Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

[WhoWee]

Ok so they have a long history of targeting peaceful US groups while missing terrorists, they occasionally assassinate the wrong man and have been screwing up all their forensic tests for the last 40s but they do some good police work as well.

If the FBI shouldn't investigate voter fraud allegations - in more than 1 state - who should?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think that implies what you are saying. I don't think Presidents tend to sit on passed bills.

I'm interested in how much they might receive in 2009 - from the stimulus and other sources.

 

[Wax]

Not a bad idea!

With unemployment at 9 percent, why would you want to cut all spending? Does it make you happy to watch people begging for jobs? Federal spending isn't the one cutting jobs. It's the private sector.

Washington is starting to round off to the nearest $Trillion - look at all of the nonsense stuffed into the stimulus Bill.

An underlying problem may be that ACORN is involved in too many things - too big to manage.

NPR took a look last Fall.
"ACORN's Money Tree Has Many Branches"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/acorns_money_tree_has_many_bra.html

The stimulus isn't targeted spending. You can't stimulate the economy if you only spend in one sector of the market.

 

[WhoWee]

The stimulus isn't targeted spending. You can't stimulate the economy if you only spend in one sector of the market.

Well you got me there - it isn't targeted - that's the problem. It's really more of a 30 year wish list of pet projects.

 

[Wax]

Well you got me there - it isn't targeted - that's the problem. It's really more of a 30 year wish list of pet projects.

How is that the problem? The stimulus is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

 

[byronm]

Federal funding comes in part from coerced taxes. The burden of the argument is on the justification of spending said tax dollars on a particular group.

Once you answer the question "Why should they be funded?" then the answer to whether funding should be cut is clear. If no justification for funding exists then they should not be funded.

So here's the broader question. Should an individual be forced to participate in philanthropy and charity not of his own choosing? I say no, it is immoral.

The problem "We" have is that there are two forms of "We" when you casually say something like "We ought to...".

Yes "We ought to help the poor"... that's a private sector "We" so go out there open up your wallet and find some poor to help!

Yes "We ought to punish rapists"... that cannot be handled in the private sector. Necessary use of force and violence must be reserved for governments.

Does ACORN do good work? Yes. Do they do it selectively to promote a political agenda? Certainly in some of their endeavors such as voter registration drives and advocation of specific legislation.

There is nothing wrong with this per se but it certainly should not be funded with tax dollars.

By your very argument we could go tit for tat in what we believe is charity and what isn't but to me that totally ignores the real questions at hand of why the service is there, what the service is fulfilling and how we can better provide said services because obviously there is a need being filled and fighting about who pays for that is a backwards way of fixing the problem. I don't really see as simple as being a charity :)

In all honesty, I consider myself independent.. I don't "believe" in anything but humanity and with that said i don't create a self prophesying hate for government but merely realize that a government for and by the people doesn't have to be artificially limited in any fashion. The only evils of government are the evils of man, take away the government and you still have evil people. Thus, i respect libertarian ideologies, republican ideology, democratic ideologies, green (so on and so forth) but i don't think of them as THE answer but merely a representative answer of our federalized government.

With that said, i believe the "Charity" works even if it is taxes.. in one case it brings more businesses to our country and our communities through tax breaks, incentives and local development offerings and in other cases it keeps people off the streets or in this case gets them registered to vote.

I'm not naive about government either.. my support of governance is not a support of draconian governance by any means.. i don't want to take logic out of the equation but i don't fundamentally associate government as illogical.. hard to explain but oh well ;)

So there.. i explained a little bit about my beliefs, explained that i felt your argument is mostly for the sake of argument itself rather then the sake of fixing the problem at hand and when it comes to fixing the problem at hand i feel the combined efforts of all people is better than pretending private interests have any concern other than themselves.

 

[WhoWee]

How is that the problem? The stimulus is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

This is quite a bit off topic (sorry).

But have you noticed the unemployment numbers? The stimulus was specifically sold as the best method to limit unemployment to 8% - we're now over 9% and approaching 10%.

On the other hand, those $3,000 (each) road signs have really given a boost to a few sign shops.

 

[Wax]

This is quite a bit off topic (sorry).

