Race

[Guest]

I happen to be home quite a bit now and for a bit helping out my wife, and thus have more time than usual to be on here.

I enjoy conversation on issues but really like it to be based on FACTS. I also like to get right to it...meaning, I hate the tip toeing around things but that does not mean that I encourage rudeness or lying. I would love to discuss this issue of RACE just to get some idea of WHY certain folks feel they way they do and what is it actually based on.

Today, Hillary Clinton brought it up, and that got me thinking so I will use her justification to kick it off a bit.

She spoke of certain voters id laws and called them racist.

Ok....I do not see it as racist at all. I see a difference of opinion on how much identification should be required to vote. I do not see how it becomes racist.

I hear what those who think it is racist are saying but that is from them. They are inserting race into it, are they not.

IS NO IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO THINK THIS IS RACIST ?

IF THE LAW SAID NO IDENTIFICATION IS REQUIRED WOULD THE CRY OF RACISM GO AWAY ?

IS THERE A MIDDLE AREA ON IDENTIFICATION WHERE THE CRIES OF RACISM WILL GO AWAY ?

Just curious on ONLY this part of race. So many others but I think parsing them is better than just a bunch of posts on race in general, so please keep your posts to the point of voter registration and then we can move on but for now, that is the subject of this thread.

VOTER REGISTRATION AND WHY IS IT RACIST AND WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST TO GET AROUND IT ?

[Guest]

The problem is not racist. I have had to show drivers license to vote most of my life.
It has become a race issue by special interest and minorities that want to be able to stuff the ballot box.

Nothing more.
There is no issue with the legitimately registered majority.
BS politics!

[Guest]

The problem is not racist. I have had to show drivers license to vote most of my life.
It has become a race issue by special interest and minorities that want to be able to stuff the ballot box.

Nothing more.
There is no issue with the legitimately registered majority.
BS politics!

I happen to agree with you but really want to hear from those who feel that asking for an identification is racist at its core.

And I ask those who feel that way to please do not share the tweets or little blurbs you have heard but what you actually feel in your heart.

And remember, I asked a few questions and hope you take the time to respond to them. I am always criticized for using links, but I read a lot..I mean a lot but I promise I will not in this thread and if it goes well in subsequent threads. BUT no quipping or smarta$$ remarks....opinions from your heart and why.

Thanks and I am not picking an argument.....I almost should promise not to rebut those who feel differently than I and I will just try and ask questions to make sure I understand

[Guest]

A day or two ago, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a major portion of the Texas law that requires certain state issued ID in order to vote. They said it violated Part 2 of the Voting Rights Law. It obviously was a decision that took a lot of time and work. It was a 49 page decision.

Federal law trumps state law - especially in voting cases.

[Guest]

If you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote and ID is required to register, and you receiver a voter registration card, then what is wrong with asking for THE VOTER REGISTRATION card to be presented when voting? I don't expect an answer, it was a rhetorical question.
According to the liberal way of thinking, it is wrong to ask for ID when voting. Therefore, it is wrong to ask for ID when purchasing liquor, prescription drugs, welfare checks and food stamps and airline tickets when flying. Heck, it must be wrong to ask for a passport when traveling in and out of the country.

It's racist to ask, because everyone knows that minorities don't have ID.

[Guest]

According to liberals, asking for some form of ID when voting, is "disenfranchising" the blacks. How come the blacks don't take offense to that kind of speech coming from the left? Why would the left want to demean the blacks with that kind of talk?

It's all politics. Clinton can't run on her own policies so she has to make up lies and throw mud. Hillary has no wish to improve America, just exploit it for power and her own avarice.

[Guest]

Does no ID policy would imply that anybody could go in and vote for anybody else?

Does anybody really believe the voter ID requirement was purposefully aimed at denying any legally registered voter the right to vote?

Any more than having to show an ID for the many other things we encounter in a day in our lives.

Political BS!

[Guest]

If you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote and ID is required to register, and you receiver a voter registration card, then what is wrong with asking for THE VOTER REGISTRATION card to be presented when voting? I don't expect an answer, it was a rhetorical question.
According to the liberal way of thinking, it is wrong to ask for ID when voting. Therefore, it is wrong to ask for ID when purchasing liquor, prescription drugs, welfare checks and food stamps and airline tickets when flying. Heck, it must be wrong to ask for a passport when traveling in and out of the country.

It's racist to ask, because everyone knows that minorities don't have ID.

