Politics

[RDU Irish]

Third Party candidates tend to screw over one party or the other.

Ralph Nader albeit was not a serious challenger but took more than enough votes to prevent Al Gore from winning the election.

Ross Perot may have been the one candidate that took votes from both sides fairly evenly.

Teddy Roosevelt, when he came back from his post presidential Africa safari was pretty PO'd at Taft and the direction he had taken the party. He pretty much screwed Taft in 1912 when he ran as an independent. In fact Taft got like 12 electoral votes or something along those lines.

I don't disagree, rather I submit Paul would draw from both sides the MOST if both sides put up old names like Bush vs. Clinton. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle are tired of the short bench from which we are pulling leaders.

Perot is a great example, he got 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in a half assed run in 1996. I think discontent is much higher than it was then and social media makes it easier to make a third party push. Plus, how many people didn't want to "waste" their vote on someone who was so far out of the running? In a tighter race, I think he picks up another 3-4 points minimum.

So I can make a case for Perot being preferred by almost 1/4th of voters. 20 years later, I think the level of discontent is much higher and fewer people identify as closely with Rs and Ds.

The interesting thing would be the dynamic if he were able to surpass one of the other candidates. Negative campaigning is so powerful, how many people are voting against someone? if you are voting against Democrats and a third party passes the Republican in the polls, are you going to vote the third party to improve the chance of beating the guy you hate?

Wouldn't it be fascinating if a third party undermined negative campaigns? Negative ad on one candidate helps the other two and not necessarily the one who paid for it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just finished reading an article in The Atlantic titled "The Sad, Slow Death of American Retail":

Retail sales just notched their best month since 2012 and the industry has added almost one million jobs since 2010. But the rosy headline stats obscure a more complex and potentially troubling story in retail—particularly for its employees.

The business of selling stuff is becoming much more efficient. Sales-per-employee have gone from $12,00 to $25,000 in the last two decades. That means that even as consumers spend more, we need fewer workers to stock shelves and process orders.

One reason retail has become so efficient is that more of it is happening across Internet cables rather than across registers. E-commerce is gobbling up one percentage point of total sales every two-and-a-half years. Call it the Amazon Effect.

And then there's the Walmart Effect. As I've reported, one Walmart worker replaces about 1.4 local retail workers, so that a county sees about 150 fewer jobs in the years after a Walmart opens its doors. Combined with the Amazon effect, this has dramatically reduced our need for retail workers to sell things, and so retail's share of the labor force, which peaked in the late 1980s, has been declining ever since.

This isn't the end of retail. But it is the end of some retail.

According to data obtained by The Atlantic from EMSI, the retail industry gained about 49,000 jobs between 2001 and 2013, which means it grew by exactly 0.32 percent. Which means it didn't grow.

But the major action is at the bookends of this graph below, which shows employment growth in the largest retail subcategories. Department stores, like JCPenney, lost more than 200,000 jobs this century. But supercenters like Walmart, which operates in more than 3,200 domestic locations, added half a million (often lower-paying) jobs.

The death of the salesmen isn't a uniform trend. It's spiky. Supercenters nearly doubled their total employment this century. But music stores, photo stores, computer stores, and book stores have been crushed. These used to be services you needed a store to buy. Now they're apps.

Retail is already a famously low-income industry. According to the Fed, real hourly earnings for retail workers has actually decreased since 2007, the year the recession struck. The upshot is that we're seeing a large industry stricken by the rise of the Internet, which is growing fastest into supercenters like Walmart that pay regularly low, if not minimum, wages to its employees. For consumers, there's never been a better time to buy stuff. It's not such a happy story for the people on the shopping floor and behind the counters.

Touches on some of the automation issues that Buster brought up previously.

 

[chicago51]

Just finished reading an article in The Atlantic titled "The Sad, Slow Death of American Retail":



Touches on some of the automation issues that Buster brought up previously.

I am amazed how Karl Marx was able to foresee technology replacing jobs considering he died in the 1880s which was very early industrial revolution. Plus most of his writing was done in the 1850s if I recall. I guess with the cotton gin and later steam power replacing a lot of workers maybe one could see it coming. Though I remain in awe of his foresight on the matter.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I am amazed how Karl Marx was able to foresee technology replacing jobs considering he died in the 1880s which was very early industrial revolution. Plus most of his writing was done in the 1850s if I recall. I guess with the cotton gin and later steam power replacing a lot of workers maybe one could see it coming. Though I remain in awe of his foresight on the matter.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by your awe of Karl Marx. Care to take 5 minutes and think about all the jobs created by technology?

 

[GoIrish41]

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by your awe of Karl Marx. Care to take 5 minutes and think about all the jobs created by technology?

I can't stand Tom Brady but I recognize he is a great quarterback.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by your awe of Karl Marx. Care to take 5 minutes and think about all the jobs created by technology?

