I have to say I'm disappointed in the Supremes-after taking the first step to marriage equality, they should have gone all the way and heard these cases and decide one way or another if gay marriage is legal or not. And as of yet they have not commented on why these chose to do this.

I've read a bit more about what means and it does actually sound like a victory for gay marriage in five southern states, as their bans on it will no longer have any legality since the Court denied taking the appeals. But it seems to keep the door open to other bans, and delays in allowing gay marriages to happen in states that have now had their bans overturned, and of course the inevitable lawsuits and state/US congressional actions that will try to still block gay marriage.

Its become such an important "hot-button" legal issue, it would have been appropriate to get a "Supreme" judgement on.

If all the circuit courts agree, then there's no reason for the Supreme Court to interject. If/when the 6th circuit rules against gay marriage, then the Supreme Court will be forced to take up the matter - and we'll know that the 6th circuit court does in a matter of a couple of months. But this may have been a message to the 6th circuit court, saying in essence that "we think everyone else has been right and there's no reason for us to revisit the issue".

The "Birthers" just don't give up:

Lawyer Who Beat the NSA Files Obama 'Deportation Petition' - US News

Thank you for the explanation-I sincerely hope that is what is going on here

Think of their not hearing any of the cases as okaying it by their inaction.


Emphasis mine.

Thanks DT, I have a better understanding on the situation now-still wish they would just rule on it once and for all because until they do there are going to be challenges to gay marriage either by states or individuals. But I realize now why they chose not to do it here.

The Supreme Court is actually being very smart here. They are incredibly wary of another Roe v. Wade situation. So, they'll allow it to play out a little longer in more a local way... a way that does seem to be moving towards consensus. So when the SCOTUS does issue a final ruling, you'll have most of the country already having SSM and you won't have a backlash that lasts... what, almost 40 years in the case of Roe?

Bear in mind, Imran, not that I disagree with your reasoning, but there was also a public safety issue at stake with Roe.

The other thing ScotusBlog points out is that the four conservatives might be thinking they'll take one last swing at it if Ginsburg (the likely next retiree) gets replaced by a Republican president after Obama.

IT guys are the worst time wasters. Tell him to close reddit for a minute and unblock it. Maybe give him some cat6 cable to smooth the waters.

Don't know what else is in the book. Some may say its to sell books but I do think he is a good guy based on his extensive service to the country and has honest disagreements with Obama. Just don't quite like the timing to kick someone when they are down and in a middle of a crazy mess.

Fmr. Defense Secretary on disagreements with Obama - CNN.com

He can be a "good guy" and have "extensive service to the country" and also be wrong.

I highly doubt that. This decision (to not review) will effectively put gay marriage in place in 11 states. If the court allows gay marriage in these states for several years and then later reverses it on the appointment of a new justice, it would cause a major backlash for the court that I don't believe someone like Roberts would ever allow.

Yea, I agree. Still, it's a little perplexing to think that Alito, Thomas and Scalia are just happy to let gay marriage be the law of the land.

Well it's possible they all voted to hear the case. It takes four, so that wouldn't be enough.

Legally there's little ground to stand on to justify a ban on gay marriage. The supposed logical reasons for it have all been thoroughly debunked so all you're left with are religious ones and that's tough to swallow even for the Three Stooges (Alito, Thomas and Scalia).

Finally, don't discount the unwillingness to be on the wrong side of history. Everyone can see the train has left the station. No one wants to be Henry Billings Brown v2.

It's still possible the Supreme Court grants cert for Idaho's 9th Circuit appeal of the Idaho district court's order striking down Idaho's gay marriage ban. The Supreme Court's denial of cert came while an 9th Circuit stay involving the Idaho case was still pending. And Idaho argues that their case is different than the others, and still wants to go through it's own 9th circuit rehearing process, and petition for cert to the Supreme Court. Kennedy granted a stay to sort that out.