IF you actually read the ruling beyond the headlines, you will find that the court simply criticized ONE SMALL part of the voter id law concerning photo id and that was it.

The judge must now reopen the case in her Corpus Christi court, and fashion a specific legal remedy for that violation.

From the Supreme Court blog...

"The judge should not issue a remedy order that is broader than the need to remedy the specific violation. It suggested several ways that such an order might be written that would leave Texas free to continue to enforce some form of photo identification requirement."

So, it is not as dramatic as the media is making out.

Most importantly as relates to this specific thread...

"The Fifth Circuit rejected her conclusion that the legislature had passed the law with a specific discriminatory purpose. "

So this is not as big a deal as is being made.

I am sorry...I said no links but I am not a lawyer so had to research and for those interested...

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/08/texas-voter-id-law-ruled-invalid-in-part-2/)

[Guest]

There is no problem in asking for an ID at the polls. However, the people that are currently being targeted generally don't vote for Republicans. The voter id laws that are being changed are in Republican controlled states. The people that generally don't have a drivers license are inner city blacks. It might not be racism, but it is sure as hell targeting people that usually don't vote for you.

The 2002 Help America Vote act allowed for driver's licenses, but also the last four digits of your Social Security number. I don't know many people that don't know the last four digits of their SS number. Why was it necessary to change this law?

As soon as the Federal Preclearance law was ruled by the Supreme Court as not necessary any more, Southern states couldn't have run any faster to change their voter id laws. Surprise! Surprise! The people, that are now being targeted, are people that don't generally vote for them. For a party that always hails the Constitution, which they should, certainly don't think that much of the right to vote for people that don't agree with them. Racist or not, this is a fact. Texas tried to push accepting a gun owner's picture ID, but not a student's picture ID. Say what!

What is worse being called a racist, or being called un-American? One more time, when the Penn. leader of the their house said upon changing the voter id laws, "we just gave Penn to Romney." How can anyone defend what they did? According to Wikipedia, this is what they did, and how the court acted.

Pennsylvania's voter ID law allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).[21] A judicial order on October 2, 2012 blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters on January 17, 2014. Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are open only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".[22] Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.[23]

[Guest]

There is no problem in asking for an ID at the polls. However, the people that are currently being targeted generally don't vote for Republicans. The voter id laws that are being changed are in Republican controlled states. The people that generally don't have a drivers license are inner city blacks. It might not be racism, but it is sure as hell targeting people that usually don't vote for you.

The 2002 Help America Vote act allowed for driver's licenses, but also the last four digits of your Social Security number. I don't know many people that don't know the last four digits of their SS number. Why was it necessary to change this law?

As soon as the Federal Preclearance law was ruled by the Supreme Court as not necessary any more, Southern states couldn't have run any faster to change their voter id laws. Surprise! Surprise! The people, that are now being targeted, are people that don't generally vote for them. For a party that always hails the Constitution, which they should, certainly don't think that much of the right to vote for people that don't agree with them. Racist or not, this is a fact. Texas tried to push accepting a gun owner's picture ID, but not a student's picture ID. Say what!

What is worse being called a racist, or being called un-American? One more time, when the Penn. leader of the their house said upon changing the voter id laws, "we just gave Penn to Romney." How can anyone defend what they did? According to Wikipedia, this is what they did, and how the court acted.

Pennsylvania's voter ID law allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).[21] A judicial order on October 2, 2012 blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters on January 17, 2014. Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are open only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".[22] Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.[23]


First, as relates to this thread, race was never mentioned in any decision. The only mention of race was by the media and politicians.

Now, voter id has been upheld by the Supreme Court as in an Indiana case. At some point all of these laws will make their way once again to the Supreme Court

But again, the only mention of race comes from politicians and the media interviewing politicians.

By the way the comment you cite about "giving the state to Romney" simply plays into what politicians want.....the comments was obviously because it was a Republican backed bill and the Democrats made an great racial issue of it during the campaign.

[Guest]

First, as relates to this thread, race was never mentioned in any decision. The only mention of race was by the media and politicians.

Now, voter id has been upheld by the Supreme Court as in an Indiana case. At some point all of these laws will make their way once again to the Supreme Court

But again, the only mention of race comes from politicians and the media interviewing politicians.

By the way the comment you cite about "giving the state to Romney" simply plays into what politicians want.....the comments was obviously because it was a Republican backed bill and the Democrats made an great racial issue of it during the campaign.


Perhaps this was the reason Romney thought he would win in PA right up until election night, when it was determined Obama had won PA by five percentage points.

