Driving is privilege walking down the sidewalk is a right. One should not need ID to walk down the sidewalk.

Hey, I agree with you on this one. Does the law? Do the police? I dunno. I guess it depends on the jurisdiction.

The inconsistency is that voting is a right not a privilege.

But it is not an inconsistency. Everyone has a right to walk down a public sidewalk. Not everyone has a right to vote.

Are you a citizen? Non-citizens have no right to vote.

Are you of age? Under-18s have no right to vote.

Have you lost the right to vote for any number of reasons? For instance, convicted felons lose their right to vote unless/until they get it in writing from the Government that they can vote again.

Have you personally already voted in that particular election? You only get to vote ONCE per election.

Walking down a public sidewalk is a universal right that can be exercised at will.

Voting is NOT.

Driving is privilege walking down the sidewalk is a right. One should not need ID to walk down the sidewalk.

Hey, I agree with you on this one. Does the law? Do the police? I dunno. I guess it depends on the jurisdiction.

The inconsistency is that voting is a right not a privilege.

---

Driving is privilege walking down the sidewalk is a right. One should not need ID to walk down the sidewalk.

Hey, I agree with you on this one. Does the law? Do the police? I dunno. I guess it depends on the jurisdiction.

Driving is privilege walking down the sidewalk is a right. One should not need ID to walk down the sidewalk.

---

If you are stopped by the Police, the FIRST thing they are going to ask you is to see your identification. Doesn't matter who you are. Doesn't matter what color your skin is or what gender you appear to be. Everyone has to show it. Is this racist?

No where in my 68 years in this country have I been told I must carry ID to walk down the sidewalk or go jogging. I do carry ID but in my younger days when I was a runner I never took my wallet with me. What I understand you are saying is in your state I would have been a criminal.

Thats a grey area. I was talking about 'stopped while driving'. Now, you ARE required to identify yourself when requested by the police. Some people understand that to mean just stating your name. I feel this way but carry my DL with me at all times when outside my house just to be sure. Some other people feel it means producing a DL/ID card. It is a legal issue, last I heard. But when driving a car? Law requires you to have your DL on your person at ALL times when driving and to furnish it to a Police Officer upon their request.

If you are stopped by the Police, the FIRST thing they are going to ask you is to see your identification. Doesn't matter who you are. Doesn't matter what color your skin is or what gender you appear to be. Everyone has to show it. Is this racist?

No where in my 68 years in this country have I been told I must carry ID to walk down the sidewalk or go jogging. I do carry ID but in my younger days when I was a runner I never took my wallet with me. What I understand you are saying is in your state I would have been a criminal.

---

Well, I had a nice reply almost ready to send when one of my kids did a shutdown on my computer. Oh well. I'll just have to hit the high points.

Nope, the voting laws a number of Southern States wanted to pass almost the moment after the Supreme Court declared Racism to be over and struck down the law that said that states with a racist past needed federal supervision when setting up voting laws. The feds are gone and look, they instantly return to their racist ways.

The US Supreme Court case you refer to was argued and decided in 2013. Texas passed its Voter-Photo-ID law in 2011, almost totally a copy of one passed (and upheld by the US Supreme Court) by Indiana in 2005. The FIRST Voter-Photo-ID law was passed by Hawaii in 1978. Over half the states either now have them or are in process of enacting them or are awaiting final court approval to implement them.

That US Supreme Court Case you referred to? Shelby County, Alabama vs. Holder?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

All it did was invalidate Sec. 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Sec. 4(b) was the 'preclearance requirement on States with a 'racist past'. It left the entire rest of the act alone. Sec. 4(b) only applied to 9 States. Way more than 9 States have the laws now. Your statement that 'its only the racist south!' fails a basic fact check.

The last poll numbers I've seen indicate about 3/4 of the American people support voter-photo-id laws including a majority of the Democrats (iirc, 52%).

No it just happens that those voter ID laws target poor and African Americans far more extensively than they do against white people.

What the?!?!?

Poor & African-American vs. White People?!?!?

Don't you know that MOST of the Poor in the USA are White?