Most likely it's just a formality based on the 9th Circuit kind of screwing up the procedure here. (Edit: This may also just be a little jab the 9th Circuit - a few days after yet another unanimous per curiam supreme court decision striking down a 9th circuit habeas opinion, that like many others, simply refused to follow the law when it comes to habeas cases, but that's another story.) But it would be fun for me if they took the Idaho case - I know several of named parties who are trying to get married - though not the first in the list whom the case would be named after.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...ic.-10-814.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...s/100814zr.pdf

Et tu Jimmy? Obama must be thinking WTF.

Carter criticizes Obama on ISIS: 'We waited too long' - CNN.com

Except, you know, for the one that matters most:

That calling same-sex unions "marriage" makes as much sense as declaring that peanut butter must forever be referred to as "mstyplx" or "blue".

It's the greatest assault on simple common sense in at least U.S. history.

And there isn't a pit in hell deep enough, nor a hanging post high enough for the wastes of oxygen posing as "justices" for not standing for simple fact.

Depends upon your source. The courts have decided that gender is irrelevant when it comes to a legal marriage that carries state benefits (or penalties).

No one is forcing a particular church to consecrate any particular union.

I've seen lots of marriages that were an assault on common sense, but they were perfectly legal.

The one that matters most? Which one is that? You failed to mention it.

It must really suck for you Jon, it not being socially acceptable anymore for you to kick around certain groups of people so you can feel better about yourself. All that hate and rage must really get bottled up now.

I hope he never picks up a dictionary and realizes that definitions for lots of words change...

Does the dictionary then becomes your authoritative scriptures?

Why is it any better/worse than a book written by a bunch of dudes over 1000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and women were property?

Post of the year, here. :D

Carter and Panetta may have views that disagree with the President, but at least they've been consistent.

It's still far better than this.

It's interesting how these things go in cycles. I do remember what Cheney was responding to there - years and years of criticism that George H.W. Bush was a pussy for not "finishing the job" in Iraq. So the next time, they were far more aggressive. When Jimmy Carter is calling you a pussy, you have to assume that our country's next conflict will be handled a lot differently by Obama's successors.

Edit: Not saying that Obama's way was wrong, we don't know that yet. But those rising in the ranks who will be in power soon will always look to the flaws of the guys in charge and aim to do better. So we swing back and forth in philosophies.

You learn from history. George H.W. Bush's understanding of the reality of the situation made his decision the correct one, and Cheney defended it appropriately. Then, when Cheney was faced with a similar decision, he forgot everything he said (including, most importantly, the point about a considerably-sized occupation force) and made the wrong decision. There's a lesson to be learned from this and arguably Obama has learned it.

The fallout from Vietnam lasted for almost 30 years. I'd guess the extent of foreign intervention in our military policy will be influenced by our Iraq misadventure for a similar length of time.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Interestingly Webster's second publican was "Dictionary of Self Evident Words"' not surprising it didn't sell well... Critics called it redundant

If you aren't a defense contractor you're missing out on a lot of free money.

I don't get it - there's no warranty? No maintenance contract? Who buys planes from Italy, anyway?!

So the US taxpayers took a bath on this one hmm? More than $500m worth of purchases from Italy and recouped virtually nothing.

And probably took the 32K and applied it to things outside of the budget since it was "free" money.

Still doesn't hold a candle to the $1B in cash shipped to Iraq in the early days of the invasion/occupation/reconstruction that literally disappeared.

...into government officials' pockets.

Just think of it as an economic stimulus/foreign aid.

SCOTUS just lifted the stay in Idaho. Also, they blocked voter ID laws in Wisconsin and Texas.

And allowed voter ID enforcement in North Carolina

This needs to stop, for sure. Which ones got that cash, btw?

I agree with not sending any ground troops into Iraq, especially since its just Anbar asking for help and not the central Iraqi authority. Even if they did, I would think it would be better to send boots on the ground to reinforce our allies - Jordan, Kuwait (I think), Saudi Arabia (not sure) etc.