But have you noticed the unemployment numbers? The stimulus was specifically sold as the best method to limit unemployment to 8% - we're now over 9% and approaching 10%.

On the other hand, those $3,000 (each) road signs have really given a boost to a few sign shops.

How does federal spending create unemployment? If you're spending money for projects, doesn't that mean you have to hire people to work? Can you tell me how federal spending creates job losses?

 

[WhoWee]

By your very argument we could go tit for tat in what we believe is charity and what isn't but to me that totally ignores the real questions at hand of why the service is there, what the service is fulfilling and how we can better provide said services because obviously there is a need being filled and fighting about who pays for that is a backwards way of fixing the problem. I don't really see as simple as being a charity :)

?

 

[WhoWee]

How does federal spending create unemployment? If you're spending money for projects, doesn't that mean you have to hire people to work? Can you tell me how federal spending creates job losses?

This needs to move to another thread if it continues.

However, we need permanent jobs in the private sector.

Construction jobs are temporary and Government jobs don't create tax revenue - they are funded through taxes, borrowing, or printing more money - all bad.

The other misleading (and easy to manipulate) item is "saved jobs" - how do you count a saved job?

Again, the topic of this thread is Acorn - and it looks like they won't be recruiting anyone for those Census jobs now.

 

[byronm]

?

Person A thinks private sector should pay for it
Person B thinks taxes should pay for it

Person A and Person B arugue indefinitely about who is right and who is moral meanwhile person A and Person B competely fail to fix "The Freakin problem" that they're fighting over. Catch my drift? :)

We could go tit for tat on labeling something
We could go tit for tat on redefining what something means
We could go tit for tat on conceptualizing our differences

However NONE of that fixes the problem.. we're a bunch of "my way or the highway" people getting more pissed off at each other when if we actually sat down and fixed the problems we would be known as a bunch of "can do'ers" instead.

But hell.. every time i go to a bookstore i see how a "Can do" attitude is bad for government but great for business! way to ignore the issue and brand the message!

Obviously how something is paid for is important and i don't mean to take that value away but if its a recognized problem the "how do we pay for it" is easier to do when the ultimate response is to fix the problem at hand and not debate endless about whose responsibility is or who gets to take blame or who gets to take credit for something going good or bad..

dunno if I'm explaining it right, just seems like lots of senseless arguing about money when if we focus on the problem at hand its less about how about money itself but more of the return on investment we get by fixing that problem.. Be it health care or getting people to participate in democracy.

Right now money is a divisive factor, instead of a solution for a united cause and i think its divisive for all the wrong reasons.

 

[byronm]

This needs to move to another thread if it continues.

Construction jobs are temporary and Government jobs don't create tax revenue - they are funded through taxes, borrowing, or printing more money - all bad.

Bogus ;)

A job is a Job. - They're all temporary, they're all at will and they're all at the whims of the free market. The free market responds to government jobs just as much - if not more as it does to non government jobs.

Those government workers buy food, buy houses, buy cars, buy gas, pay rents, pay taxes and spend money into the economies they live within just as much as any other person. Not only that but a lot of the government spending goes directly into private sector without having to pass through nary a government worker hand but directly to a bank or contracts management partner.

 

[WhoWee]

Bogus ;)

A job is a Job. - They're all temporary, they're all at will and they're all at the whims of the free market. The free market responds to government jobs just as much - if not more as it does to non government jobs.

Those government workers buy food, buy houses, buy cars, buy gas, pay rents, pay taxes and spend money into the economies they live within just as much as any other person. Not only that but a lot of the government spending goes directly into private sector without having to pass through nary a government worker hand but directly to a bank or contracts management partner.

Government jobs guarantee 2 things - taxes and regulation (they have to actually DO something at those jobs) - both are a drain on the productive parts of the economy. All of those Government workers would be doing all of that same spending if they were employed in the private sector.

 

[WhoWee]

Person A thinks private sector should pay for it
Person B thinks taxes should pay for it

Person A and Person B arugue indefinitely about who is right and who is moral meanwhile person A and Person B competely fail to fix "The Freakin problem" that they're fighting over. Catch my drift? :)

We could go tit for tat on labeling something
We could go tit for tat on redefining what something means
We could go tit for tat on conceptualizing our differences

However NONE of that fixes the problem.. we're a bunch of "my way or the highway" people getting more pissed off at each other when if we actually sat down and fixed the problems we would be known as a bunch of "can do'ers" instead.