These new laws passed by republican legislatures have not worked. Giving the appearance of restricting voter's rights only drives more people to the polls.

[Guest]

Perhaps this was the reason Romney thought he would win in PA right up until election night, when it was determined Obama had won PA by five percentage points.

These new laws passed by republican legislatures have not worked. Giving the appearance of restricting voter's rights only drives more people to the polls.

How does requiring identification "restrict" voters' rights? The law states that you MUST be a citizen. How does one determine that requirement? The honor system????

[Guest]

Why don't these poor inner city minorities that have been disenfranchised, just use the same I.D. that they use to sign up for and collect public assistance?

[Guest]

How does requiring identification "restrict" voters' rights? The law states that you MUST be a citizen. How does one determine that requirement? The honor system????

Read some of the court decisions that overturned these state legislatures for the answer to your questions, including the case in Pennsylvania.

[Guest]

It is really hard to discuss this thread. When common sense, logic, and the words right out of the speaker of Penn. house are thrown aside, you have a one sided discussion. That is not uncommon here, but it doesn't make it right.

The 2002 Help American Vote Act accepted a social security number to be used as an acceptable id at the voting booth. If it was good then, when "W" was president, why not now?

Concerning the public assistance comment, that doesn't sound like targeting. We know what that sounds like. From that comment, it appears that inner city blacks don't have jobs. We are back to the welfare moms. They take the bus or walk to work. Given the automobile insurance rates for inner city people, public transportation makes total sense. Maybe just maybe, they can't afford a car!

Given what is going on about voter id laws, and Gerrymandering, the federal government may have to step in, and correct these situations. States lose their rights, when they abuse their powers.

How about doing something totally out of character, winning on a level playing field?

[Guest]

Liberals believe that poor blacks don't have ID's so they would be disenfranchised if required to prove who they are when voting. Sounds kind of racist to me. And, it is obvious that liberals believe they have the "franchise" on the black vote. I mean, otherwise what would be the reasoning behind the idea that anyone wouldn't have some form of ID? Nope, no matter what they say, they are afraid that their party is doing something illegal like stuffing the ballot boxes with fictitious or illegal votes. They try to claim that there is no evidence of voter fraud....and continue to shout that even when presented with facts. Now, we have over 14 million illegals in the country and liberals are not worried about them attempting to vote illegally. After all, they wouldn't do anything illegal, would they?

[Guest]

Read some of the court decisions that overturned these state legislatures for the answer to your questions, including the case in Pennsylvania.

Ya just gotta love the way some folks will finese not knowing the answer to the question.

Do you not know or have an opinion how showing ID at the polls restricts their rights/infringes on what ever?

These same folks have to present an ID when they go on welfare! Collect and use food stamps? Depending what state they are in they have to show ID to buy booze! Or cigarettes.

Why are none of these requirements to show ID an infringement as well.

Please, if you don't know.....give us YOUR opinion.

[Guest]

It is really hard to discuss this thread. When common sense, logic, and the words right out of the speaker of Penn. house are thrown aside, you have a one sided discussion. That is not uncommon here, but it doesn't make it right.

The 2002 Help American Vote Act accepted a social security number to be used as an acceptable id at the voting booth. If it was good then, when "W" was president, why not now?

Concerning the public assistance comment, that doesn't sound like targeting. We know what that sounds like. From that comment, it appears that inner city blacks don't have jobs. We are back to the welfare moms. They take the bus or walk to work. Given the automobile insurance rates for inner city people, public transportation makes total sense. Maybe just maybe, they can't afford a car!

Given what is going on about voter id laws, and Gerrymandering, the federal government may have to step in, and correct these situations. States lose their rights, when they abuse their powers.

How about doing something totally out of character, winning on a level playing field?


As the OP of this thread, I have to object.

You, on a few seperate posts are doing you darn best to make this some kind of political debate, and that was not the intent of the thread. If you wish a thread to bash Republicans, I suggest you start your own.

I have read about bot Texas and Pennsylvania, and in both cases the courts have not objected to voter id in principle. Most of this stems from availability to some and/or details within what the state has done.

The Indiana case which went to the Supreme Court and was upheld seems to fir what is being expected by the law.

Bottom line to this thread is that race was not mentioned by anyone but one political party, a few organizations.

Fact is in Pennsylvania they specifically mentioned availability of state dis to informed and elderly.

So in the process of the law, which is our countries foundation, it appears this requirement for voter id is acceptable and the nuances need to be worked out as is the case with many new laws.