A lot of risk for very little gain as the Iraqi's will never be a strategic ally and they (majority) will never be grateful but will find a way to blame us.

I sympathize with Turkey, if I was Turkey, I would be thinking the same thing - why am I the only one. I believe Turkey is taking in refugees so not sure why the Kobani's don't just cross the border.

Obama's legacy notwithstanding, if Baghdad falls

-- Does it threaten US interests more than the Iranians?
-- Does it force the fat, rich Gulf states to reach out and get into bed with us? Pretty sure they've been untested and probably can't fight well
-- Can ISIS govern what it has won, can it last as a caliphate that has to govern vs conquer?

Iraq's Anbar province: Send U.S. troops to stop ISIS - CNN.com

Alaska's down!

No. If ISIS manages to create a militaristic Sunni state out of a big portion of Iraq, you'd have to figure the biggest threat it poses is to the nearest Shi'ite state, which happens to be Iran. Cue Iran-Iraq war, v.2. This time with the U.S. probably subtly supporting the Iranians.


No, because you don't ally with a country most of your populace hates. They probably get some behind-the-scenes logistical help, though.


Well, the Taliban held on pretty long.


ISIS is a bigger problem for states actually in the region, than it is for the U.S., and our foreign policy should be based around that. ISIS may hate the United States, but they, like Al Qaeda in general, also hates the fat, rich Arab states even more. Even more when they're somewhat secular.

This is an ideal opportunity for the U.S. to stand back from the fray and wait for those other states to finally get worried enough to come looking for help. Then Obama (or whomever) can sit there with an innocent expression on his face and say "oh, so you want help? But last time we helped you were so unhelpful to us? Why should we help you?"

Foreign Policy via trolling is highly underrated.

Are one of those being crushed Sarah Palin? :) Can't imagine she'll be happy to see Gay marriage allowed in her home state

Well, the 9th Circuit lifted its stay and Idaho gave up the fight so gay marriage starts tomorrow. On the one hand, you'd probably take the over that Idaho would be gay marriage state #29, but being in the 9th circuit, it makes sense.

So, the opposition to gay marriage ends with a whimper, not a bang, eh?

The gayroller rolls on. North Carolina down!

Photos Of Same-Sex Marriage Celebrations Around North Carolina | WUNC

The difference between Democrats and Republicans, as witnessed by the 3 major social issues in the news right now:

Republicans want voting restrictions that will inconvenience or prevent hundreds of thousands of legal citizens from voting in order to stop - AT BEST - a handful of voting fraud cases. In reality, it's a way of them trying to overturn the 15th Amendment of the Constitution in an effort to combat the effects of their own shrinking voter base and misguided social policies. Misguided and evil.

Republicans keep trying to eliminate abortions by putting increasingly onerous and absurd restrictions on their businesses, putting people out of work and taking away a woman's right to choose something other than a back-alley abortion. Why? Because they want to impose their religious-based moral beliefs on everyone else despite this country not having an official religion and the word "God" found nowhere in the Constitution. Arrogant.

Republicans are trying to prevent gay people from marrying, for the same exact reasons as abortions - attempting to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. This despite the fact that a gay marriage has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Arrogant and evil.

Arrogant, misguided and evil....the modern Republican party.

Hellbent on making the nation unfit for remotely decent human beings: the modern left.

I still don't get how confirming your identity is somehow inconveniencing or preventing legal citizens from voting. Especially when you have to prove your identity to register in the first place. Why do we need same-day registration - is that for the handful of people turning 18 on the day of the election? I'd be willing to make an exception for that. And I would also agree that it needs to be easy to get some sort of different ID card for those without driver's licenses (perhaps when you first register and prove your identity?), and any attempt to block that puts folks square in the camp you mention. My local board of elections keeps sending me a card with my info and voting precinct information, I think showing that would be sufficient. Anything less than that is simply a continuation of the elimination of responsibility in this country.