As a conservative who worries about the decline the community in America, I'm also impressed with Marx's predictions regarding liberal capitalism:

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

Note that by "bourgeoisie", he's referring to capitalists or the 1%. One doesn't have to agree with Marx's policy prescriptions in order to admire the accuracy of the description above. That was written nearly 160 years ago.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by your awe of Karl Marx. Care to take 5 minutes and think about all the jobs created by technology?

It's more complicated than that. It's the quality of the jobs a lot of the time (eg blacksmith ---> factory worker) where you're worth is diminished.

Also it's clear as day that the human capital was moved over the last two hundred years, from agriculture to manufacturing to service sector....to where? I'm of the opinion that it's all part of the same transformation from inescapable poverty to jobless societies.

And let me be very clear that I think capitalism is the miracle that cured classical poverty. I just think the transition in this new economy is going to be very painful for society as unemployment creeps upward.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It's more complicated than that. It's the quality of the jobs a lot of the time (eg blacksmith ---> factory worker) where you're worth is diminished.

Also it's clear as day that the human capital was moved over the last two hundred years, from agriculture to manufacturing to service sector....to where? I'm of the opinion that it's all part of the same transformation from inescapable poverty to jobless societies.

And let me be very clear that I think capitalism is the miracle that cured classical poverty. I just think the transition in this new economy is going to be very painful for society as unemployment creeps upward.

Some predict computers will produce a jobless future. Here’s why they’re wrong.

A different perspective.......

 

[chicago51]

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by your awe of Karl Marx. Care to take 5 minutes and think about all the jobs created by technology?

Marx wasn't right about everything. He was certainly wrong about just how big of a middle class capitalism created, particularly with the government actually enforcing antitrust laws that allowed for a lot of competition.

I think history though has proven Marx right about technology, monopolies, big business always looking for the lowest common denominator in terms of labor, and the constant need for emerging markets.

FYI regulated capitalism does not equate to lack of free enterprise.

 

[Rizzophil]

There was a victory in the Nevada standoff between the Bureau of Land Management agents (BLM) and the Cliven Bundy Ranch. Cowboys from around the country came to join in the standoff and show their support for the Bundys.

Hopefully you have seen this story though it has not received much press. Cliven Bundy and his family have ranched property in the Nevada desert for over 140 years. Like most western states, much of the land is owned by the Federal Government and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM leases out the land to private citizens. These leases are effectively lifetime leases and can be sold or passed to heirs like real estate with the approval of the BLM.

The Bundys owned one or more of this type of lease, which gives them the right to graze cattle on this property. Like many ranchers who operate on BLM land, the Bundys have been under assault by environmentalists who do not like cattle. They claim cows are destructive to the natural eco systems and may disturb the migration of land turtles, bugs, fish, birds, etc. You name it, and they will come up with a reason to further their agenda.

Having raised cattle myself, I know ranchers probably respect and love the land more than anyone. Their living is determined by how well they steward the land. No one is a better manager of natural resources than a rancher. The problem is that most ranchers apply common sense methods of land management, and that does not work when dealing with the Federal Government.

The Real Story

Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brokered a deal with a Chinese company to install a $5 billion solar farm on the land of Bundy's ranch. Rory Reid, Harry Reid's son, is the lead lawyer for ENN, the Chinese energy company. The energy giant has a contract to purchase the land from the BLM for pennies on the dollar, but the deal was contingent on removing the cattle from the land. Do you smell the same skunk that I do?

For now, because of the courageous acts of a few cowboys, the Federal Government retreated and their devious plans were exposed, but you can count on this fight not being over. I am being told the Feds are amassing a huge staging area in Las Vegas where they are bringing in equipment and personnel for another possible confrontation.


Bottom line is this: Our individual freedoms and private property rights are under assault. Without courageous men and women to stand and say we will be pushed no further, our home of the brave and land of the free will be changed forever.

There are dozens of stories like this around the country. Many get very little media coverage, if any. One such example is Elaine's Photography in New Mexico in which discrimination charges were filed against them for not being willing to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding. They were ordered to pay a $6,600.00 fine.

This week the CEO of Mozilla, Brenan Eich, creator of Mozilla Firefox web browser and Java Script, was forced to resign because he made a donation in 2008 to support California Proposition 8, the citizen initiative to pass a marriage amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, which passed by a huge majority and was then overturned by a Federal judge.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I can't stand Tom Brady but I recognize he is a great quarterback.

Are you saying Marx was a brilliant economist?

 

[EddytoNow]

There was a victory in the Nevada standoff between the Bureau of Land Management agents (BLM) and the Cliven Bundy Ranch. Cowboys from around the country came to join in the standoff and show their support for the Bundys.

Hopefully you have seen this story though it has not received much press. Cliven Bundy and his family have ranched property in the Nevada desert for over 140 years. Like most western states, much of the land is owned by the Federal Government and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM leases out the land to private citizens. These leases are effectively lifetime leases and can be sold or passed to heirs like real estate with the approval of the BLM.

