Not the ACORN I knew...

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, the latest portion has you being repeatedly owned due to you not being able to read. If you would have kept your knee in check(hard for apologists) then you wouldn't have posted the repeated nonsense you did. You ASSumed and got caught repeatedly stuffing straw. You should have quit a long time ago...

I'm sorry, what was it I'm supposed to be apologizing for again? You're avoiding this question as well.

And speaking of not being able to read, I asked, what about that involvement is MORE SERIOUS than McCain's? Is there something about that wording that you don't understand? I didn't say "equal." That's you stuffing straw.

You're an apologist for BHO. It's quite obvious based on your posts here.

Again, I responded to a moron claiming they were equal. You jumped in with your nonsense. Can you really not see the difference between BHO's involvement with ACORN and McCain's? You can continue to toss up strawmen arguments but it doesn't make them any more relevant to the issue at hand. I responded to a diversion attempt and you took it and ran. Try to keep up here vic.

My "nonsense" was a serious question. What makes Obama's involvement with ACORN more serious than McCain's? Assuming (as we are) that nothing illegal or unethical took place, then what is wrong here?

Likewise, what am I apologizing for? Obama's very existence or something? What is quite obvious based on my posts here is that morons like you flood these boards with pointless nonsense and partisan talking points and lies every fucking day and expect the rest of us to accept them at face value and without even questioning, just like you do. And when someone like myself, who absolutely NEVER accepts anything at face or without questioning, comes in and kicks the tires and find them flat (i.e your outrage and accusation are much ado about nothing, if not based on pathetically transparent lies), you freak out. OMG apologist!

If bucking your stupidity and hackery is being an apologist, then I'll wear that badge with pride, bitch.

[/quote]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Also, it's laughable for you or anyone else to consider a co-sponsered amnesty rally attended by McCain with BHO's ties to ACORN. You apologists are funny. Divert, play apologist, attempt weak ass rationalization....etc Absolutely pathetic...

Tell us, CAD, what makes BHO's ties to ACORN more serious than McCain's? Serious question.

Your last 3 sentences are what you do in every post, so at least the irony is at your usual comic level.

I don't give a rats ass about McCain - I was commenting on people trying to divert to McCain and then try to equate their association levels. It's patently absurd based on what the diverters posted here. If there is more on McCain - fine but speaking at an amnesty rally co-sponsored by ACORN is nothing compared to what BHO's association with them is. There are atleast 800 thousand reasons why BHO's associations are more serious.

ACORN itself is a corrupt(or at minimum willingly inept) organization who enables fraud.

Now enough with the diversions, read the OP. It has nothing to do with McCain or whatever other BS you people want to diver with.

Got it yet? I've answered your question. YOU used the word serious - I responded. There is no "problem" here except that BHO and his apologists are distancing themselves from ACORN despite the evidence to the contrary.

So again, go back read the thread where you jumped in and got all stupid about my response to a moron claiming their involvement with the group was equal. Once you do, maybe you'll be able to snap out of your irrational streak(not holding my breath).

Can you seriously not see the differences in their involvement with ACORN? If not, then that is evidence enough of your apologist status. So far you've not been able to see the difference. The ball is in your court... bitch.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: insurgent

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: OrByte
According to Malkin, McCain is in bed with corrupt, election stealing, economy tanking, baby eating ACORN too

:cries;

I wonder why there isn't any criticism of McCain's association with ACORN.

Maybe because this thread is about BHO and ACORN? Maybe because McCain sucks anyway and isn't lying about his association(slim as it may be).

So what's your bright idea? Vote for Ron Paul? You offer nothing of value, not one useful alternative other than bitch around.

Cad is simply an Obama Unapologist. Completely non-Partisan and does it only to maintain balance and, above all, Honesty, Integrity, and other such Noble Ideas.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: insurgent

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: OrByte
According to Malkin, McCain is in bed with corrupt, election stealing, economy tanking, baby eating ACORN too

:cries;

I wonder why there isn't any criticism of McCain's association with ACORN.

Maybe because this thread is about BHO and ACORN? Maybe because McCain sucks anyway and isn't lying about his association(slim as it may be).

So what's your bright idea? Vote for Ron Paul? You offer nothing of value, not one useful alternative other than bitch around.

Cad is simply an Obama Unapologist. Completely non-Partisan and does it only to maintain balance and, above all, Honesty, Integrity, and other such Noble Ideas.

Look it's the same old tired diversion from you trolls that I've repeatedly addressed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Could be. I did not state in my OP that ACORN had this guy go fraudulently vote. However, the apologists in this voter fraud issue regarding ACORN(and other registration issues) have kept trying to say that people wouldn't vote with fraudulent registrations. THAT is why I included it.

