Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Democrats and the Race Card!

Democrats and the Race Card!

13 posts
  1. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    6/25/2012 9:06 AM
    I guess the dems election plan is to call out the race card on virtually everything rather than run campaigns based on what they have to offer. Over the weekend, Pelosi said the only reason the repubs are going after Holder is because he is preventing their voter prevention laws for happening. Of course that is a phony way of saying that conservatives are trying to prevent minorities from voting. I have heard more than a few times political hacks and also elected officials saying the only reason they are going after Holder was because of race. You can only cry racism so many times before people ignore everything you say. You can only push granny over the cliff or force the elderly to eat dog food so many times before you get ignored. No matter the party, doesn't everyone get a little sick and tired of these lame campaign attacks? Haven't we as a country got beyond idiotic campaign statements like these?



  2. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/25/2012 10:06 AM
    Seems we haven't Sandy, as long as one party is wanting power over the other and there is no compromise I predict these things are going to happen.

    But take a look at each issue, the voting one for example, the new laws make it a little harder to vote for who? The poor, which happens to have their fair share of minorities. And who do they typically vote for democrats, and who brought these laws forward? Republicans, why? Not to keep voter roles clean as much as they want that to be the reason, it's to try and give them a little better edge at election time, or to pander to their base as it is with other issues (that is my opinion, and I'm sure everyone else has a different one). The other side can be guilty of it as well, many point to the president's redirection of resources on sending back the illegals, which I'm surprised that wasn't already a thread onto itself.

    There has been not one ounce of compromise since 2010 and only before because the republicans didn't hold the majority but had enough vote especially in the senate to filibuster.

    Only when we elect people who serve all of us and not a particular side is when we get this mess straightened out.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  3. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    6/25/2012 12:06 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Seems we haven't Sandy, as long as one party is wanting power over the other and there is no compromise I predict these things are going to happen.

    But take a look at each issue, the voting one for example, the new laws make it a little harder to vote for who? The poor, which happens to have their fair share of minorities. And who do they typically vote for democrats, and who brought these laws forward? Republicans, why? Not to keep voter roles clean as much as they want that to be the reason, it's to try and give them a little better edge at election time, or to pander to their base as it is with other issues (that is my opinion, and I'm sure everyone else has a different one). The other side can be guilty of it as well, many point to the president's redirection of resources on sending back the illegals, which I'm surprised that wasn't already a thread onto itself.

    There has been not one ounce of compromise since 2010 and only before because the republicans didn't hold the majority but had enough vote especially in the senate to filibuster.

    Only when we elect people who serve all of us and not a particular side is when we get this mess straightened out.

    Mel



    Melvin are you talking about ID to vote? How do the poor get their assistance if they do not have an ID? To me that is common sense, assistance=ID vote as a legal citizen you must have ID.

    This administration has not united the Black, White, Hispanic, Indian and Asian people like promised but has more or less tried to create more divide and feed that division to further his agenda and campaign.



  4. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/25/2012 5:06 PM
    Jon Gansen said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Seems we haven't Sandy, as long as one party is wanting power over the other and there is no compromise I predict these things are going to happen.

    But take a look at each issue, the voting one for example, the new laws make it a little harder to vote for who? The poor, which happens to have their fair share of minorities. And who do they typically vote for democrats, and who brought these laws forward? Republicans, why? Not to keep voter roles clean as much as they want that to be the reason, it's to try and give them a little better edge at election time, or to pander to their base as it is with other issues (that is my opinion, and I'm sure everyone else has a different one). The other side can be guilty of it as well, many point to the president's redirection of resources on sending back the illegals, which I'm surprised that wasn't already a thread onto itself.

    There has been not one ounce of compromise since 2010 and only before because the republicans didn't hold the majority but had enough vote especially in the senate to filibuster.

    Only when we elect people who serve all of us and not a particular side is when we get this mess straightened out.

    Mel



    Melvin are you talking about ID to vote? How do the poor get their assistance if they do not have an ID? To me that is common sense, assistance=ID vote as a legal citizen you must have ID.

    This administration has not united the Black, White, Hispanic, Indian and Asian people like promised but has more or less tried to create more divide and feed that division to further his agenda and campaign.