But hell.. every time i go to a bookstore i see how a "Can do" attitude is bad for government but great for business! way to ignore the issue and brand the message!

Obviously how something is paid for is important and i don't mean to take that value away but if its a recognized problem the "how do we pay for it" is easier to do when the ultimate response is to fix the problem at hand and not debate endless about whose responsibility is or who gets to take blame or who gets to take credit for something going good or bad..

dunno if I'm explaining it right, just seems like lots of senseless arguing about money when if we focus on the problem at hand its less about how about money itself but more of the return on investment we get by fixing that problem.. Be it health care or getting people to participate in democracy.

Right now money is a divisive factor, instead of a solution for a united cause and i think its divisive for all the wrong reasons.

The growth of Acorn (and apparent transformation into an unmanageable mess) is a by-product of the need to throw money at problems - isn't it?

 

[russ_watters]

How is that the problem? The stimulus is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Just so we're clear, by "designed to do", you mean designed to be a 30 year wish list of pet projects, right?

I have a problem with selling it as a stimulus when it isn't. And we are in a severe recession, so doing an actual stimulus would probably be a good idea, right? More to the point, I have a problem with the democrats' 30 year wish list of pet projects!

There's a reason Obama's approval rating is dropping: campaign speeches don't work once you're President. Once you get into office, people expect you to actually do stuff. Relevant stuff, too.

 

[russ_watters]

On the other hand, those $3,000 (each) road signs have really given a boost to a few sign shops.

Gawd, that one really annoys me. They're basically campaign signs.

 

[russ_watters]

A job is a Job. - They're all temporary, they're all at will and they're all at the whims of the free market. The free market responds to government jobs just as much - if not more as it does to non government jobs.

That's a misunderstanding of economics. Much (most?) of the targeted stimulus money to date has been spent on road projects. Most of them are paving projects because paving projects require little in the way of design and thus provide an easy way to spend money quickly. This provided a bunch of jobs for laborers that will evaporate in 6 months. But most people hold on to their non-stimulus jobs for more than 6 months. This is a clear flaw in the functionality of the stimulus.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some news stations actually try to investigate and get both sides of the story before they actually publish it. Fox News for some reason doesn't believe in investigative journalism and refuses to show the other side of the story. Tape four shows a lady who says she murder her husband but did you know she was actually playing along because she thought it was all a joke?


Her husbands are actually alive but she lost her job because she thought it was all a joke. I have yet to see Fox News apologize to this lady for making her lose her job by not investigating the video before airing it. Let's also not forget that the videos are edit, it doesn't show her side of the story in which she claims she tried to turn them away but they were persistent.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160023

I listen to a Fox News affiliate (the reporters work for Fox). The day that they started reporting about the fourth video they were saying that she was reportedly only playing along and the next day even quoted her saying that she felt she needed to play along for fear of her safety. Also she is the only one who did not lose her job the last I heard.

If the FBI shouldn't investigate voter fraud allegations - in more than 1 state - who should?

ACORN prompted the investigation itself after finding irregularities in their voter registrations. Its not something that they tried to cover up though there may have been certain members of their organization that did try. They admitted that it may have a lot to do with the manner in which they pay their registration gatherers and that they are looking into means of preventing this in the future.

Yet more information I have gotten from a Fox News affiliate by the way.

 

[WhoWee]

ACORN prompted the investigation itself after finding irregularities in their voter registrations. Its not something that they tried to cover up though there may have been certain members of their organization that did try. They admitted that it may have a lot to do with the manner in which they pay their registration gatherers and that they are looking into means of preventing this in the future.

Yet more information I have gotten from a Fox News affiliate by the way.

Again, why wouldn't the FBI investigate a voter fraud allegation?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Again, why wouldn't the FBI investigate a voter fraud allegation?

Sorry, my response was more directed at the idea that having been under investigation over voter fraud is a mark against them.