Uhuh. Except that voter fraud is a non issue. Now we are actually talking about a myth, perputuated by Republicans who just can't stand the fact that America voted for a black guy as president. Obviously that MUST mean that the democrats cheated by raising whole armies of non existent fraudulent voters (this idea by itself is already EXTREMELY racist). But as I said, those fraudulent voters don't exist.

A non-issue? A myth? Started only after Obama got elected President?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Interrogative

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

Its real. Thankfully it is rare, but it is real.

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Representative Democracy, or indeed ANY Democracy depends on accurate and correct vote totals for its legitimacy. ONE case of voter fraud taints the entire process. ONE case of voter fraud is ONE case too many.

Voter-Photo-ID laws are aimed at THIS issue, not at any sort of racial crap.

You misunderstand how this forms a block. The problem is not getting an ID, the problem is that, as you have also seen in the NY times article, that generally more poor people live on the same address than in rich neighborhoods. So all those 'voter fraud' watchdogs consider that as a sign of fraud and as a result they require those people to bring in extra proof that they are real and legal and allowed to vote. Thus those people have to take an extra hurdle before they can vote.

OK, one more time...

The Federally mandated motor-voter laws make it trivially easy to register to vote. In Texas, for instance you fill out a VERY short form and Sign it under penalty of perjury, then mail it in. Thats *IT* Fraud here means a felony conviction and you go to jail for YEARS.

While getting a Driver's license in Texas is not exactly trivial (little things like passing a written test on the laws and regulations about driving and an actual driving test), they also offer an ID card. Looks the same, but it doesn't confer any driving privileges. If you are poor and cannot afford either the small fee for the DL/ID card, or the fees for the supporting documentation, the State of Texas will give them to you at no charge. Again, getting the DL/ID card is easy. But, you have to sign the application under penalty of perjury. Fraud here means a felony conviction and you go to Jail for YEARS.

If you are stopped by the Police, the FIRST thing they are going to ask you is to see your identification. Doesn't matter who you are. Doesn't matter what color your skin is or what gender you appear to be. Everyone has to show it. Is this racist?

If you try to get a job in the US, you have to identify yourself -- Federal Law. See US Govt. Form I-9. Here, ill link it for you.

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

The employee and the employer BOTH have to sign the form in various places under penalty of perjury. See page 9 for the list of acceptable identification documents. Either '1 from List A', or '1 from List B and 1 from List C'.
The most common set of documents that employees provide is B1 and C1. A DL/ID and a Soc.Sec. Card. Fraud here means a felony conviction and YEARS of jail. Is this racist? Everyone has to show it.

To receive various Government Assistance programs such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), you must identify yourself -- Federal Law. The list of acceptable identification documents is very similar here to what is on the I-9 form. Is this racist? Everyone has to show it.

If you have a Job, you most likely have a DL/ID card. If you are poor and get Government Assistance, you most likely have a DL/ID card. If you DON'T have a DL/ID card (or other acceptable photo-ID card) needed to vote, the State of Texas will GIVE you one for FREE if you are too poor to afford one. How is this racist?

It sounds like common sense to me to help preserve the integrity of the electoral process. Or were you talking about issues in the voter Registration process when you said:

So all those 'voter fraud' watchdogs consider that as a sign of fraud and as a result they require those people to bring in extra proof that they are real and legal and allowed to vote. Thus those people have to take an extra hurdle before they can vote

Voter Registration issues have NOTHING to do with Voter-Photo-ID laws. Totally separate issue.

Compared to the 1960s, indeed lots of women and minorities. But politics is still dominated by white males. Obama is the first black president. Congress is still consisting almost entirely out of white males. State legislators are still generally consisting of white males. Just because there are also women and minorities mixed in there somehow doesn't mean it isn't still all overwhelmingly dominated by white males.