    Jon, I know I have mentioned before how some of those on assistance get around having id's in poor neighborhoods there is going to be a store that will cash their check, help them out, those neighborhoods in my opinion are going to be tight, and work with each other. As for getting the assistance, couldn't they have just brought in the SS card or birth certificate?

    I don't have to show id I show my voters registration card. Like we have discussed before, the cases of voters fraud really AND THIS IS MY OPINON hasn't justified the cost and the legislation of these items. Where were the jobs?

    I can agree to a point that this administration could have done a better job at uniting everyone, but with all the kool-aid drinkers on the right, who don't even believe the man was born in the US did it really matter? There are two sides working on the dividing, I know you all will think I'm full of it, but if the republicans hadn't come up with the anti immigration laws, the voter id laws, and other legislation aimed at it seems AND THIS IS MY OPINION AGAIN, at those people, the president wouldn't have had to work around existing laws they way he did. Heck he's deported more illegals the President Bush did......all he was doing was redirecting the resources.

    I will certainly put blame where it belongs, and both sides are to blame......but some of you will not accept your part of the blame as well. It is both sides not working together, and that goes for us stupid voters as well.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  5. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/25/2012 5:06 PM
    The Dream Act was originally bipartisan. The only reason the GOP is against it now is because they hate (Obama). We can only speculate as to why it is so important to them for Obama to fail, even in the face of polices like requiring people to provide their own health insurance and the Dream Act, both of which the GOP presented initially. Of course our country has matured so much over the past 30 years that race could have nothing to do with this now.



  6. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    6/25/2012 5:06 PM
    "the president wouldn't have had to work around existing laws they way he did"
    Should he be able to "work" around existing laws?

    The intentions of the Dream Act are good. I just have a problem granting anything when illegal is in the equation.

    Race will always be an issue when that is the first thing the left brings up.



  7. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/25/2012 10:06 PM
    Jon Gansen said: "the president wouldn't have had to work around existing laws they way he did"
    Should he be able to "work" around existing laws?

    The intentions of the Dream Act are good. I just have a problem granting anything when illegal is in the equation.

    Race will always be an issue when that is the first thing the left brings up.


    Jon, you should have used the whole quote of my statement, he is redirecting the resources, he will still follow the law and they will work on continue to deport the illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, shouldn't that be the priority? Just like the Fox News people, cherry picking language. Of course you can say the president is cherry picking who gets deported, which is fine, but heck all congress had to do was pass the Dream Act which had bipartisan support at one time.

    Why don't you just admit it that Republicans can be wrong on issues too. Or just admit that they are being obstructionist with this president, most of it is based on him being a democrat. As far as race, in our area it isn't the left that is brining it up, there are so few of us.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  8. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/26/2012 7:06 AM
    They have not only admitted it Mel, they have been very upfront about it. Shame on them, but they only care about one thing and no one on the right seems compelled to make them explain why.

    "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." ~Mitch McConnell



  9. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    6/26/2012 10:06 AM
    Hell the president said the same thing in January of 2009 after getting elected, "if I DO NOT turn the economy around I should be a one term president"............pretty simply said by the MAN himself.

    But the problem in this country goes back 60 years or more the government ( and I am including both left, right, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat in this bunch) has been making promises to one group or another and can we now facing what we are facing as a nation can they withdraw some of those promises and the answer is NO !

    Mel this is what you fail to understand ...........Policticans do not lead, the seek the path of least resistance. They find topics and scapgoats to arouse their bases........something to antagonize. That's what we call polarization. This simply is all Washington does now......pretty simple to understand not so simple to get past.



  10. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/26/2012 2:06 PM
    David McCallum said: Hell the president said the same thing in January of 2009 after getting elected, "if I DO NOT turn the economy around I should be a one term president"............pretty simply said by the MAN himself.
    I would agree with you David, but probably the intent or context of the whole speech would include "if his policies where to be put in place"
    But the problem in this country goes back 60 years or more the government ( and I am including both left, right, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat in this bunch) has been making promises to one group or another and can we now facing what we are facing as a nation can they withdraw some of those promises and the answer is NO ! It's because everyone wants to be careful and get re-elected, but you are right, benefits need to be changed, programs need to be changed, tax codes, rates, etc. need to be changed. We the people need to tell the politicians, hey it's ok just make sure it's fair, smart, and will get the job done. (although we are talking Washington and smart in the same sentence?