If an organization has a problem with fraud - they should address it. They keep trying to claim it's being addressed but yet here we are again with more and more fraud. This isn't just isolated incidences either - which potentially could be dismissed - this is widespread.

Well, let's imagine we're ACORN here for a moment. You've got roughly 13,000 low-wage individuals out there canvassing for you. You already have a program set up to (A) not pay them by the registration, (B) not establish any quotas, and (C) you already have rigorous methods of verifying the reg apps that come back from the canvassers. But remember - the responsibility for verifying the eligibility of the voter lies with the government, not with ACORN.

So now, these low-wage individuals are out there indpendently collecting voter reg apps and you have zero supervision of them, because really, who can afford to send a supervisor along to stand outside the employee at some supermarket? So you expect that some of these geniuses are going to come back with fraudelent crap, not because you have a quota, but because there are some lazy dipshits out there who just need to fill out a few of these things to show they're "working" so they can get paid.

So as ACORN, you go through these returned registrations and your internal audits kick back 1% that are fraudulent, incomplete, illegible or problematic in some way. You mark them as such as send them along on their way. If your auditing spots some sort of trend, wherein one or some of your canvassers are systematically committing fraud you let them go. If the election board or FBI comes to you with a problem employee, you cooperate fully, firing them and supporting legal charges against them when warranted. Inevitably, some of these problem registrations get through, because in reality the government is the party ultimately responsible for ensuring who is and is not a real voter, not ACORN.

What else can you possibly do here? I'd love to hear how ACORN can lower their reported 1% rate of problem/fraudulent registrations, but in reality, this is akin to a retail operation and shrinkage. If you're a big retailer with 10,000+ employees, you can damn well bet that some of them are going to try and rip you off. They'll steal things, they'll steal from the register, they'll slack off, they'll do something ... guaranteed. Can any one company stop 100% of that? No way. It would be impossible. Can they take steps to minimize it? Of course. And ACORN has done that. From what I can tell, they've done a fairly good job of it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: insurgent

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: OrByte
According to Malkin, McCain is in bed with corrupt, election stealing, economy tanking, baby eating ACORN too

:cries;

I wonder why there isn't any criticism of McCain's association with ACORN.

Maybe because this thread is about BHO and ACORN? Maybe because McCain sucks anyway and isn't lying about his association(slim as it may be).

So what's your bright idea? Vote for Ron Paul? You offer nothing of value, not one useful alternative other than bitch around.

Cad is simply an Obama Unapologist. Completely non-Partisan and does it only to maintain balance and, above all, Honesty, Integrity, and other such Noble Ideas.

Look it's the same old tired diversion from you trolls that I've repeatedly addressed.

See? The Integrity just pours out like a river. A Blessing or Curse, I do not know, but it certainly flows freely.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Could be. I did not state in my OP that ACORN had this guy go fraudulently vote. However, the apologists in this voter fraud issue regarding ACORN(and other registration issues) have kept trying to say that people wouldn't vote with fraudulent registrations. THAT is why I included it.

If an organization has a problem with fraud - they should address it. They keep trying to claim it's being addressed but yet here we are again with more and more fraud. This isn't just isolated incidences either - which potentially could be dismissed - this is widespread.

Well, let's imagine we're ACORN here for a moment. You've got roughly 13,000 low-wage individuals out there canvassing for you. You already have a program set up to (A) not pay them by the registration, (B) not establish any quotas, and (C) you already have rigorous methods of verifying the reg apps that come back from the canvassers. But remember - the responsibility for verifying the eligibility of the voter lies with the government, not with ACORN.

So now, these low-wage individuals are out there indpendently collecting voter reg apps and you have zero supervision of them, because really, who can afford to send a supervisor along to stand outside the employee at some supermarket? So you expect that some of these geniuses are going to come back with fraudelent crap, not because you have a quota, but because there are some lazy dipshits out there who just need to fill out a few of these things to show they're "working" so they can get paid.

So as ACORN, you go through these returned registrations and your internal audits kick back 1% that are fraudulent, incomplete, illegible or problematic in some way. You mark them as such as send them along on their way. If your auditing spots some sort of trend, wherein one or some of your canvassers are systematically committing fraud you let them go. If the election board or FBI comes to you with a problem employee, you cooperate fully, firing them and supporting legal charges against them when warranted. Inevitably, some of these problem registrations get through, because in reality the government is the party ultimately responsible for ensuring who is and is not a real voter, not ACORN.

What else can you possibly do here? I'd love to hear how ACORN can lower their reported 1% rate of problem/fraudulent registrations, but in reality, this is akin to a retail operation and shrinkage. If you're a big retailer with 10,000+ employees, you can damn well bet that some of them are going to try and rip you off. They'll steal things, they'll steal from the register, they'll slack off, they'll do something ... guaranteed. Can any one company stop 100% of that? No way. It would be impossible. Can they take steps to minimize it? Of course. And ACORN has done that. From what I can tell, they've done a fairly good job of it.