Shows you how much you know.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf

One hundred two women (a record number) serve in the 113th Congress: 82 in the House, including 3 Delegates, and 20 in the Senate. There are 42 African American Members of the House and 2 in the Senate. This House number includes 2 Delegates. There are 37 Hispanic or Latino Members (a record number) serving: 33 in the House, including 1 Delegate and the Resident Commissioner, and 4 in the Senate. Thirteen Members (10 Representatives, 2 Delegates, and 1 Senator) are Asian American or Pacific Islanders. Two American Indians (Native Americans) serve in the House.

I would say that this hardly qualifies as 'almost entirely out of white males', wouldn't you?

Now the true middle class (the degreed professionals (medical doctors, lawyers, etc.) and the small business owners) have not been hurt that bad. Hurt some, but not that much. But the working class... OUCH!!!

What middle class? America has no middle class left. What used to be the middle class is working its ass off just to stay afloat, and a lot of people who used to be middle class are now lower class and poor. Only the top 10% has been doing well, and the top 1% has been doing extremely well.

As I said the true middle class (degreed professionals (doctors and lawyers, etc.) and the small business owners (in other words about the top three to five percent)) have been hurt a little of late, but not that much. The Working Class, however, has been hurt BIG. This is mostly because most all of the old GOOD jobs have either left the country due to 'globalization', or been downsized due to automation and increases in productivity.

The 'replacement' jobs are nowhere near as well paying, and those jobs too are getting to be in danger of being replaced by automation.

One reason why the inner-city black community is having employment problems is increased competition from both above and below chasing the same few remaining jobs. Much of the working class is having to move down on the ladder as the better jobs they used to have go *poof*, and there are plenty of new people being added (unskilled immigrants) to the pool of workers trying to climb up on the ladder. Dude, everyone is having a tough time of things right now unless they are in the top few percent. It is not racial in nature, but economic.

Major a problem that you alluded to is there is more wealth and how it is to be distributed. When there are enough have nots the problem will ugly for the haves.

The Philosophy of 'How it is to be Distributed' is very dangerous to Freedom.

WHO decides? Why THEM? What makes THEM better than anyone else?

Why do THEY think because of their Intellectual/Genetic Superiority (what's the difference?) they can dictate to 'THE MASSES'? Always watch out when anyone uses the term 'The Masses'.

The difference between a 'Lawful Democracy', and a 'Mob Rule Democracy', is that the 'Mob Rule Democracy' believes, because they have won an election: They can steal your house.

In a 'Lawful Democracy', Elections have Limited Consequence's. Any Politician who states 'Elections Have Consequence's', believes in 'Mob Rule Democracy'.

Clyde, if there are enough have nots and they get together they will make the decision for all.

---

Have you looked at our recently re-elected president? (What DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW president elect Hillary Clinton will be our next president, but not because of her agenda.)

I didn't say that America has not been making any progress in the fight against racism. But just because you elected one black president doesn't mean racism is now no longer a problem. Again, refer to the links I posted about this. Minorities are still overly represented in the prison system, more often receive punishments compared to white people for the same crime, and the punishments they get are generally harsher than what white people would get for the same crime, and minorities still have a harder time getting jobs.

Have you looked at the make up of our supreme court?

Thats great but again, it doesn't mean racism is no longer a big problem. It just means its less of a big problem than before.

Five of our governors are women, 4 of whom are attacked viciously and regularly by our LIBERAL PRESS. Is the LIBERAL PRESS sexist?

That means 10% of the states have female governors while women make up roughly 50% of the population. If anything that only shows that women still have a long way to go. Also, the press attacking female governors is only sexist if they are attacking them on the fact that they are women. Does that happen? Are they accusing those governors of being bad governors because they are females?

Meanwhile, cue in Fox news complaining about Hillary Clinton, making comments about her age and speculating on the problems that being a female and president would bring. Not to mention the amount of idiots I've heard saying that female presidents are bad because they might bomb a country when they are on their period or something idiotic like that.

Deluding? Massive problem? What "group think" are you a part of?

Sadly I don't even need to ask what 'group think' you are part of.

When an overwhelming fraction or majority of any race or religious faction exhibits a certain trait; it is common to expect a member of that demographic to display the same trait or traits. I call this pre-judging; or I suppose "Prejudice". Do you think that this should also be termed Racism?