 

[jambaugh]

By your very argument we could go tit for tat in what we believe is charity and what isn't but to me that totally ignores the real questions at hand of why the service is there, what the service is fulfilling and how we can better provide said services because obviously there is a need being filled and fighting about who pays for that is a backwards way of fixing the problem. I don't really see as simple as being a charity :)

I don't see that its that hard to define chairity. Did the person using a service pay the cost of that service either directly or indirectly or did they rely on the generosity of others? ACORN doesn't drive me to the polls. They didn't help me get a loan for my sister's house. I helped my sister buy her house... (that's charity).

Your list of "real questions" presuppose agreement on what services are needed and justified. I don't think proselytizing Christianity is a service that needs to be provided. I dare say the majority of people in my bible belt state disagree. If it weren't for the direct obvious unconstitutionality do you think my state legislators would hesitate to fund this "service"?

...With that said, i believe the "Charity" works even if it is taxes.. in one case it brings more businesses to our country and our communities through tax breaks, incentives and local development offerings and in other cases it keeps people off the streets or in this case gets them registered to vote.

"Works" in what sense? Has the welfare state worked? But say it works fine. I still ask the fundamental question... can you justify enforcing "charity" with violence? Because make no mistake. If I refuse to pay "my fair share" as decided by the majority then someone with a gun on his holster will come to cart me off to jail for tax evasion.

I'm not naive about government either.. my support of governance is not a support of draconian governance by any means.. i don't want to take logic out of the equation but i don't fundamentally associate government as illogical.. hard to explain but oh well ;)

Governance is one thing... "Thou shalt not burn down your neighbor's house because he plays his stereo too loud" is governance. But remember if people choose to obey a rule without government enforcement then there is no need for government involvement. If some fail to obey that rule then government ultimately must resort to threats of violence against someone. They could bribe me to follow some rule but they must extort money from you to pay that bribe. All governance is through FORCE.

This isn't evil it is just the nature of government. It is necessary to oppose violence with violence. In order to prevent lynch mobs and tit for tat vendetta murders and foreign invasion et al we form a governing body to adjudicate and punish individual acts of violence and defend individual civil liberties. Once that is decided we may argue as to its form. Once the government is in place we may also apply it to other issues, such as sharing risk and maintaining infrastructure.

But beware the slippery slope to tyranny. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship (though not as efficiently). If you don't believe that look at the treatment of blacks in the south after reconstruction. And the majority though they we being beneficently paternalistic toward an inferior race as they kept the black community disenfranchised.

So there.. i explained a little bit about my beliefs, explained that i felt your argument is mostly for the sake of argument itself rather then the sake of fixing the problem at hand and when it comes to fixing the problem at hand i feel the combined efforts of all people is better than pretending private interests have any concern other than themselves.

This confuses me. The private interests consists of the very same individuals as the voting public. How can the same people be both "concerned citizens acting through government" and "greedy private sector looking out for only themselves"?

Combining the efforts of many does not require government. Government is only needed if you want to force people to participate. You say combining the efforts of all people is better but that presupposes the endeavor is a good endeavor. Should those who do not so think be forced to participate? Is that right?
Or are you saying your ability to perceive the good is better than mine so you should force me to conform to your idea of public welfare?

But you have an opposite effect by involving government. The private individual can shrug off any conscience at participating in philanthropy... "I pay my taxes! Let the guvernment take care of 'em!" Cash channeled through government cannot have near the effect as one person helping another out by showing him how to get back on his feet. What's more you breed a whole subculture of individuals whose first reaction is to look to the government for assistance in bad times. When things get bad enough and government by its nature acts too slowly they have no instinct of self reliance. Take the case of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?

Look at the charitable giving of your "greedy" corporations. For that matter look at how much ACORN is funded by the private sector and volunteers. As far as "fixing the problem at hand" is concerned the private sector philanthropy can be freely innovative and is directly answerable to the individuals paying for it. The supporters support the effort because they believe and only so long as they believe it is worthy and effective.

But there is always going to be disagreement as to what really is a "problem" and what really is the right "solution" and which of many problems should have priority. When it comes to security and defense we haven't a choice. Our government cannot enforce its own laws unless it carries the biggest stick. (That cannot be handled through the private sector.) I just say it should use that stick to "break up fights" and not to whop people over the head because they haven't been "kind enough to their neighbors."