1% according to ACORN, yet the one county in Ohio had the first 2700? of 8000?(don't remember exact numbers) as bad?
But regardless of actual fraudulent numbers, it would be quite easy for ACORN to police their own.
Pay them per non-flagged(internally) registration IF that is how you want to pay canvassers. You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.
But no, we'll continue to disagree on your last 2 sentences. I've seen no evidence to support that and in fact it's gotten worse(or atleast more widely reported) now.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Could be. I did not state in my OP that ACORN had this guy go fraudulently vote. However, the apologists in this voter fraud issue regarding ACORN(and other registration issues) have kept trying to say that people wouldn't vote with fraudulent registrations. THAT is why I included it.

If an organization has a problem with fraud - they should address it. They keep trying to claim it's being addressed but yet here we are again with more and more fraud. This isn't just isolated incidences either - which potentially could be dismissed - this is widespread.

Well, let's imagine we're ACORN here for a moment. You've got roughly 13,000 low-wage individuals out there canvassing for you. You already have a program set up to (A) not pay them by the registration, (B) not establish any quotas, and (C) you already have rigorous methods of verifying the reg apps that come back from the canvassers. But remember - the responsibility for verifying the eligibility of the voter lies with the government, not with ACORN.

So now, these low-wage individuals are out there indpendently collecting voter reg apps and you have zero supervision of them, because really, who can afford to send a supervisor along to stand outside the employee at some supermarket? So you expect that some of these geniuses are going to come back with fraudelent crap, not because you have a quota, but because there are some lazy dipshits out there who just need to fill out a few of these things to show they're "working" so they can get paid.

So as ACORN, you go through these returned registrations and your internal audits kick back 1% that are fraudulent, incomplete, illegible or problematic in some way. You mark them as such as send them along on their way. If your auditing spots some sort of trend, wherein one or some of your canvassers are systematically committing fraud you let them go. If the election board or FBI comes to you with a problem employee, you cooperate fully, firing them and supporting legal charges against them when warranted. Inevitably, some of these problem registrations get through, because in reality the government is the party ultimately responsible for ensuring who is and is not a real voter, not ACORN.

What else can you possibly do here? I'd love to hear how ACORN can lower their reported 1% rate of problem/fraudulent registrations, but in reality, this is akin to a retail operation and shrinkage. If you're a big retailer with 10,000+ employees, you can damn well bet that some of them are going to try and rip you off. They'll steal things, they'll steal from the register, they'll slack off, they'll do something ... guaranteed. Can any one company stop 100% of that? No way. It would be impossible. Can they take steps to minimize it? Of course. And ACORN has done that. From what I can tell, they've done a fairly good job of it.

1% according to ACORN, yet the one county in Ohio had the first 2700? of 8000?(don't remember exact numbers) as bad?
But regardless of actual fraudulent numbers, it would be quite easy for ACORN to police their own.
Pay them per non-flagged(internally) registration IF that is how you want to pay canvassers. You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.
But no, we'll continue to disagree on your last 2 sentences. I've seen no evidence to support that and in fact it's gotten worse(or atleast more widely reported) now.

So now your Beef is that ACORN still pays them? Why should you care, if that's what they are actually doing?

This whole thing is only an issue if people are being erroneously placed onto the Voters List(s). So far there seems to be *no* evidence of that.

 

[jpeyton]

If ACORN is the best attack the GOP has, they should go home early.

The CBS/NYT national poll out tomorrow is rumored to show a 14-point lead for Obama.

Ayers, ACORN...I think McCain needs to abandon the A's and move onto another letter in his kamikaze playbook if he wants a snowball's chance in hell of competing in 3 weeks.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.

According to ACORN's own site, they *do* have internal quality controls:

What Is The Truth About ACORN's Quality Control System?

ACORN?s Quality Control system is the most sophisticated in the civic engagement arena. Before every drive ACORN staff meet with Board of Elections staff to go over all the requirements for conducting voter registration work in the county. In the vast majority of cases, elections officials inform ACORN that they require that all cards, no matter the quality, be turned in.

There are two important reasons behind this requirement. First, ACORN turns in cards because it is not in a position to tell if it is real or not. For example, ACORN?s Philadelphia drive collected cards from Diana Ross and Benjamin Franklin, which seem like fake names. However, our Call Center verified that both people were actually non-famous people who shared famous names.

Second, verifying the identity of a prospective voter is a responsibility the lies squarely with the government and not with private non-profits like ACORN. Under no circumstances should an entity except the government be determining who is and is not a real voter.

ACORN does not turn in cards in only two specific sets of circumstances. First, only when BOTH the Board of Elections AND the person who?s name is on the card tell us not to turn in the card. Second, if the card does not have enough information on it to allow elections officials to send a follow-up letter to the applicant.