This entire movement, which admittedly was primarily from the right is prompted by the advance in technology, the number of illigal immigrants, etc.

But for purposes of this thread objective, minorities are ONLY mentioned in a political sense, race is mentioned only by political entities, but if all of us were black or all of us were white, the idea of voter id seems to fly with the courts and the law, except as I said, the availability of some state IDs. Seems using the Indiana law might work and it is strict and has passed all the court challenges.

Keep in mind there has been this movement since about 1950, and it really never got a foothold until the 2000 election when people realized suddenly that one vote could matter.

That plus our advanced technology and immigration mess put this on the front burner.

But again, to the thread title and purpose, it appears from reading all the court decisions, and the laws, the only mention of race is from those who ignore the basic reason and use it as a political tool.

[Guest]

I must tell you that I do not type well, and when using an iPad, I am dangerous.

My post above has this sentence...

"Fact is in Pennsylvania they specifically mentioned availability of state dis to informed and elderly."

It is supposed to say

"Fact is in Pennsylvania they specifically mentioned availability of state id s to infirmed and elderly."

I must admit, I smiled when I realized I had INFORMED instead of Infirmed

Is that a Freudian slip or like Dr Carsons little remark on lobotomy's in DC ?

[Guest]

Ya just gotta love the way some folks will finese not knowing the answer to the question.

Do you not know or have an opinion how showing ID at the polls restricts their rights/infringes on what ever?

These same folks have to present an ID when they go on welfare! Collect and use food stamps? Depending what state they are in they have to show ID to buy booze! Or cigarettes.

Why are none of these requirements to show ID an infringement as well.

Please, if you don't know.....give us YOUR opinion.


Neither collecting welfare, or collecting food stamps, or buying booze, or buying cigarettes, or boarding an airplane is a constitutional right. The right to vote is a constitutional right.

It is rather ironical that the constitution-loving party who supports the first amendment, second amendment and all other amendments, doesn't seem to mind if qualified voters get denied the right to vote.

The obvious solution to this situation is a national voter ID made available to all eligible voters. This should not be that difficult in this high-tech age.

[Guest]

Neither collecting welfare, or collecting food stamps, or buying booze, or buying cigarettes, or boarding an airplane is a constitutional right. The right to vote is a constitutional right.

It is rather ironical that the constitution-loving party who supports the first amendment, second amendment and all other amendments, doesn't seem to mind if qualified voters get denied the right to vote.

The obvious solution to this situation is a national voter ID made available to all eligible voters. This should not be that difficult in this high-tech age.

Again with the PARTY crap.

First, a national id card for voting in what is a state run function might cause a problem,

Why is everything about some political party.

Voter id is not a bad thing....courts agree. Does it need refining...sure. Could it end up being national id..maybe/

BUT FOR everyones sake get off the Party rhetoric. Nobody is denying anyone anything even the big bad terrible awful Republican party as you present it.

Seems every post you make goes right to jumping on the Republican party

Well, this thread was about race and voter id and I think most kept in where it was meant to be except for you. Have a nice day and again....

if you wish to thrash the Republican party, start your OWN thread !

[Guest]

The OP seeks a logical discussion on the issue of race as it relates to the Voter ID issue. However the subject matter is an oxymoron and hence any logical discussion is going to end up be confronted with circular thinking because the push by progressives to halt Voter ID is to commit voter fraud and there have been many examples of where people have admitted to voting more than once or illegals paid to vote for a certain candidate.

Summary how can you have an honest debate on this subject when progressives have been less than honest in its application. Its an exercise in futility to debate progressives because you are going to get one word answers "racist" " homophobic" or cause them trauma by addressing trigger warnings or micro aggressions....or like we use to say before political correctness, "its like talking to a drunk"

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

We all assume this voter ID issue is race based, but now I'm wondering about the folks living in the hills of Appalachia. Don't even know if they vote, but if they do wouldn't they be faced with the same dilemma of getting an ID. Why can't the polling places set up several times a year to provide IDs. If they can get to the polls to vote they can there to get an ID. As a matter of fact many of the black inner-city communities provide rides to the polls - why not rides to get an ID? It can be done if required.

[Guest]

We all assume this voter ID issue is race based, but now I'm wondering about the folks living in the hills of Appalachia. Don't even know if they vote, but if they do wouldn't they be faced with the same dilemma of getting an ID. Why can't the polling places set up several times a year to provide IDs. If they can get to the polls to vote they can there to get an ID. As a matter of fact many of the black inner-city communities provide rides to the polls - why not rides to get an ID? It can be done if required.