It is a fundamental moral question. It is wrong to throw a person in jail for not being generous. If I refuse to fund ACORN and I'm out voted then jail is my only other option. (Well there is the John Galt option.)

[EDIT: And by the way, I am not arguing for arguments sake. I think this specific issue is the biggest threat to individual civil liberties and the survival of our Nation than any other including terrorism. It is the literal "path to hell paved by good intentions". Look at the arguments to tax Soda...justified by the need to pay for socialized medicine and thus justified because of future cost to taxpayers. If that doesn't scare the beegeebies out of you then you are not paying attention to your government.]

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, my response was more directed at the idea that having been under investigation over voter fraud is a mark against them.

Well it certainly isn't a positive mark. They are responsible for the conduct of their workers and even if they reported fraud amonst their ranks, it is still their failure.

 

[byronm]

The growth of Acorn (and apparent transformation into an unmanageable mess) is a by-product of the need to throw money at problems - isn't it?

Not at all.. You're still debating the philosophy of money and not the utility of it.

The growth of ACORN is the by-product of ignoring the people that ACORN serves.

 

[byronm]

I don't see that its that hard to define chairity. Did the person using a service pay the cost of that service either directly or indirectly or did they rely on the generosity of others? ACORN doesn't drive me to the polls. They didn't help me get a loan for my sister's house. I helped my sister buy her house... (that's charity).

You're still stuck on defining tit for tat what you believe or don't believe charity is while ignoring what the purpose of ACORN is or ANY government program for that matter. I think its essential to help the poor as a society, not out of an act of charity, therefor having programs that help the under served participate in our democracy is important to our government and the very ideology of democracy itself.

Your list of "real questions" presuppose agreement on what services are needed and justified. I don't think proselytizing Christianity is a service that needs to be provided. I dare say the majority of people in my bible belt state disagree. If it weren't for the direct obvious unconstitutionality do you think my state legislators would hesitate to fund this "service"?

I don't agree with supporting religious groups through tax dollars at all and I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. That argument is entirely different than looking at social issues and solving them through tax payer dollars. I'd rather "throw money at a problem" then "throw god into it" :)

"Works" in what sense? Has the welfare state worked? But say it works fine. I still ask the fundamental question... can you justify enforcing "charity" with violence? Because make no mistake. If I refuse to pay "my fair share" as decided by the majority then someone with a gun on his holster will come to cart me off to jail for tax evasion.

I don't see government so black and white that welfare = charity and non welfare != charity. In fact for argument sake i say there is more risk in taxing the people for the military then there is risk in taxing people for the greater welfare of all. Why is it that people often equate welfare with an oppressive taxaction against will but the funding of military expenditures as a fair taxation at will? Which one is truly representative of the people and which one is representative of the state itself?

Governance is one thing... "Thou shalt not burn down your neighbor's house because he plays his stereo too loud" is governance. But remember if people choose to obey a rule without government enforcement then there is no need for government involvement. If some fail to obey that rule then government ultimately must resort to threats of violence against someone. They could bribe me to follow some rule but they must extort money from you to pay that bribe. All governance is through FORCE.

Governance isn't through force unless you make it that way. If you polarize yourself from the real issues at hand then that is something you are choosing to do.

This isn't evil it is just the nature of government. It is necessary to oppose violence with violence. In order to prevent lynch mobs and tit for tat vendetta murders and foreign invasion et al we form a governing body to adjudicate and punish individual acts of violence and defend individual civil liberties. Once that is decided we may argue as to its form. Once the government is in place we may also apply it to other issues, such as sharing risk and maintaining infrastructure.

To me, government is a civil service working issues that impact society. I think humanity is just as much a worthy cause as the "perceived violence" that you believe is a worthy cause. But once again.. we're fighting the philosophy of government and not the fact there are disenfranchised voters regardless of what we think the government should be.

 

[WhoWee]

The growth of ACORN is the by-product of ignoring the people that ACORN serves.

You really need to support this comment.

ACORN helps the disadvantaged - as do most Government welfare programs.

Are you claiming minorities and the poor don't receive Government aid in the areas of food, housing, medical care, education assistance, and even reverse discrimination by way of wage credits - tax incentives rewarding employers who hire minorities and welfare recipients?

Otherwise, you must mean that ACORN supports political candidates that are most likely to vote for Government spending programs? Please clarify and support your posts.