The other two, I'm with you on.

Don't forget defunding the NIH so we can all get Ebola. Thanks GOP!


In possession of all the wrong opinions: JIMGA.


You've described perfectly reasonable methods to combat voter fraud. The problem is that these are not the methods the GOP is pushing in states where they're trying to restrict votes.

Except it's not. In Texas, 600,000 voters don't have the required ID. And you can tell it's politically driven by the types of IDs allowed. A gun permit is fine, a school ID is not.

I wouldn't mind an ID if rules were somewhat even and the government supplied an ID. But they don't and in some places the ID office is 60+ miles from their residence. It becomes a massive poll tax and significant inconvenience on just a couple of segments of the population, the majority who don't vote Republican. At best it's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. At worst - and it's difficult not to assume the worst when you look at how the laws are written - it's a blatant attempt to remove certain types of voters from the polls in an attempt to win elections by suppressing the vote. Given the voting rights track record of this country, it's downright shameful.

Then yes, I think we're on pretty much the same page.

I think I've made it clear that I'm not all that happy with the Republican party right now. I just don't see the Democrats as any better.

I don't have much love for the Democratic party either (I've never been a registered Democrat). They're often incompetent. But I don't feel from the Democrats the downright maliciousness that comes from the Republican party. Plus, virtually every Republican fiscal and social policy they advocate is either their attempt to impose a state religion (abortion, gay marriage) or a proven abject failure (supply side economics, too little government regulation).

FOFC, the last great socialist bastion.

Your tears remain delicious.

If this board is socialist, socialism has really moved quite a bit to the right since I last have seen it :D.

Left leaning, sure... socialist? Damn... I wonder what I'd call some of the other boards I've been on (where I find myself uncomfortable at all the left-leaning rhetoric).

To some people, if you're not a Republican, you're a socialist. Hell, I remember when Clinton was called a socialist, which is just hilariously absurd. I can't wait for when people will be calling some future Dem a socialist and wishing for the good ol days of pragmatic moderates like Obama.

The board's pretty liberal from a social perspective, but right-of-center on most other things.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't know what that term means.

Not sure I understand, one is government issued the other is not.
The second is part just it. Thats exactly what is happening in SC. SC has offered a Free ID card and free transportation to an issuing office in their proposed bill. The fine Reverend Jackson screamed from the state house steps about the racial inequity of the bill. Depsite some 800 deceased (thats just the ones that have been caught) voters in the last POTUS election in SC.

Disproven

The case of ‘zombie’ voters in South Carolina - The Washington Post

As far as I can tell the SC ID requires having a birth certificate either for the ID or for a SS card to get a driver's license. A SC birth certificate costs twelve dollars. There are also people that don't have access to a birth certificate either because of age or being born in Kenya.

Oh shit. Really?

The zombie voters? That was 953 votes of supposedly dead voters over 74 elections over 7 years. After further investigation, in the last vote for the POTUS SLED concluded that there ware 5 - that's right, FIVE - votes that remained "unresolved" after being investigated. Five out of 1,964,000 as per the article Cartman posted above.

So you think it's reasonable to disenfranchise up to 180,000 voters to try to prevent 5 cases of possible (not even proven) voter fraud? And why shouldn't Jessie Jackson scream from the front steps on this? The rules disproportionally impact minorities due to economic and infrastructure reasons.

As for the "free" ID, it requires documents that aren't free to obtain. You need a birth certificate, SS card and proof of residency. Getting these documents aren't free - something I found out when I just had to pay about $100 to get a copy of my son's birth certificate from the state of NC recently (expedited service, otherwise it would take 8-10 weeks but cost less). That's more than the poll taxes of the 1950s even after being adjusted for inflation.