Doesn't every state have a voter registration card? And don't you have to show identification to get it?

[Guest]

Doesn't every state have a voter registration card? And don't you have to show identification to get it?

REGISTERING is not the problem.

VOTING is the problem

[Guest]

REGISTERING is not the problem.

VOTING is the problem

Did I not make it simple enough? What is the purpose of a voter registration card? Can it not be used as a voter ID card? Put a photo on it and it should work pretty good. Just a thought.

[Guest]

"W" did a five year analysis of voter fraud, and found there was next to no voter fraud. Very few people have been convicted of voter fraud. One number that was thrown out there was 350+ a little cases of voter fraud in the ten billion votes cast.

In a Fox interview with a So. Carolina official, it was stated that 20,000 (do know the exact number) people were registered at two addresses. The Fox interviewer never asked the next most logical question, "how many of these people voted twice?" The state knew that these people were register in two places. How could not know, if these people voted twice?

Somebody here asked why didn't the blacks use the id that they used, when they applied for welfare? Funny you should ask! The ids that you need when applying for welfare are drivers license, library card, and voter id card. You also have to show your social security card. "W"'s Help America Vote Act allowed voters to use their social security card at the polling booth. What is wrong with showing your Social Security Card on election day?

Does anybody here think that any Republican official is going to admit that new voter id law in their state was directed at race? Of course, one party is going to bring up race, and the other isn't. You still can't dance away from the just plain stupid comment the Speaker of the Penn. House stated.

Here is a novel idea try getting black, and Hispanic votes instead of doing everything possible to make sure that they don't vote.

National voter id in this high-tech age. Now, you are talking about a hacker's dream. Russian, and Chinese hackers could screw up our election process, and sit back and really laugh at us.

[Guest]

Did I not make it simple enough? What is the purpose of a voter registration card? Can it not be used as a voter ID card? Put a photo on it and it should work pretty good. Just a thought.

I apologize. I totally misunderstood.

Sounds logical to me for sure. Actually, it is so logical there must be an illogical reason that states do not do this !1

[Guest]

I apologize. I totally misunderstood.

Sounds logical to me for sure. Actually, it is so logical there must be an illogical reason that states do not do this !1

No apology warranted. I did not make myself understood. :coolsmiley:

[Guest]

"W" did a five year analysis of voter fraud, and found there was next to no voter fraud. Very few people have been convicted of voter fraud. One number that was thrown out there was 350+ a little cases of voter fraud in the ten billion votes cast.

In a Fox interview with a So. Carolina official, it was stated that 20,000 (do know the exact number) people were registered at two addresses. The Fox interviewer never asked the next most logical question, "how many of these people voted twice?" The state knew that these people were register in two places. How could not know, if these people voted twice?

Somebody here asked why didn't the blacks use the id that they used, when they applied for welfare? Funny you should ask! The ids that you need when applying for welfare are drivers license, library card, and voter id card. You also have to show your social security card. "W"'s Help America Vote Act allowed voters to use their social security card at the polling booth. What is wrong with showing your Social Security Card on election day?

Does anybody here think that any Republican official is going to admit that new voter id law in their state was directed at race? Of course, one party is going to bring up race, and the other isn't. You still can't dance away from the just plain stupid comment the Speaker of the Penn. House stated.

Here is a novel idea try getting black, and Hispanic votes instead of doing everything possible to make sure that they don't vote.

National voter id in this high-tech age. Now, you are talking about a hacker's dream. Russian, and Chinese hackers could screw up our election process, and sit back and really laugh at us.

So, you insist on making this racist? Typical liberal rhetoric. You are saying that blacks and hispanics don't have an ID. That's racist any way you look at it. That's the same as saying they are stupid and poor. Racist.

It's kind of hard to prove voter fraud when there is no voter ID. Got it? Yes, there are folks all over the country that have more than one state voter registration. I know one guy in NC that voted twice. Once for his father that was bedridden. His father is a different party. Don't try to say it isn't so. Just because you deny something out of ignorance, doesn't make it factual. Even IF/IF there isn't any voter fraud (which is a ludicrous fantasy) then having a voter ID would hurt absolutely nothing. There is no voter in America that couldn't come up with a picture ID. Trying to push this thing about someone not having a birth certificate is stupid to put it mildly. Kind of like saying only one home out of a hundred thousand is a victim of burglary. Yet we still have locks on our doors. Nothing wrong with being careful. Unless, you are the liberal, I mean burglar. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

"W" did a five year analysis of voter fraud, and found there was next to no voter fraud. Very few people have been convicted of voter fraud. One number that was thrown out there was 350+ a little cases of voter fraud in the ten billion votes cast.