Its stereotyping which can indeed lead to racism, though its not necessarily racist by itself. It becomes racist when you start attaching value judgments to the stereotypes, or make the stereotype the basis of a value judgement.

Also, quite often what is perceived as a trait that is overwhelmingly common to a certain group of people turns out to be not all that common in the end.

When an overwhelming fraction or majority of any race or religious faction exhibits a certain trait; it is common to expect a member of that demographic to display the same trait or traits. I call this pre-judging; or I suppose "Prejudice". Do you think that this should also be termed Racism?

Wait a minute. What are we talking about here? Racism/sexism in the USA? Or in the rest of the world? I am talking about it in the USA. I KNOW it still is a problem in the rest of the world (even parts of Europe). I could give specific examples but I don't think I need to. It *used* to be a problem in the USA. Nowadays, in the USA, not so much.

Nope, I was talking about racism/sexism in the United States. Honestly, if you think the US has no longer a problem with race, you are deluding yourself. Its a massive problem.

Yes, I am very familiar with the problem. I don't see an easy, nice way out.

Too many people chasing too few productive jobs. You are right, its gonna get ugly.

So far every time someone invented a tool it meant people lost their job. That is the nature of technological progress. It creates efficiency and efficiency basically always comes down to less people can do the same job quicker than before.

The problem here is simply that our current economic model, namely capitalism, is not well suited for the era we are headed. We will need to change the economic model, and that is what is going to happen once there are no jobs left. However, it is difficult for most to see that, because we have been raised with a certain idea of how life works. And partly because we have lost the way a little bit. Why should we work? If we have robots that cater to all our economic needs, why should we work? Or at least, why should we work 40+ hours a week? We used to work because it was necessary to survive. People worked the land because without those people there would be no food. People became merchants because we needed ways to get that food off the land and distributed among the people. Same goes for everything else we produced. We worked because we needed to create stuff. But we are now entering a new era, we are on the edge of reaching a stage where we no longer need to work because we can create things that do all the work for us.

So now we are left with the question 'what to do when work has become obsolete?' Well, anything we want really. Pursue a hobby, study something because it interest you, create art, spend more time with your loved ones. Be free.

And it is vital that we ensure this revolution goes through and does not get hijacked by the big corporations. By the 1%. Because this is not in their interest. This revolution would make people truly free and equal, as money becomes obsolete and wealth is no longer measured in money. The traditional power structures and dynamics, where the rich elite rules over the poor will be wiped out overnight as the source of their power vaporizes.

Namely, overly greedy and power hungry bastidges. They are gonna be around no matter what political/economic system you are operating under. It doesn't matter which one. Whether it be libertarian free-market capitalism, or a European-style 'socialist democracy', or full-blown Marxist-Leninist Communism. It doesn't matter.

Now, some level of greed is a good thing. It is, after all, the driving impulse behind economic activity. I have item X, and you have item Y. We make a trade because each of us values what the other person has a bit more than what we have for ourselves. I offer you some amount of X in exchange for some other amount of Y. You think it is a good idea, and accept. Each of us made the trade because we thought it to be to our advantage. In other words, we were greedy. Perhaps a better term for it instead of 'greed' would be 'rational self interest'. But, whatever.

I think the best way to describe what you mean is 'want'. Greed is a gaping black hole of all consuming hunger for more. Greed is cynical, short sighted, corrosive and self destructive.

And I don't think human nature is that bad. The vast majority of us are kind loving, helpful, social and good natured. Its a tiny group that are poisonous. But the good ones outnumber them and those poisonous few can only rule with the consent of the majority. They must not have our consent. Which is why a free media combined with a democracy generally are pretty successful in preventing tyrants from rising to power.

Now there is a middle 'grey area' of very highly paid people that do nothing but 'jack off the money' all day. Perhaps some of their excesses might need to be slightly curbed. But other than that, nothing wrong at all with being a VERY highly paid corporate CEO, or even a VERY highly paid professional athlete.