As for the "free rides"? That was one day out of the year - a Wednesday - with limited hours and required a two hour time window for pickup. If you worked that day or didn't have the entire day to waste or required special transportation (handicapped, etc.), well, tough luck.

Now that we've established the real facts, do you want to try again?

I typed passionate reply on my wife's ipad and the damn thing locked up while posting. I dont feel like re-creating it, but here were the key points.

1- Nothing you have said has altered my opinion and nothing I am goin to say is going to change yours. I think that is a given. We are each strong willed, hard headed and intelligent individuals who come at this argument from different back grounds, that is probably to be expected.

I consider my right, moreover my OBLIGATION, to vote the single biggest responsibility and privelege I have as a citizen. No man will keep me from voting. Set up whatever road block you will and I will over come it.

2- If one singel vote is cast fraudulently it is worth purusing to a conculsion, the person who cast it and all who facilitated it should be barred from voting for the duration of their life and I wouldnt oppose them being tried for treason. I don't care how many people are "disenfranchised" by having to show an ID to cast a vote. If they feel as strongly as I do about voting they will not mind.

3- I simply dont buy the whole impossibility of obtaining an ID. This is SC we are talking about. There isnt a major metro to be found. There isnt a public transit system to be found. If a person works they have a means of transportation. If they do not work they should be available for the free ride whenever it is made available. Hell even if they do work, if they cant afford $20 for an ID they cant afford a vacation and can use a vacation day to get the free ride. Alternatively, yep it takes 4 weeks to get a replacement birth certificate in SC( at a cost of $12 plus a stamp, ) or 30 minutes for $12 and no stamp if you walk in the office. Vital Records: Birth Certificates

(BTW in NC it should have cost you $39 to walk out with a same day certificate. No where near the $100 you allege NC Vital Records: Fees)

You have 52 weeks between local elections and 200+ weeks between presidential elections. If a person does not care enough to plan ahead and order a certificate then they do not care enough to vote and dont deserve the right.

4- I'll probably get boxed again if I share my opinion on Reverend Jackson, so I wont take the bait there his time. But I will question why a law requiring a state issued ID, that the state will issue for free, is discriminatory or harder for African Americans to obtain than caucasions other than it fits your agenda.


Enjoy the remainder of this debate...frankly I dont care what you think of my opinion, and you dont care what I think of yours. We each think the other is equally wrong and we each can present arguments explaining why we think we are solely right and the other person is somehow ignorant or intentionally obtuse.

If you care so much about the right to vote, perhaps you shouldn't support things that arbitrarily remove it from people who have as much a right to it as you. When presented with actual facts that refute your argument, your response is to dig in your heels and double down on silliness, not much else to be said. I'm wrong and I'm not going to listen isn't so great.

It puts a burden on those who may not have the resources, time, or energy to do something they have not had to do, and it's usually right before an election in order to remove them from the voting pool because they don't vote a certain way. It's very easy for you with means to talk about what those who don't have as much as you should do. I am willing to let 5 cases out of nearly 2M slide if addressing those 5 cases puts a burden on 150k more.

What facts have been presented to show Voter ID laws are bad, suppress votes or whatever else the Democratic party peddles on this issue? It is only about politics. Democrats think they benefit from voter fraud opportunities, so they support no ID validation. If they thought Republicans benefited, they would be all over strong voter ID requirements. They don't care about any individuals rights on this issue.

Regarding the number of cases of voter fraud prosecuted or identified or whatever, the Supreme Court noted that our country has a long history of voter fraud. In today's environment, there is not really any effort put into trying to find voter fraud. Basically if the Cops did not troll the highways with radar guns looking for speeders, they would not find very many. That does not mean people are not speeding.

Voting should be easy and cheating should be hard. It's a pretty simple concept.

LMAO

I agree. There's a huge difference between discrimination and setting up a couple of simple and free requirements for voters.

