected by ACORN should be disqualified by a court?
Only duly verified registrants should be allowed to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateIt's not me charging them with this task, that is their task. If they find themselves overwhelmed then they need to find a solution so the can cope.
Remember that the apparent problem is canvassers returning phony registrations, so it's registration fraud NOT voter fraud. The is no evidence that anyone has voted using a fraudulently registered name. Heck even in the court cases where the voter ID laws were challenged the states couldn't offer any evidence of voter fraud.
Why won't you answer a simple question?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That last bears on my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Do you count some, or all?
Let's say you have 50,000 registrations to verify, and time to do only half of them...what's your solution?
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations collected by ACORN should be disqualified by a court?
The registrations (however many that may be) that cannot be verified due to time constraints should be shit-canned.
Period.
There's your answer.
What's YOUR answer?
So your answer is no the courts should not reject all registrations from ACORN?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You are however for disenfranchising people who are eligible to vote and had their registration applications in before the deadline. Sorry but I see this time constraint bullshit as an excuse for not doing their job, not a reason they couldn't.
This isn't about party. This is about ensuring that every eligible voter that played by the rules and got their registration, no matter if they did it themselves or via a registration drive, in on time not only gets to vote but their vote is counted.
I've already given it http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/p-thi...45/postcount19Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Sorry, that doesn't cut it.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Fraudulent registrations tainting legitimate ones might best be regarded (this time around, anyway) as a lesson learned, or perhaps ACORN should have a republican arm to cheat right along with the democrat one.
Better yet, abolish the whole thing; why should the government function as a default arm of the DNC?
You are sanctioning cheating, but that figures, you being a lib, and all.
You cannot separate an agency from the actions of it's functionaries, as, absent the functionaries, the agency doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateI've already given it http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/p-thi...45/postcount19Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In any case, situations such as these are usually dealt with by way of exclusion, and additional penalties are often levied.
With regard to ACORN, the only asset they have is their funding, which should be eliminated.
BTW-
Don't bother anymore with your "answer the question" crap; it doesn't wash.
I think the biggest difference between the ACORN situation and traditional forms of Republican favored voter fraud is that the ACORN mess doesn't result in any extra votes- you can register a person multiple times (which is the assertion here) but they can still only cast one ballot.
Alternatively, you can register a fictitious character like Mickey Mouse (who, ironically, would probably vote Republican), but he's not going to show up to vote, so, in effect, you have swollen registration lists but no extra votes.
Much more insidious- and effective- is to lower the number of cast ballots by refusing to allow real people to vote, by hook or by crook.
Targeting groups most like to vote for the opposition and refusing them the ballot- or attempting to scare them away- doesn't help your side, rather, the goal is to hurt the opposition.
So then. Me saying the County elections departments should do their job and stop making excuses (this means weeding out fraudulent registrations and clearing eligible ones) so ALL eligible voters that met the deadline get to vote means I sanction cheating.
Well that's just dandy.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Multiple applications fit perfectly the oft-repeated scenario wherein the Dems fill busses with these newly discovered "voters" and feed them coffee, soda, and pastries while driving them from precinct to precinct to vote in every one, because the system cannot root out fraudulent votes that late in the game.
The next stop is the Supreme Court, where the cry is "DISENFRANCHISEMENT!"
That's it, in a nutshell.
That Obama hails from the city that (as has been thoroughly demonstrated and documented) put JFK in the White House through the cunning use of the "dead" vote should not be lost on those who are paying proper attention.
The way you're saying it?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Absolutely.
BTW-
I notice you didn't phrase that as a question.
You're learning.
I see, so now simply hailing from Chicago is proof enough of complicity for you, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The tarring brush has grown so wide and heavy that even your Bunyonesque shoulders must tire lifting it.
BTW, Alaska is becoming famous for Republican corruption...indeed, isn't Ted Stevens in a bit of trouble right now?
Palin supported Stevens and consorted with him freely, ergo Palin is corrupt and ethically comprimised.
Gee, I see the attraction of your methods...it's so easy.
Uh huh and what does that really have to do with Obama?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Multiple applications fit perfectly the oft-repeated scenario wherein the Dems fill busses with these newly discovered "voters" and feed them coffee, soda, and pastries while driving them from precinct to precinct to vote in every one, because the system cannot root out fraudulent votes that late in the game.
The next stop is the Supreme Court, where the cry is "DISENFRANCHISEMENT!"
That's it, in a nutshell.
That Obama hails from the city that (as has been thoroughly demonstrated and documented) put JFK in the White House through the cunning use of the "dead" vote should not be lost on those who are paying proper attention.
Gee, too bad the Republicans aren't smart enough to do this...it sounds so easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Although, given the collapse of Wall Street and the mortgage industry, there should be plenty of able bodied and idle- not to mention well dressed- Masters of the Universe available, willing and eager to work for doughnuts and coffee.
Oops, seems like the Dems have chartered all the busses.
You'll have to use Mercedes and Lexus sedans.
What does what really have to do with Obama?Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanUh huh and what does that really have to do with Obama?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
ACORN?
Disenfranchisement?
Chicago?
JFK?
Wasn't Obama on the grassy knoll?
You know, all the part after, you....you know, mentioned Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4What does what really have to do with Obama?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
ACORN?
Disenfranchisement?
Chicago?
JFK?
So Obama is tarred cuz he's outta Chi-town now? Puh-leaze....
Oh so that's what j2 was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Obama was the second shooter using a magic bullet when he was 2 years old.
He probably did the deed and jumped back into his stroller.
Six years later he then went on to plan bombings with the Ayers Gang.
And now he drives buses full of dead people, reanimated just to vote against McCain.
They all volunteered, BTW.
Quickly, both of you:
Did Bush win Florida in 2000 or not?
Simple question.
Yes. That's why we call him a 2-term President and stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Also the Denver Broncos won the game against the San Diego Chargers this year, Julio Caesar Chavez won the fight against Meldrick Taylor, and Marion Jones won 3 gold medals and 2 bronze in 2000.