Of course not, but the people without the required ID tend to be poor and minorities. Those people tend to vote Democratic.

 

Isn't that profiling?

To explore the original question - 'why does the race card get played so much'. It seems understanding the background of some of the key players would good.

 

Valierie Jarrett

 

Her grand father was the first black Housing Authority chairman in Chicago. But his ideas and plans of integrated housing by spreading public housing works around Chicago was rejected by the Chicago council. This caused him to resign. He later built massive housing complexes that were originally thought to be the future but then became icons for the failure of hyper dense urban housing.

 

Certainly the public battles of her grandfather would shape Ms. Jarrett's views.

 

My Left Wing:: So Just Who Is Valerie Jarrett?

 

 

Michelle Roberts Obama

 

She basically grew up in Jessie Jackson's house. Jackson's anger at the establishment is obvious at times. He was there when Martin Luther King was killed. He carries deep scars of the 1960s race battles.

 

 

So as much as we would like to move on to post-race America. The two women closest to Obama and who have enormous power in this administration are no really post-race America children. They are direct decedents in a way of people who were in the midst of the 1950s and 1960s bitter race fights. These have likely shaped some of the thinking inside this administration.

 

It was very insightful, but if they can not move on and see how change has taken place and keep working to improve relations then these bitter women have no place in politics. To end racism, you cant be racist. Those two apparently are.

Insulting? Not really. I don't want to believe that is the motivation behind the Voter ID push but I don't find differing statements and beliefs about Voter ID insulting.

 

 

So if I said that those opposed to tougher voting laws actually really didn't cared at all about blacks, latinos and the poor having a right to vote and that those opposed to tougher voting laws were just a bunch of stupid, duped, partisan political hacks wanting to take advantage of blacks, latinos and the poor so President Obama can get re-elected, that wouldn't insulting to those actually opposed to tougher voting laws on constitutional grounds? Okay. Sure.

 

And what I find particularly insightful is of all the points I made in my post, you responded to that point which is really irrelevant to the issue being discussed. There are times I get extremely frustrated with this forum. It is NOT because there are opinions different than mine. I actually appreciate (and learn from) well thought out and insightful posts providing a different perspective, although they come from a very limited number of posters such as Habib, GetSlow and True Blue.

 

You want to know why we have a mess in DC; look no further than this forum.

 

And someone will probably respond this post by saying I shouldn't read this forum if it frustrates me (thus not addressing the real point of the post).

Contrary to the extremely insulting comments made by some on here about the motivation for the tougher voting laws, I'm not in favor of tougher voting laws to discriminate against the poor, the homeless, blacks or latinos.

 

And I'm not going to suggest that you are. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the intentions of those pursuing voter ID laws is irrelevant. What I'm concerned with are results. Regardless of what candidates or parties they're going to support, I'm having real difficulty with putting into place additional hurdles to participation in the process of governance for those who are least equipped to deal with those hurdles.

 

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not against these proposals to make sure everyone's vote counts and counts fairly, but I have concerns. We're sort of jacking the thread here so maybe we'll move this to the other one.

And I'm not going to suggest that you are. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the intentions of those pursuing voter ID laws is irrelevant. What I'm concerned with are results. Regardless of what candidates or parties they're going to support, I'm having real difficulty with putting into place additional hurdles to participation in the process of governance for those who are least equipped to deal with those hurdles.

 

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not against these proposals to make sure everyone's vote counts and counts fairly, but I have concerns. We're sort of jacking the thread here so maybe we'll move this to the other one.

 

Agree

Of course not, but the people without the required ID tend to be poor and minorities. Those people tend to vote Democratic.

 

Are there no poor or minority people who vote Republican or Independent?

 

Are there no poor or minority people who vote Republican or Independent?

 

I'm a woman of modest means that votes Independent. Do I count?

Are there no poor or minority people who vote Republican or Independent?

 

Do you grasp the concept of the word "Tend?"

There's a catchphrase that's been going around for some time now.

 

"They don't vote for us anyway."

I have always thought the numbers were correct. The stories behind the numbers are what ends up being slanted and flawed.

 

Could be, I think the problem is that it's not hard to find some statistic that supports their agenda, whatever that may be on that particular day.

Do you grasp the concept of the word "Tend?"

 

I know what tend means, does there tend to be poor whites and minorities who vote republican.

The sad thing is that even if it was 100% guaranteed that a new President would get us out of the economic crisis we are in, the blacks would still vote for Obama just because he is black.

So if I said that those opposed to tougher voting laws actually really didn't cared at all about blacks, latinos and the poor having a right to vote and that those opposed to tougher voting laws were just a bunch of stupid, duped, partisan political hacks wanting to take advantage of blacks, latinos and the poor so President Obama can get re-elected, that wouldn't insulting to those actually opposed to tougher voting laws on constitutional grounds? Okay. Sure.

 

I thought when you were mentioning insulting statements you were talking about things posters said in this thread. Once you made it clear that you weren't talking about this thread then I further understood your point and then I made what I felt was an appropriate and respectful reply. My apologies if it wasn't.

 

 

And what I find particularly insightful is of all the points I made in my post, you responded to that point which is really irrelevant to the issue being discussed. There are times I get extremely frustrated with this forum. It is NOT because there are opinions different than mine. I actually appreciate (and learn from) well thought out and insightful posts providing a different perspective, although they come from a very limited number of posters such as Habib, GetSlow and True Blue.

 

 

Forgive me. This thread was initially a 'why does Obama play the race card thread' and I tried to stick to the topic. When you made posts I responded searching for understanding. I apologize for not having the politcally sophisticated minds of True Blue, Habib and Getslow. I can only be me and I have tried respond to you in earnest searching for understanding. I apologize if you feel I respond to you in an antagonizing manner. That is not my intent. My apologies.