Do they? Do you think that the CEO of a big bank is such a special human being that he deserves the millions of dollars they throw at him? He isn't the guy doing the trading. He isn't the one that decides where to invest money. He isn't a risk analyst. He doesn't invent any new products to sell or trade. He isn't even responsible for when it goes wrong. Sure, he loses his job, after they hand him a few extra million dollars. At best these CEO's are involved in the 'grand strategy' of the company. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that CEO's are all worthless hacks (and some are indeed very good at playing the grand strategy game) but their level of skill and involvement in a company is not worth hundreds of times more than what the average employee who are actually responsible for running the day to day operations get.

And athletes are even worse. Sure, they are good at a particular physical skill to which we arbitrarily assigned some amusement value (wow, that guy is really good at kicking a ball shaped object! Lets pay him millions of dollars!). Aside from the fact that add absolutely nothing, they also get away with way to much. See how much society cares when an athlete rapes someone (a hint, the women will get accused of being a lying slut who asked to be raped). Or when they use performance enhancing drugs. Sure, they might have to pay a fine or something. But if you want to argue that top sport is like any other economic business than taking performance enhancing drugs is fraud and should be rewarded with jail time. And lots of it given how much we pay them.

Really, given what both CEO's and top sporters add to society they should be paid normal wages. The real millions should be going to the people that teach children or the scientists that discover exciting new ways to cure diseases or find new ways to better our lives. Those people's skills are much more important than being able to kick a ball or play the corporate grand strategy game.

Facts such as that racism is still a massive problem, that women are still not considered equal to men, and that women and minorities still do not have the same opportunities as white males.

That has always been the case in most parts of the world for over 100 years, and will be for the next 100, and for as far as I can see beyond that. Of course I think that all those three issues are wrong, I have spoken out against them many times, BUT THEY AIN'T GONNA CHANGE ANY TIME SOON. So I have to support Мишель's viewpoint here (sadly).

Wait a minute. What are we talking about here? Racism/sexism in the USA? Or in the rest of the world? I am talking about it in the USA. I KNOW it still is a problem in the rest of the world (even parts of Europe). I could give specific examples but I don't think I need to. It *used* to be a problem in the USA. Nowadays, in the USA, not so much.

Major a problem that you alluded to is there is more wealth and how it is to be distributed. When there are enough have nots the problem will ugly for the haves.

The Philosophy of 'How it is to be Distributed' is very dangerous to Freedom.

WHO decides? Why THEM? What makes THEM better than anyone else?

Theory distribution is simply another word for 'economics'. That is essentially what economics is about, how are resources distributed. Capitalism states that you get the most optimal distribution of resources by leaving it to the free market. Communism stated that its the state combined with a planned economy that decides how resources are distributed.

Well over half of the jobs out there now are likely going to be replaced by robotics and other forms of automation between now and the year 2050. No job is truly safe. McDonald's is experimenting with robotic grills right now. Jack in the Box is experimenting with automated order taking. There goes burger-flipping as a job. Retail Sales? Brick & Mortar Retail is dying. More and more people are buying their stuff on-line. Vegetable picking out in the fields? Guess what. Robotics. The way things look about the only job that will be left will be robot repairman... until THEY get replaced.

Major a problem that you alluded to is there is more wealth and how it is to be distributed. When there are enough have nots the problem will ugly for the haves.

Yes, I am very familiar with the problem. I don't see an easy, nice way out.

Too many people chasing too few productive jobs. You are right, its gonna get ugly.

If global warming, famine, disease, or war doesn't get us first, we are going to be looking at a rather grim endgame.

I've read quite a number of schemes of ways around this problem, everything from Heinlein's "For Us the Living: A comedy of customs" to old Karl Marx himself. No matter how perfect a solution to the problem of equitable distribution of wealth might look on paper, there is always going to be one major issue with it. Human Nature.

Namely, overly greedy and power hungry bastidges. They are gonna be around no matter what political/economic system you are operating under. It doesn't matter which one. Whether it be libertarian free-market capitalism, or a European-style 'socialist democracy', or full-blown Marxist-Leninist Communism. It doesn't matter.