In a Fox interview with a So. Carolina official, it was stated that 20,000 (do know the exact number) people were registered at two addresses. The Fox interviewer never asked the next most logical question, "how many of these people voted twice?" The state knew that these people were register in two places. How could not know, if these people voted twice?

Somebody here asked why didn't the blacks use the id that they used, when they applied for welfare? Funny you should ask! The ids that you need when applying for welfare are drivers license, library card, and voter id card. You also have to show your social security card. "W"'s Help America Vote Act allowed voters to use their social security card at the polling booth. What is wrong with showing your Social Security Card on election day?

Does anybody here think that any Republican official is going to admit that new voter id law in their state was directed at race? Of course, one party is going to bring up race, and the other isn't. You still can't dance away from the just plain stupid comment the Speaker of the Penn. House stated.

Here is a novel idea try getting black, and Hispanic votes instead of doing everything possible to make sure that they don't vote.

National voter id in this high-tech age. Now, you are talking about a hacker's dream. Russian, and Chinese hackers could screw up our election process, and sit back and really laugh at us.

If you read all of the court rulings on voter id requirements from all of the states, you will find that the courts do not disagree with the idea of requiring voter id, simply in some cases problems with the methodology. Example, in Pennsylvania the court did not feel that the state id card was easy enough to secure for disabled and informed voters. It had nothing to do with race in any of these states.

Race in this issue is a very very made up political ploy. All states and there are 34 of them now who require this id, have all adjusted to each court ruling to make it easier to get the id.

As a result of starting this thread, I made it a point to read the court rulings, the historic aspects, the fears, etc.

This is a political issue for those who wish to make one of it....IN REALITY there are no race issues here and that was never the intent going way back.

Using this as a political issue to call those who support identification for one of our most cherished rights is just plain wrong and a terribly false narratives.

What I think is racist after doing my reading is that one party tells the blacks of this country that they are being picked on instead of addressing the issues confronting those of black skin.

The issues that are specific to race are not being addressed and my next thread will be about race and crime.. THAT needs addressing on both sides without considering anything but United States Law.

[Guest]

If you read all of the court rulings on voter id requirements from all of the states, you will find that the courts do not disagree with the idea of requiring voter id, simply in some cases problems with the methodology. Example, in Pennsylvania the court did not feel that the state id card was easy enough to secure for disabled and informed voters. It had nothing to do with race in any of these states.

Race in this issue is a very very made up political ploy. All states and there are 34 of them now who require this id, have all adjusted to each court ruling to make it easier to get the id.

As a result of starting this thread, I made it a point to read the court rulings, the historic aspects, the fears, etc.

This is a political issue for those who wish to make one of it....IN REALITY there are no race issues here and that was never the intent going way back.

Using this as a political issue to call those who support identification for one of our most cherished rights is just plain wrong and a terribly false narratives.

What I think is racist after doing my reading is that one party tells the blacks of this country that they are being picked on instead of addressing the issues confronting those of black skin.

The issues that are specific to race are not being addressed and my next thread will be about race and crime.. THAT needs addressing on both sides without considering anything but United States Law.

I did it again...and it is now becoming less funny....

The sentence in my post above that says "did not feel that the state id card was easy enough to secure for disabled and informed voters."

Is supposed to be...."did not feel that the state id card was easy enough to secure for disabled and infirmed voters."

I don't know what to say except I never said I was smart, could type or in this case understand irony !!

[Guest]

Strict photo ID in effect: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. In addition, North Carolina and Wisconsin have strict photo ID laws that are not yet in effect. What changes did these states make to make it easier to get a photo ID?

Photo ID in effect: Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

Strict non-photo ID in effect: Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio.

Non-photo ID in effect: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

No ID required at polling place: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. do not require ID to vote

30 states plus DC do not require photo id to vote.

In Pennsylvania the court did not feel that the state id card was easy enough to secure for disabled and infirmed voters. It had nothing to do with race in any of these states. If disabled, and infirmed voters weren't allowed to vote by the voter ID law, Penn. would have swung to Romney. That is what the Speaker of Penn. house had in mind, when he made the Romney comment. That is truly unbelievable.

Thank you for pointing out the typing error. That truly went over my head. I copied that sentence and originally typed "informed (?)" in my response. I am laughing at myself.