Finally, several states, including CA, CO, CT, FL, MO, NV, NM, and OH, have specific deadlines for when a card should be handed in to elections officials from the time it was collected. These deadlines can be as short as 48 hours (NM).

ACORN's Quality Control Procedures follow this basic model:

1. Performance Standards

a. Canvassers are trained on and held to performance standards that include:

i. Number of incomplete applications

ii. Number of illegible applications

iii. Number of phone numbers

iv. Number of applicants who verify application.

b. Canvasser are told the completing applications on behalf of another person is a felony and sign a statement that affirms that they understand that the consequences of doing so could lead to criminal charges.

2. Accountability

a. Canvassers put their initials or name on each voter application they collect at the end of the shift and applications are kept together by canvasser.

b. Applications collected by canvassers are kept together throughout the quality control process.

3. Verification

a. All applications are visually inspected for similar handwriting, duplicate names or other indicators that the card may not have been completed by the person named on the application

b. All applicants with phone numbers are called to verify the authenticity of the application.

4. Performance Problems

a. Investigations are opened on canvassers if any application submitted appears to have not been completed by the named applicant.

b. Investigations are completed in an expeditious fashion and the canvasser is terminated if the suspicion is not adequately rebutted.

5. Turning in applications to Election officials

a. Elections officials are informed about ACORN?s procedure for turning in cards that have raised enough suspicion so that ACORN deems that they are problematic applications.

b. Problematic applications, and all the applications collected by the canvasser from that shift, are separated out and given to election officials with a cover sheet that includes the name of the canvasser and the names on the suspicious applications.

It seems they're already doing quite a bit to police themselves.

 

[Ballatician]

I thought DealMonkey explained it quite well. ACORN has had problems and yet the link you cite in your post is about one individual who is committing a crime and has no discernible links to ACORN, the organization you are ranting and raving about.

Then you go on to question the character of Obama since his campaign made donations to ACORN to get more people to vote. It seems to me that getting more people to vote legally is an important thing and neither Obama nor his campaign should be policing ACORN simply because they donated money to it. It would be one thing if you are simply trying to bring to light the issue of voter fraud which is an important issue but you for some reason have it stuck in your head that Obama or his campaign have something to do with a few rogue individuals. The guilt by association game will get you nowhere. You haven't shown any evidence that his ties to ACORN are any more serious than McCains.

If you want to talk about the issue of voter fraud, fine, but stop pretending like Obama has some secret tie with ACORN to have people vote fraudulently because you have no evidence.

I am not an Obama apologist since that seems to be your favorite accusation but in this country you can't just point fingers without evidence.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.

According to ACORN's own site, they *do* have internal quality controls:
<snipped>

It seems they're already doing quite a bit to police themselves.

I've already stated they claim they are doing things, however results matter - not supposed intent.

So what of the rest of my response?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Could be. I did not state in my OP that ACORN had this guy go fraudulently vote. However, the apologists in this voter fraud issue regarding ACORN(and other registration issues) have kept trying to say that people wouldn't vote with fraudulent registrations. THAT is why I included it.

If an organization has a problem with fraud - they should address it. They keep trying to claim it's being addressed but yet here we are again with more and more fraud. This isn't just isolated incidences either - which potentially could be dismissed - this is widespread.

Well, let's imagine we're ACORN here for a moment. You've got roughly 13,000 low-wage individuals out there canvassing for you. You already have a program set up to (A) not pay them by the registration, (B) not establish any quotas, and (C) you already have rigorous methods of verifying the reg apps that come back from the canvassers. But remember - the responsibility for verifying the eligibility of the voter lies with the government, not with ACORN.

So now, these low-wage individuals are out there indpendently collecting voter reg apps and you have zero supervision of them, because really, who can afford to send a supervisor along to stand outside the employee at some supermarket? So you expect that some of these geniuses are going to come back with fraudelent crap, not because you have a quota, but because there are some lazy dipshits out there who just need to fill out a few of these things to show they're "working" so they can get paid.

So as ACORN, you go through these returned registrations and your internal audits kick back 1% that are fraudulent, incomplete, illegible or problematic in some way. You mark them as such as send them along on their way. If your auditing spots some sort of trend, wherein one or some of your canvassers are systematically committing fraud you let them go. If the election board or FBI comes to you with a problem employee, you cooperate fully, firing them and supporting legal charges against them when warranted. Inevitably, some of these problem registrations get through, because in reality the government is the party ultimately responsible for ensuring who is and is not a real voter, not ACORN.