Now, some level of greed is a good thing. It is, after all, the driving impulse behind economic activity. I have item X, and you have item Y. We make a trade because each of us values what the other person has a bit more than what we have for ourselves. I offer you some amount of X in exchange for some other amount of Y. You think it is a good idea, and accept. Each of us made the trade because we thought it to be to our advantage. In other words, we were greedy. Perhaps a better term for it instead of 'greed' would be 'rational self interest'. But, whatever.

The point is that there will ALWAYS be some people that desire either undeserved wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, or great power over others, and are willing to do anything/everything they can to achieve it. Now there is nothing wrong with making a large profit from your work. Nothing wrong at all. But political corruption and the guys recently that were running pyramid/ponzi schemes disguised as 'investments'? Dead wrong. Now there is a middle 'grey area' of very highly paid people that do nothing but 'jack off the money' all day. Perhaps some of their excesses might need to be slightly curbed. But other than that, nothing wrong at all with being a VERY highly paid corporate CEO, or even a VERY highly paid professional athlete. Both have a very Rare set of talents, and both use those talents to provide a valuable service. They both deserve to be well paid, even IF it is multi-millions per year. Nothing wrong with Warren Buffet, imo, but the Bernie Madoffs and Joe Stalins of the world will surely foul things up no matter WHAT political/economic systems you have.

A libertarian representative democracy with a free-market capitalist system (like I would prefer), a mixed economy with a representative democracy like the USA, a more socialist economy with various representative democracies like much of Europe, or the old USSR-style Marxist-Leninist Communist system (which also had elements of a representative democracy (The Soviets)). It doesn't matter WHAT system, PEOPLE will foul things up eventually.

Facts such as that racism is still a massive problem, that women are still not considered equal to men, and that women and minorities still do not have the same opportunities as white males.

That has always been the case in most parts of the world for over 100 years, and will be for the next 100, and for as far as I can see beyond that. Of course I think that all those three issues are wrong, I have spoken out against them many times, BUT THEY AIN'T GONNA CHANGE ANY TIME SOON. So I have to support Мишель's viewpoint here (sadly).

Thank you, but it is not myself that I am concerned about. My 3 children (almost 6, 4 and a half, and almost 2) vomiting, having diarrhea, with nasal and chest congestion... well I haven't exactly had much sleep. Add to this that my VERY elderly parents (who live nearby) also came down with it (they DO love their grandchildren), and now my wife is coming down with it. Lots of worry. The fact that I came down with a bad case of it is secondary. I gotta do what I gotta do to take care of my loved ones. Lots of doctor visits, and hospitalization for the kids and my parents. I am recovering fairly well, but I am *exhausted*. I didn't get the chance to get all the bed-rest I was TOLD to get.

Oh that sounds bad, I hope your loved ones get better soon as well! And do take care of yourself as well. You can't help your loved ones if you are to sick yourself.

There are plenty of reasons why some people get hired and some don't, There are plenty of reasons why some people make more than others. These reasons really have nothing to do with any accident of birth (race or gender). To blindly follow the liberal/left dogma about racial/gender discrimination is taking WAY too simplistic of a view of things. Remember the liberal/left politicians (the Democrats) have a HUGE interest in perpetuating the myth that racial and gender discrimination still is a problem. It keeps the Minorities thinking that they are still beholden to those politicians (the Democrats), keeps the minorities voting by and large FOR the Democrats, thus perpetuating the Democrats hold on power.

Oh, its a myth. Its just coincidence that African Americans have a much harder time getting hired for a job. Its just other 'valid' reasons for why they don't get hired. You clearly haven't looked at the evidence. Look, its so bad that under qualified white people have a better chance of getting hired for a job than qualified black people. And black people who pretend to be white when sending their resume around get much more job offers than black people that don't. I'm sorry, but that just says 'RACISM'.

Those minorities do not need politicians telling them they are being discriminated against. They can feel the effects of it every single day.

'Rape culture'?? What does that have to do with racial/gender issues? Rape is criminal.