 

[Wax]

I listen to a Fox News affiliate (the reporters work for Fox). The day that they started reporting about the fourth video they were saying that she was reportedly only playing along and the next day even quoted her saying that she felt she needed to play along for fear of her safety. Also she is the only one who did not lose her job the last I heard.

CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.

 

[mheslep]

That's a misunderstanding of economics. Much (most?) of the targeted stimulus money to date has been spent on road projects. ...

Not sure what you wanted to exclude with 'targeted', but by far most of the spending so far has been in payments directly to state governments to keep them afloat, namely state Medicaid, unemployment assistance, health assistance for the unemployed. The the highway construction money spend appears to be only 2-5% of the total stimulus budget in 2009, and only 1/3 of the total $62B transportation money for all time will be spent by the close of 2010.

 

[WhoWee]

CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.

Has anyone found a link regarding this police report yet?

 

[WhoWee]

Not sure what you wanted to exclude with 'targeted', but by far most of the spending so far has been in payments directly to state governments to keep them afloat, namely state Medicaid, unemployment assistance, health assistance for the unemployed. The the highway construction money spend appears to be only 2-5% of the total stimulus budget in 2009, and only 1/3 of the total $62B transportation money for all time will be spent by the close of 2010.

Looks like payback more than stimulus.

 

[byronm]

You really need to support this comment.

ACORN helps the disadvantaged - as do most Government welfare programs.

Are you claiming minorities and the poor don't receive Government aid in the areas of food, housing, medical care, education assistance, and even reverse discrimination by way of wage credits - tax incentives rewarding employers who hire minorities and welfare recipients?

Otherwise, you must mean that ACORN supports political candidates that are most likely to vote for Government spending programs? Please clarify and support your posts.

When you frame the debate so its not about the issue that ACORN is trying to resolve there is no debate, it becomes a political fiasco and nothing I can say will change your mind or appease your views anyway. You still call it welfare and that's how you see the world.

If there was no demand for ACORN they wouldn't exist. I think a bigger issue you fail to recognize is that this would be a non issue if the republicans reached out to these disenfranchised people in a way that didn't belittle them. Instead of fixing the problem of voters who can't vote you're going around and calling them welfare families..

 

[WhoWee]

When you frame the debate so its not about the issue that ACORN is trying to resolve there is no debate, it becomes a political fiasco and nothing I can say will change your mind or appease your views anyway. You still call it welfare and that's how you see the world.

If there was no demand for ACORN they wouldn't exist. I think a bigger issue you fail to recognize is that this would be a non issue if the republicans reached out to these disenfranchised people in a way that didn't belittle them. Instead of fixing the problem of voters who can't vote you're going around and calling them welfare families..

I'm not framing the debate. I'm asking you to support your comments as per the PF rules.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm still trying to find Small Business Administration funding on the chart - or ANYTHING that stimulates the investment of property, plant, and equipment in the private sector. I'm also surprised at the relative neglect of Homeland Security.

 

[byronm]

I'm not framing the debate. I'm asking you to support your comments as per the PF rules.

Yes you are framing the debate. I'm making the case for ACORN keeping government funding and why i believe that way. You're making the case that acorn is welfare and how welfare is bad.

If republicans who are against ACORN for political reasons had a GOTV effort that targeted the disenfranchised lower class would we have this discussion right now? My statement above is a personal opinion but here you want me to quantify it as truth and truth be told that discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand. Thats what I'm trying to get to.

 

[byronm]

I'm still trying to find Small Business Administration funding on the chart - or ANYTHING that stimulates the investment of property, plant, and equipment in the private sector. I'm also surprised at the relative neglect of Homeland Security.

Perhaps this belonged in the other thread we're debating in ;)

 

[WhoWee]

Yes you are framing the debate. I'm making the case for ACORN keeping government funding and why i believe that way. You're making the case that acorn is welfare and how welfare is bad.

If republicans who are against ACORN for political reasons had a GOTV effort that targeted the disenfranchised lower class would we have this discussion right now? My statement above is a personal opinion but here you want me to quantify it as truth and truth be told that discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand. Thats what I'm trying to get to.

Please be clear when posting opinions. Again, check out the rule book.