What else can you possibly do here? I'd love to hear how ACORN can lower their reported 1% rate of problem/fraudulent registrations, but in reality, this is akin to a retail operation and shrinkage. If you're a big retailer with 10,000+ employees, you can damn well bet that some of them are going to try and rip you off. They'll steal things, they'll steal from the register, they'll slack off, they'll do something ... guaranteed. Can any one company stop 100% of that? No way. It would be impossible. Can they take steps to minimize it? Of course. And ACORN has done that. From what I can tell, they've done a fairly good job of it.

1% according to ACORN, yet the one county in Ohio had the first 2700? of 8000?(don't remember exact numbers) as bad?
But regardless of actual fraudulent numbers, it would be quite easy for ACORN to police their own.
Pay them per non-flagged(internally) registration IF that is how you want to pay canvassers. You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.
But no, we'll continue to disagree on your last 2 sentences. I've seen no evidence to support that and in fact it's gotten worse(or atleast more widely reported) now.

So now your Beef is that ACORN still pays them? Why should you care, if that's what they are actually doing?

This whole thing is only an issue if people are being erroneously placed onto the Voters List(s). So far there seems to be *no* evidence of that.

Wow, way to not pay attention. I was responding to DM's question about what I would do if I were ACORN. Sheesh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
I thought DealMonkey explained it quite well. ACORN has had problems and yet the link you cite in your post is about one individual who is committing a crime and has no discernible links to ACORN, the organization you are ranting and raving about.

Then you go on to question the character of Obama since his campaign made donations to ACORN to get more people to vote. It seems to me that getting more people to vote legally is an important thing and neither Obama nor his campaign should be policing ACORN simply because they donated money to it. It would be one thing if you are simply trying to bring to light the issue of voter fraud which is an important issue but you for some reason have it stuck in your head that Obama or his campaign have something to do with a few rogue individuals. The guilt by association game will get you nowhere. You haven't shown any evidence that his ties to ACORN are any more serious than McCains.

If you want to talk about the issue of voter fraud, fine, but stop pretending like Obama has some secret tie with ACORN to have people vote fraudulently because you have no evidence.

I am not an Obama apologist since that seems to be your favorite accusation but in this country you can't just point fingers without evidence.

strawman in first part of your post: I've already addressed the second link in the OP.

The BHO part is about him and his campaign trying to NOW distance themselves from the group. YOU are the turd tryind to claim BHO's involvement with ACORN is equal to McCain's involvement. It's absurd as previously noted.

Yes, this is also about voter fraud.

So now if you'd have been paying attention, your whole post has been addressed(some things more than once). So despite your attempts to claim you aren't a BHO and/or ACORN apologist, it's hard to see how you aren't when one looks at your posts in this thread.


My advice to you - stop digging.

 

[Ballatician]

I've read this whole thread now that I'm home from work and before actually paying attention to any of the articles I was going on off-hand knowledge. I will give you that McCain has had less to do with ACORN than Obama from what I have read in this thread.

That being said this isn't about voter fraud as you allege. This is about you trying to link Obama with voter fraud for which you have no evidence. Moreover

ACORN is getting bad press so of course they are going to distance themselves but you know what? Neither him nor his campaign has done anything wrong in donating money to a worthy cause so I think its you who should stop digging.

Now as for your second link.

Did you ignore this part?

Still, members of the bipartisan board downplayed any voter fraud. And Platten insisted officials with ACORN have offered "any and all" help in probing the questionable activities. Katy Gall, the Ohio state director for ACORN, said her group is cooperating fully with the investigation. She added that her group has fired anyone who was found soliciting duplicate registrations.

The only matter at stake here is the ethics of ACORN workers. Read here to find out what type of fraud this actually is and realize that this will not affect ACTUAL votes.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah, discussing and pointing out voter fraud is "useless". :roll:

No, it's voter registration fraud. There's a difference. Other than the one example you cited, which seems more a product of his own intent to defraud the system vs. ACORN's intent. I mean the one example you cite doesn't seem to have any connection to ACORN

But still, he breezed into Ohio election offices - the state allows early voting for president - reregistered with a fake address and cast a paper ballot, officials said.

So he breezed in on his own? Or did he have an ACORN escort? :laugh:

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I feel the ACORN RAGE! :|

Based on nonsense, but the rage! :|:|

investigations of voter fraud are hardly nonsense.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: sandorski
I feel the ACORN RAGE! :|

Based on nonsense, but the rage! :|:|

investigations of voter fraud are hardly nonsense.

This one is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
I've read this whole thread now that I'm home from work and before actually paying attention to any of the articles I was going on off-hand knowledge. I will give you that McCain has had less to do with ACORN than Obama from what I have read in this thread.

That being said this isn't about voter fraud as you allege. This is about you trying to link Obama with voter fraud for which you have no evidence. Moreover

Wrong - you obviously are ASSuming instead of reading

ACORN is getting bad press so of course they are going to distance themselves but you know what? Neither him nor his campaign has done anything wrong in donating money to a worthy cause so I think its you who should stop digging.