It is very much a gender issue. For starters, rape gets consistently not prosecuted, when it does society often feels more sorry for the rapists than for the victim (CNN on Steubenville anyone?). Rape victims often get blamed for 'wanting it' or provoking it because they dressed in a certain way or dared to go to a party. The way we treat women who are raped is generally down right terrible. There are plenty of feminist blogs out there you could search for more information on this.

What are you talking about? Laws from a century ago that were rightly struck down?

Nope, the voting laws a number of Southern States wanted to pass almost the moment after the Supreme Court declared Racism to be over and struck down the law that said that states with a racist past needed federal supervision when setting up voting laws. The feds are gone and look, they instantly return to their racist ways.

Or are you referring to the recent issue of the 'Voter-ID' laws? Those laws are NOT designed to stop blacks and poor people from voting. They are to stop election fraud. This threatens the Democrats because they engage in a LOT of it. So, the Democrats are spreading the LIE that it is racially motivated.

No it just happens that those voter ID laws target poor and African Americans far more extensively than they do against white people.

The Voter-ID laws are to stop non-citizens from voting, citizens from voting more than once, and even DEAD and fictitious people from voting. All three practices are HEAVILY engaged in by the Democrats. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html
The infamous precinct 13 (which was totally fictitious) in Jim Wells county, Texas. LBJ got elected to the US Senate, and from there became JFK's VP.

More recent?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_chicago_and_obama_globalized_voter_id_fraud.html

Yeah, I know you probably not going to like the website, but it IS a good rundown on the problem.

The Texas Voter-ID law is designed to combat voter fraud... only.

Uhuh. Except that voter fraud is a non issue. Now we are actually talking about a myth, perputuated by Republicans who just can't stand the fact that America voted for a black guy as president. Obviously that MUST mean that the democrats cheated by raising whole armies of non existent fraudulent voters (this idea by itself is already EXTREMELY racist). But as I said, those fraudulent voters don't exist. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/politics/groups-like-true-the-vote-are-looking-very-closely-for-voter-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What about the poor and minorities? Won't they be discouraged from voting by it? Nope. Here is why.

The law requires a State of Texas issued ID to be able to vote (driver's license or it's associated State ID card (issued for non-drivers)).

Texas State law requires that if someone can not afford the DL/ID, that the State provide it free of charge.

Federal Law requires that a person show one (ok, maybe there are alternatives, but the DL/ID is the MOST common) as part of the supporting documentation to be able to legally get a JOB.

Federal Law also requires one to receive Government Benefits (TANF, SNAP, etc.)

The poor are already going to have one. The working people (poor and not-poor) are already going to have one. The rich are, of course, already going to have one. Just exactly HOW is this discriminatory to ANYONE except the Democrat Party Bosses (since they will be greatly hampered in their manufacture of fraudulent votes)?

You misunderstand how this forms a block. The problem is not getting an ID, the problem is that, as you have also seen in the NY times article, that generally more poor people live on the same address than in rich neighborhoods. So all those 'voter fraud' watchdogs consider that as a sign of fraud and as a result they require those people to bring in extra proof that they are real and legal and allowed to vote. Thus those people have to take an extra hurdle before they can vote.

And now that we are talking about political party interests. All those states are run by Republicans, and all those minorities and poor people tend to vote more left, meaning they don't vote Republican. So this is just as much a thinly veiled strategy of the Republicans to block people from voting for their opponents.

Like I have said, charges of 'racism' or 'sexism' are perpetuated by the Democrat (liberal/lefty) Party in an attempt to retain their solid Minority/Woman voting block. Since Democrat policies since at least Clinton have been, shall we say, not highly "Labor Union friendly", the Democrats have been more and more zealous in pandering to their other main voter bloc -- the Minorities and women.

Just shows what a vested interest the Republicans have in preventing these people from voting. They know they will never appeal to those minorities so why even bother if you can just prevent these people from having a say in the matter.

Look at politics. The State of Texas was one of the first two states to have a woman Governor. A long time ago. In the general election of 1924, Texas and Wyoming elected women to be Governors. Wyoming got the honor of being the first to *have* a woman Governor because that woman took office around 2 weeks earlier than the Texas Governor did. Miriam Ferguson was Governor of Texas
from 1925 to 1927, and was later re-elected and served again from 1933 to 1935.