You know what's really creepy... I'm voting absentee for the first time. Apparently, political parties can obtain phone numbers of those who vote absentee, because I'm getting calls from people trying to instruct me on how to fill out my ballot.

If that's legal, and asking people simply to have an ID in order to vote isn't, something's very, very wrong here.

IT'S NOT FREE.

But you know...just keep on with your reading comprehension fail.

Neither side gives a shit about the integrity of the elections.

Democrats don't want any kind of ID laws because they realize the lower the barrier of entry, the more it benefits them. They also realize that less scrutiny over votes benefits them as well (see Chicago's storied history of elections).

On the other hand, Republicans want voter ID because they realize it eliminates more Democratic voters than Republican. They also don't want early voting, extended voting hours, and so on.

Neither side is right on this issue.

I didn't have to pay to register to vote. I did have to pay a small amount to have an ID, but I also need that ID to drive or work or just about everything else. Does that constitute a poll tax? Should the argument be whether the government charges to issue an ID rather than whether an ID is necessary for voting?

Anyway, I think people on a forum should have a minimum level of respect for others. So, as for reading comprehension, it's entirely possible this was mentioned, but I have 3 or 4 people on ignore for persistently being personally abusive in their responses (not necessarily to me). I may have missed the response you're talking about - or maybe it's just not viewable for me at the moment. We can't demand that people listen or that they are open to opposing views. But we can expect that people are respectful. So knock it off.

He he he, I'm impressed. That is better than LOL.

It's pretty easy to vote twice, but I don't know if that swings any elections. I'd be happy with the Idaho system that doesn't require an ID, but a sworn declaration that you are who you say you are, and then harsher penalties for fraud, instead of it just being treated like a big joke.

Cracking down on people who vote twice.

What did the Supreme Court say about the cost of ID when they agreed it was acceptable to require an ID for voting?

If a state requires an ID to vote it should make IDs free.

Yes

That is what I read too. Regarding the Supreme Court decision.

It may have been a response here that I was referring to, but it's not like there's any shortage of stories on countless other media outlets.

And I'll "knock it off" if I want to. You're not my parent and I don't respond well to patronizing. :p

Florida never lets us down.

The Most Insane Moment In Political Debate History - YouTube

In short, you posted a bunch of incorrect facts, made false assumptions based on those "facts", got shown that you were wrong (FYI, I am now OUT OF STATE - I can't "walk up" to Raleigh) and now you're out. Fine. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And your refusal to consider a different conclusion when presented with real data is your issue.

And if you don't understand why it's harder for a demographic group that is significantly poorer, more rural, less educated and with fewer places to go (all due to centuries of racist policies) to get an ID, then that's a pretty sad statement.

Ok, but voter ID laws change the rule of the land, so the onus is upon them to show why those laws would benefit the people. And, as in South Carolina's case, if 180,000 people are disenfranchised or even significantly inconvenienced in order to catch up to a maximum of five fraudulent voting cases, does that sound like a reasonable approach? Does that benefit the people?

---

It's just another barrier to try to prevent minorities from voting. Another barrier you may ask? Take for example long lines. In SC, the TOP 10 precincts with the longest waits had more than twice the percentage of black registered voters, on average, than the rest of the state. Richland County, which is about half black, had a precinct with 1 machine for every 432 voters though the law requires a machine every 250 voters. And those machines break down more often too. It's all just coincidence, right? Of course, they may not have long lines anymore because more than a hundred thousand people may not even get the chance to vote this year!

I saw the same thing in NC, where minority polling stations are moved away from population centers or eliminated entirely, forcing longer drives and long waits to vote. Of course, these states aren't alone. Across the country in the last Presidential election, African-Americans waited an average of 23 minutes to vote, while whites waited 12 minutes and Hispanics 19 minutes.

Nah, nothing racist to see here.

http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosner..._WI_101014.pdf

Judge Posner's reevaluation of voter ID is worth reading. He was one of the federal judges that okayed Indiana's ID law, but has looked at implementation and determined that most ID laws are veiled attempts to limit access.