Didn't say there was anything "wrong". But yes, the campaign lied(or whatever) about the get out the vote spending, but that's just a side point as the bigger issue is BHO's consistent associations that he's now throwing under the bus because he's running for President. If these associations were fine then - why not now?

Now as for your second link.

Did you ignore this part?

Still, members of the bipartisan board downplayed any voter fraud. And Platten insisted officials with ACORN have offered "any and all" help in probing the questionable activities. Katy Gall, the Ohio state director for ACORN, said her group is cooperating fully with the investigation. She added that her group has fired anyone who was found soliciting duplicate registrations.

The only matter at stake here is the ethics of ACORN workers. Read here to find out what type of fraud this actually is and realize that this will not affect ACTUAL votes.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah, discussing and pointing out voter fraud is "useless". :roll:

No, it's voter registration fraud. There's a difference. Other than the one example you cited, which seems more a product of his own intent to defraud the system vs. ACORN's intent. I mean the one example you cite doesn't seem to have any connection to ACORN

But still, he breezed into Ohio election offices - the state allows early voting for president - reregistered with a fake address and cast a paper ballot, officials said.

So he breezed in on his own? Or did he have an ACORN escort? :laugh:

Nope, that is not the only matter here because this isn't just isolated incidences of this. It's very widespread. Infact, just tonight there was a story coming out of Minnesota about ACORN(I haven't read too much in depth about it yet). Yes, their workers may be unethical but the organization has a responsibility to oversee their activities and be proactive in preventing this type of fraud.

Yes yes, we know the apologists keep trying to say it will not affect actual votes but you can not state this as fact. The FACT is that there will be many fraudulent registrations that go through despite the best effort of election officials who have to waste their time on this crap which provides opportunity for actual fruadulent votes to be cast.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I have finally come to see the point of Cad's argument. Damn Obama for supporting ACORN and damn him if he does not. Not subject to logic, rational thought, or fact.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
1% according to ACORN, yet the one county in Ohio had the first 2700? of 8000?(don't remember exact numbers) as bad?

I'm not aware of this case, however I'm aware that there have been some extreme cases of canvassers REALLY abusing their positions and where it's been discovered, those individuals get the book thrown at them. And yes, ACORN has paid fines where it's been found to be lax on training or oversight or both. So, no ACORN isn't perfect, but mostly that is because of a few bad individuals, IMHO.

But regardless of actual fraudulent numbers, it would be quite easy for ACORN to police their own. Pay them per non-flagged(internally) registration IF that is how you want to pay canvassers. You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.

I've already addressed this point. ACORN has a fairly rigorous auditing program in place.

But no, we'll continue to disagree on your last 2 sentences. I've seen no evidence to support that and in fact it's gotten worse(or atleast more widely reported) now.

That's fine, however I think you would find that if the tables were turned, and ACORN was a Republican-led get-out-the-vote effort, you'd run into the exact same problems.

You'd find that your low-wage canvassers occasionally do some stupid stuff and put themselves and your organization in legal hot water. You'd find that you're required to submit all of your registrations regardless of what your internal auditing found. (After all, who would want a partisan voter drive deciding for themselves whose registration to throw away, right?) And then inevitably, your political opponents would take those statistics showing how many fraudulent registrations you submitted and smear you with them. They'd point out that your org gets money from the GOP and therefore they're complicit in the "fraud."

And remember too - when it comes right down to it, your organization isn't even responsible for determining if a given registration is valid or not - it's the government's responsibility. You don't even have the correct resources or databases to cross-check registrations to ensure they're valid.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.

According to ACORN's own site, they *do* have internal quality controls:

What Is The Truth About ACORN's Quality Control System?

ACORN?s Quality Control system is the most sophisticated in the civic engagement arena. Before every drive ACORN staff meet with Board of Elections staff to go over all the requirements for conducting voter registration work in the county. In the vast majority of cases, elections officials inform ACORN that they require that all cards, no matter the quality, be turned in.

There are two important reasons behind this requirement. First, ACORN turns in cards because it is not in a position to tell if it is real or not. For example, ACORN?s Philadelphia drive collected cards from Diana Ross and Benjamin Franklin, which seem like fake names. However, our Call Center verified that both people were actually non-famous people who shared famous names.

Second, verifying the identity of a prospective voter is a responsibility the lies squarely with the government and not with private non-profits like ACORN. Under no circumstances should an entity except the government be determining who is and is not a real voter.

ACORN does not turn in cards in only two specific sets of circumstances. First, only when BOTH the Board of Elections AND the person who?s name is on the card tell us not to turn in the card. Second, if the card does not have enough information on it to allow elections officials to send a follow-up letter to the applicant.