Look at local, state, and federal governments today. Lots of minorities and women hold office (elected and appointed) today, and it has been that way for YEARS. Look at our federal Government. Women and Minorities all over it. Women and Minorities on the US Supreme Court. Women and Minorities in the US Congress, including some senior leadership positions. Women and Minorities all over the Executive Branch, including the head of the US Government Executive Branch. You know. The President of the US. Ever hear of US President Obama? Ever seen his photograph? Its the same with Business. Lots of women and minorities own small businesses. Lots of women and minorities work for businesses of all sizes. Lots of women and minorities in leadership (management) positions in big business. There are women and minorities in the top position (CEO) in many big corporations.

Compared to the 1960s, indeed lots of women and minorities. But politics is still dominated by white males. Obama is the first black president. Congress is still consisting almost entirely out of white males. State legislators are still generally consisting of white males. Just because there are also women and minorities mixed in there somehow doesn't mean it isn't still all overwhelmingly dominated by white males.

So, I ask again, where is the discrimination? We HAVE equality of opportunity. Discrimination is the denial of opportunity for unjustified reasons. If you screw up your own opportunity, by for instance failure to get yourself an education or by getting in trouble with the law by engaging in criminal activities, that is NOT discrimination. You did it to yourself and deserve what you get.

Yeah, because it is so easy to get into college when your neighborhood as the worst schools in the district and your parents only make minimum wage and cannot possibly afford to send you to nice prepschool. Oh, and paying for college, well, good luck coughing up those tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Bad choices in life restrict your opportunities. Can't get that nice job down at the bank? Well, you should not have been robbing people. Jail time will ruin your life.

Ah yes, the American 'justice' system. The system that is so excellent at sending minorities to jail while giving white people get out of jail free cards.
Yep, no discrimination to be found here.

Or, are you complaining that there are somehow 'not enough'? Careful. Quotas. That way lies the abomination known as 'equality of outcome'. The only reliable way to have 'equality of outcome' is to hold everybody down at the very bottom. Everyone is then equally miserable.

Not enough? Of course it is not enough because racism is still a major issue and women and people of color and poor people still do not even come close to having the same opportunities in life as white males. Whether you try to solve it through quotas or some other way, the fact is that the way things work right now, it does not even come close to being fair to the majority of people. And for the record, I do not think that quota's are that great either, they do not deal with the underlying causes of racism and gender inequality. But, as long as those underlying causes are not dealt with, quotas are the only way to ensure that women and minorities stand some chance, rather than having no chance.

Wages for the majority of the 'Americans' have not go up much at all in a few decades. It is because of several reasons but chief among the reasons is that Organized Labor in the USA both priced itself out of a job. That and Union culture encouraged... shall we say... quality problems. These issues started well before Reagan. Example, the rise in imported cars in the 1970s because US made cars were overpriced pieces of... uhh... organic fertilizer.

If labor became to expensive, then why have the top incomes being growing at ridiculous rates? Those CEO's with their ridiculous bonuses sure don't seem to be affected by this. How is that they can afford millions of dollars in bonuses, but have to fire or outsource half of the staff?

Now the true middle class (the degreed professionals (medical doctors, lawyers, etc.) and the small business owners) have not been hurt that bad. Hurt some, but not that much. But the working class... OUCH!!!

What middle class? America has no middle class left. What used to be the middle class is working its ass off just to stay afloat, and a lot of people who used to be middle class are now lower class and poor. Only the top 10% has been doing well, and the top 1% has been doing extremely well.

Sorry man, but what you seem to spew straight out of the lefty/liberal 'play-book' is what does not match reality. You really ought to try leaving your ivory-tower lefty fantasy-land sometime and experience reality. You WILL learn a lot about the way the world works, and you might even find you enjoy it.

And you should come down from bull excrement mountain and accept facts. Facts such as that racism is still a massive problem, that women are still not considered equal to men and that women and minorities still do not have the same opportunities as white males.