So only those completely apathetic are honest?

Yep, and it's not like Posner is some raging liberal judge. :)

The moderator admitted that "no fans" was part of the agreement, and they brought one anyway. His opponent should be getting far more guff for this.

Crist completely punked Scott. I believe Scott when he said he thought both candidates had decided not to debate. Crist made him look like a fool.

The moderator said that Scott said there was a rule against fans, when the agreement was no electronics on stage. There was no explicit "no fan" clause in the debate agreement.

edit: it would seem pretty clear that "no electronics" would mean something like a phone, tablet, laptop, earpiece, etc. Electric is not equal to electronic.

Ahem: http://b.3cdn.net/crist/b0917529c253..._gwm6i2igh.pdf

See the bottom. Fans were specifically allowed.

Scott doesn't need the help.

Knock it off, you big baby.

Your "minimum level of respect" is to have everyone treat you with kid gloves and afford you some higher standard of respect because apparently you don't like being called on your inability to routinely support your arguments.

And I'm pretty sure you have me on ignore anyway. So stay in your cocoon there, pal.

Same here.

Also, Posner, who a number of analysts think SCOTUS will be looking at when the issue makes it back up there, recently came out with this, reversing his views on voter ID: A conservative judge's devastating take on why voter ID laws are evil - LA Times

Edit: Well, that's what I get for not reading the rest of the thread before posting.

This is insane reasoning.

Studies and facts have shown OVER AND OVER AGAIN that we do not have an issue with voter fraud.

You would insist there is equivalence between the Democrats, who aren't inclined to support ID laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist, and Republicans, who want to put in these laws for the same reason. Really?

Unless you're suggesting that Democrats have been actively seeking to remove any barriers to entry vis-a-vis voting, in which case CITATION NEEDED. And you can't cite some random incidences, it needs to be a coordinated national effort, like the GOP is doing. Good luck with that.

And stop bringing up Chicago. Those abuses were decades ago. That's not to say that Chicago still isn't corrupt, especially at the precinct level (hello, recent Chicago resident here), but voter fraud IS NOT a problem in Chicago.

So this is what happens to the Obama thread when all the baseball teams on the East Coast are no longer involved in the playoffs.

People still watch baseball?

We've come a long way, though. Remember when this thread (or its predecessors) used to consistently add several pages a day?

People still play baseball?

All those "facts" list the number of prosecutions for it. If we don't have prosecutions, we don't have voter fraud apparently. Just like I'm sure in the 21 states where adultery is illegal, it must not take place because no one gets prosecuted for it.

It's difficult to catch and difficult to prove. In Chicago for instance, all I have to do is show up, say my name, and sign a piece of paper It wouldn't take much to figure out who is registered to vote but never does in the area, walk in, say that name, and vote.

I don't think it's a major issue or anything. I just think this idea that in the political world where hundreds of millions are spent, backroom deals are made, bribes are taken, crimes are committed, that voter fraud is somehow this line that neither party would cross is ridiculous. I live in a State that had a governor earmark $50 million in taxpayer money to bribe local leaders in Democratic districts last election cycle to get people out to vote.

I don't think it's racist, I just think they want to win elections. They'd try to suppress their own Mother's vote if they felt it could win them the election.

I don't doubt voting fraud, but the kind of fraud ID would prevent is unlikely and inefficient. Most national elections are decided by thousands or tens of thousands of votes. For voter impersonation to work that would mean hundreds or thousands of people finding IDs to use, going to precincts, fooling the poll workers, not duplicating names/addresses, and then never speaking of it. That's incredibly unlikely.

And why would parties invest in that when it's a hell of a lot more efficient to mess with counting totals or voting machines or limit registration and/or voting?

It's borderline nuts to believe that there are thousands or tens of thousands of cases of voter impersonation each election, but somehow that always stays secret.