Finally, several states, including CA, CO, CT, FL, MO, NV, NM, and OH, have specific deadlines for when a card should be handed in to elections officials from the time it was collected. These deadlines can be as short as 48 hours (NM).

ACORN's Quality Control Procedures follow this basic model:

1. Performance Standards

a. Canvassers are trained on and held to performance standards that include:

i. Number of incomplete applications

ii. Number of illegible applications

iii. Number of phone numbers

iv. Number of applicants who verify application.

b. Canvasser are told the completing applications on behalf of another person is a felony and sign a statement that affirms that they understand that the consequences of doing so could lead to criminal charges.

2. Accountability

a. Canvassers put their initials or name on each voter application they collect at the end of the shift and applications are kept together by canvasser.

b. Applications collected by canvassers are kept together throughout the quality control process.

3. Verification

a. All applications are visually inspected for similar handwriting, duplicate names or other indicators that the card may not have been completed by the person named on the application

b. All applicants with phone numbers are called to verify the authenticity of the application.

4. Performance Problems

a. Investigations are opened on canvassers if any application submitted appears to have not been completed by the named applicant.

b. Investigations are completed in an expeditious fashion and the canvasser is terminated if the suspicion is not adequately rebutted.

5. Turning in applications to Election officials

a. Elections officials are informed about ACORN?s procedure for turning in cards that have raised enough suspicion so that ACORN deems that they are problematic applications.

b. Problematic applications, and all the applications collected by the canvasser from that shift, are separated out and given to election officials with a cover sheet that includes the name of the canvasser and the names on the suspicious applications.

It seems they're already doing quite a bit to police themselves.

I hate to come into P&N, but I do it from time to time to read the current thread titles. ACORN has been piquing my interest as of late, and not because of any political ads (honestly haven't seen one with ACORN yet). With that said...

What someone says is puts in writing can often be far different from what they do. Certain things need to be said or written to appear legitimate so they can maintain popular interest, and not be at the end of negative opinion. A politician distancing himself from a negative group, in speech, can be seen as a move to maintain popular interest. I cannot say that Obama is or isn't still interesting in the things he has distanced himself from, as evidence of that is lacking (for either direction).

He has not proved he is any different from these groups/individuals. If he is elected and starts making moves on the housing market like ACORN has, or starts putting into practice any of the ideas of those he has distanced himself from, we'll know for sure. It'd be a great move if he actually made progress towards the opposite end, but sadly... we cannot know his true intentions.

However, I must say, his new patriotic campaign ad is rather hilarious.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
1% according to ACORN, yet the one county in Ohio had the first 2700? of 8000?(don't remember exact numbers) as bad?

I'm not aware of this case, however I'm aware that there have been some extreme cases of canvassers REALLY abusing their positions and where it's been discovered, those individuals get the book thrown at them. And yes, ACORN has paid fines where it's been found to be lax on training or oversight or both. So, no ACORN isn't perfect, but mostly that is because of a few bad individuals, IMHO.

But regardless of actual fraudulent numbers, it would be quite easy for ACORN to police their own. Pay them per non-flagged(internally) registration IF that is how you want to pay canvassers. You see, any company or organization who has employees needs to have quality/work checks in place to ensure productivity. In this case it seems ACORN just takes the workers at their word and pays them without looking through their work first.

I've already addressed this point. ACORN has a fairly rigorous auditing program in place.

But no, we'll continue to disagree on your last 2 sentences. I've seen no evidence to support that and in fact it's gotten worse(or atleast more widely reported) now.

That's fine, however I think you would find that if the tables were turned, and ACORN was a Republican-led get-out-the-vote effort, you'd run into the exact same problems.

You'd find that your low-wage canvassers occasionally do some stupid stuff and put themselves and your organization in legal hot water. You'd find that you're required to submit all of your registrations regardless of what your internal auditing found. (After all, who would want a partisan voter drive deciding for themselves whose registration to throw away, right?) And then inevitably, your political opponents would take those statistics showing how many fraudulent registrations you submitted and smear you with them. They'd point out that your org gets money from the GOP and therefore they're complicit in the "fraud."

And remember too - when it comes right down to it, your organization isn't even responsible for determining if a given registration is valid or not - it's the government's responsibility. You don't even have the correct resources or databases to cross-check registrations to ensure they're valid.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

Again, it's not just a "few bad individuals" when this is happening in state after state and county after county. It's bad management and/or systemic fraud.

It's obviously not rigorous enough if this keeps happening time after time. I read their standards and it's laughable to think they try to verify questionable ones...that have phone numbers. uhh.. don't put a phone number on the fake ones?

My problem with ACORN's fraud isn't necessarily that they are a fringe leftist group - any group that is commiting fraud on this large of scale should be looked into and shut down if they can't police themselves well enough to stop the fraud.