    Mel this is what you fail to understand ...........Politicians do not lead, the seek the path of least resistance. They find topics and scapegoats to arouse their bases........something to antagonize. That's what we call polarization. This simply is all Washington does now......pretty simple to understand not so simple to get past.


    David, I think I have been understanding what you are saying, and have been saying so, might be a different format or from a different angle, but hadn't I been saying that neither party is working together? Your right that is not leadership, from anyone.....but it goes back to us, we need to demand them to lead of vote them out. I'm with you if Romney wins this fall.....Hillary in 2016.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  11. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    6/26/2012 3:06 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Jon Gansen said: "the president wouldn't have had to work around existing laws they way he did"
    Should he be able to "work" around existing laws?

    The intentions of the Dream Act are good. I just have a problem granting anything when illegal is in the equation.

    Race will always be an issue when that is the first thing the left brings up.


    Jon, you should have used the whole quote of my statement, he is redirecting the resources, he will still follow the law and they will work on continue to deport the illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, shouldn't that be the priority? Just like the Fox News people, cherry picking language. Of course you can say the president is cherry picking who gets deported, which is fine, but heck all congress had to do was pass the Dream Act which had bipartisan support at one time.



    Why don't you just admit it that Republicans can be wrong on issues too. Or just admit that they are being obstructionist with this president, most of it is based on him being a democrat. As far as race, in our area it isn't the left that is brining it up, there are so few of us.

    Mel



    What part of illegal is it that gives it rights?? Illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds!!! Illegal means forbidden by law. Illegal immigrants have no legitimate papers that they are in this country and yet you want no voter ID. Since they are in the country already but have no criminal background should they be allowed to vote?
    Where is the cut off point? I know there are alot of great hard working illegals but isnt there a right way (lawful) and a wrong way (illegal)



  12. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/26/2012 6:06 PM
    Jon Gansen said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Jon Gansen said: "the president wouldn't have had to work around existing laws they way he did"
    Should he be able to "work" around existing laws?

    The intentions of the Dream Act are good. I just have a problem granting anything when illegal is in the equation.

    Race will always be an issue when that is the first thing the left brings up.


    Jon, you should have used the whole quote of my statement, he is redirecting the resources, he will still follow the law and they will work on continue to deport the illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, shouldn't that be the priority? Just like the Fox News people, cherry picking language. Of course you can say the president is cherry picking who gets deported, which is fine, but heck all congress had to do was pass the Dream Act which had bipartisan support at one time.



    Why don't you just admit it that Republicans can be wrong on issues too. Or just admit that they are being obstructionist with this president, most of it is based on him being a democrat. As far as race, in our area it isn't the left that is bringing it up, there are so few of us.

    Mel



    What part of illegal is it that gives it rights?? Illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds!!! Illegal means forbidden by law. Illegal immigrants have no legitimate papers that they are in this country and yet you want no voter ID. The question is why now, when evidence of voter fraud is minuscule, just saw that since I think they said 2000, there were 13 incidents of voter fraud in PA. If they registered to vote, didn't they show proof of who they are at that time? Do you think some illegal is going to risk deportation to go register to vote? Since they are in the country already but have no criminal background should they be allowed to vote? No, they don't qualify to vote so they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Where is the cut off point? I know there are a lot of great hard working illegals but isn't there a right way (lawful) and a wrong way (illegal)


    Jon are you willing to pay more taxes to hire more ICE agents to go after all the illegals? Are you willing to have more cuts in other programs to pay for going after all the illegals? I understand what you are saying illegal is illegal, but I'm sure there are many times, illegal acts are not pursued due to resources and intent. Yea it's illegal to have alcohol in our city parks, including our golf courses, nobody wants to pursue the offending parties, either because they are afraid the business will go elsewhere or there are not enough resources to hire more park rangers, and currently the park rangers we do have are assigned cases with higher priorities. In one way that is no different then what the president is doing. Heck like it's been said, he has deported more then Bush did in the same time frame.....so he is upholding the intent of the law. Get congress to get off their butts and come up with a solution, they are the lawmakers.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  13. Keith Lamb
    Keith Lamb avatar
    3 posts
    6/26/2012 6:06 PM
    [img">http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w327/alohakane123/racecard.jpg[/img">



View or change your forums profile here.