Yes, I see exactly where you are and have been going with this. It's the same old thing ACORN and it's apologists have been trying to claim. It's nothing new, and nothing substantial. ACORN isn't the victim of some rogue individuals -they are the victim of their own poor management/training and/or corrupt infrastructure.

 

[OrByte]

so...whats the point?

If they suck at it then maybe another group can do better. Or maybe not. Im willing to bet that if a new group employs the same low level thinkers that ACORN does now, nothing will change.

Its like Fn Kmart. You pay for cheap labor then you get cheap labor.

so whats the point again?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: aphex
CAD: Just curious, were you this up in arms when the Diebold CEO made the statement that he would deliver the election to Bush? Or when voting machines in FL counted negative votes for a candidate?

I missed those. I would LOVE to see the citations. Anyone making that kind of statement... string them up. Care to dig up some linkage?

Ask and ye shall receive;

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05...=5007&partner=USERLAND

Mr. O'Dell drew criticism of his company in August when he sent an invitation to a fund-raising party that said, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." He said he had not written it himself, though he declined to say who had, and intended only to sign a "party invitation."

- From 2004

As for negative votes, wasn't just FL I guess (I recall seeing an article on Washington Post, but I can't find it in the archives. Looking for better sources)
http://www4.vindy.com/basic/news/281829446390855.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

While that is a bad comment to make, the context was for a fund raiser, not flipping votes via voting machines.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ballatician
I've read this whole thread now that I'm home from work and before actually paying attention to any of the articles I was going on off-hand knowledge. I will give you that McCain has had less to do with ACORN than Obama from what I have read in this thread.

That being said this isn't about voter fraud as you allege. This is about you trying to link Obama with voter fraud for which you have no evidence. Moreover

Wrong - you obviously are ASSuming instead of reading

ACORN is getting bad press so of course they are going to distance themselves but you know what? Neither him nor his campaign has done anything wrong in donating money to a worthy cause so I think its you who should stop digging.

Didn't say there was anything "wrong". But yes, the campaign lied(or whatever) about the get out the vote spending, but that's just a side point as the bigger issue is BHO's consistent associations that he's now throwing under the bus because he's running for President.

If these associations were fine then - why not now?

Now as for your second link.

Did you ignore this part?

Still, members of the bipartisan board downplayed any voter fraud. And Platten insisted officials with ACORN have offered "any and all" help in probing the questionable activities. Katy Gall, the Ohio state director for ACORN, said her group is cooperating fully with the investigation. She added that her group has fired anyone who was found soliciting duplicate registrations.

The only matter at stake here is the ethics of ACORN workers. Read here to find out what type of fraud this actually is and realize that this will not affect ACTUAL votes.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah, discussing and pointing out voter fraud is "useless". :roll:

No, it's voter registration fraud. There's a difference. Other than the one example you cited, which seems more a product of his own intent to defraud the system vs. ACORN's intent. I mean the one example you cite doesn't seem to have any connection to ACORN

But still, he breezed into Ohio election offices - the state allows early voting for president - reregistered with a fake address and cast a paper ballot, officials said.

So he breezed in on his own? Or did he have an ACORN escort? :laugh:

Nope, that is not the only matter here because this isn't just isolated incidences of this. It's very widespread. Infact, just tonight there was a story coming out of Minnesota about ACORN(I haven't read too much in depth about it yet). Yes, their workers may be unethical but the organization has a responsibility to oversee their activities and be proactive in preventing this type of fraud.

Yes yes, we know the apologists keep trying to say it will not affect actual votes but you can not state this as fact. The FACT is that there will be many fraudulent registrations that go through despite the best effort of election officials who have to waste their time on this crap which provides opportunity for actual fruadulent votes to be cast.

Because the conservative right-wing media has made them a much bigger deal than they really are. People respond to fear. Linking Obama to Ayers and now ACORN plays on that fear.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: destrekor
I hate to come into P&N, but I do it from time to time to read the current thread titles. ACORN has been piquing my interest as of late, and not because of any political ads (honestly haven't seen one with ACORN yet). With that said...

What someone says is puts in writing can often be far different from what they do. Certain things need to be said or written to appear legitimate so they can maintain popular interest, and not be at the end of negative opinion. A politician distancing himself from a negative group, in speech, can be seen as a move to maintain popular interest. I cannot say that Obama is or isn't still interesting in the things he has distanced himself from, as evidence of that is lacking (for either direction).

He has not proved he is any different from these groups/individuals. If he is elected and starts making moves on the housing market like ACORN has, or starts putting into practice any of the ideas of those he has distanced himself from, we'll know for sure. It'd be a great move if he actually made progress towards the opposite end, but sadly... we cannot know his true intentions.

However, I must say, his new patriotic campaign ad is rather hilarious.

What moves did ACORN make on the housing market?