The Bundys owned one or more of this type of lease, which gives them the right to graze cattle on this property. Like many ranchers who operate on BLM land, the Bundys have been under assault by environmentalists who do not like cattle. They claim cows are destructive to the natural eco systems and may disturb the migration of land turtles, bugs, fish, birds, etc. You name it, and they will come up with a reason to further their agenda.

Having raised cattle myself, I know ranchers probably respect and love the land more than anyone. Their living is determined by how well they steward the land. No one is a better manager of natural resources than a rancher. The problem is that most ranchers apply common sense methods of land management, and that does not work when dealing with the Federal Government.

The Real Story

Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brokered a deal with a Chinese company to install a $5 billion solar farm on the land of Bundy's ranch. Rory Reid, Harry Reid's son, is the lead lawyer for ENN, the Chinese energy company. The energy giant has a contract to purchase the land from the BLM for pennies on the dollar, but the deal was contingent on removing the cattle from the land. Do you smell the same skunk that I do?

For now, because of the courageous acts of a few cowboys, the Federal Government retreated and their devious plans were exposed, but you can count on this fight not being over. I am being told the Feds are amassing a huge staging area in Las Vegas where they are bringing in equipment and personnel for another possible confrontation.


Bottom line is this: Our individual freedoms and private property rights are under assault. Without courageous men and women to stand and say we will be pushed no further, our home of the brave and land of the free will be changed forever.

There are dozens of stories like this around the country. Many get very little media coverage, if any. One such example is Elaine's Photography in New Mexico in which discrimination charges were filed against them for not being willing to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding. They were ordered to pay a $6,600.00 fine.

This week the CEO of Mozilla, Brenan Eich, creator of Mozilla Firefox web browser and Java Script, was forced to resign because he made a donation in 2008 to support California Proposition 8, the citizen initiative to pass a marriage amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, which passed by a huge majority and was then overturned by a Federal judge.

If your story about Senator Reid is accurate I certainly condemn the actions he has taken. However, isn't it ironic that those who benefited most, when this same land was stolen from the Native Americans and leased to the ancestors of these same ranchers for far less than its true worth, are now the ones complaining that the government may be doing the same thing to them. I guess if the government or big business screws with someone else and you benefit, it is fine. However, if they screw with you in the same manner, you cry out at the injustice.

The bottom line is that the whole state of Nevada really belongs to the Native Americans who had it taken away in the 19th century. The ranchers gained use of the land through the actions of the same government they now condemn. Follow the money and you will find the truth. Our government has been corrupted by money and land since its inception.

 

[chicago51]

First off I'm not a fan of Harry Reid but snopes debunked this thing. Harry Reid from the progressive left's point of view has hardly been a good Senate majority leader. The area the solar company target was not the land the Bundy family is disputing and the deal fell through last year.

Secondly isn't ironic that in the last couple weeks Harry Reid has been making speeches on the Senate floor calling out the Koch's and some of the other right wing donors (not that the left doesn't have their donors) but Harry Reid has been calling out some powerful people along with the conservatives on the supreme court. Now all of a sudden some dirt just magically comes out against him? Makes me wonder, even though I have not been Harry's biggest fan.

snopes.com: Harry Reid, Chinese Company Behind Nevada Ranch Standoff

However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:

A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting. Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:

Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Read more at snopes.com: Harry Reid, Chinese Company Behind Nevada Ranch Standoff

The other issue not being talked about is the severe drought out west. There is an increase in public lands being used for grazing by family's like the Bundy's because their private owned land just does have sufficient growth to cut because of the drought.

Not saying this particular drought out west is climate change related or just a coincidence but we are going to have to be prepared for more problems like this.

 

[irishog77]

First off I'm not a fan of Harry Reid but snopes debunked this thing. Harry Reid from the progressive left's point of view has hardly been a good Senate majority leader. The area the solar company target was not the land the Bundy family is disputing and the deal fell through last year.

Secondly isn't ironic that in the last couple weeks Harry Reid has been making speeches on the Senate floor calling out the Koch's and some of the other right wing donors (not that the left doesn't have their donors) but Harry Reid has been calling out some powerful people along with the conservatives on the supreme court. Now all of a sudden some dirt just magically comes out against him? Makes me wonder, even though I have not been Harry's biggest fan.

snopes.com: Harry Reid, Chinese Company Behind Nevada Ranch Standoff



The other issue not being talked about is the severe drought out west. There is an increase in public lands being used for grazing by family's like the Bundy's because their private owned land just does have sufficient growth to cut because of the drought.

Not saying this particular drought out west is climate change related or just a coincidence but we are going to have to be prepared for more problems like this.

Agreed that he's not a good senate majority lea....well anything.

But who on the left, if he even thinks this, is actually saying this?? Random guys on internet message boards?

What "progressive" person or group is calling him out for not being a good senate majority leader?

 

[chicago51]

Agreed that he's not a good senate majority lea....well anything.

But who on the left, if he even thinks this, is actually saying this?? Random guys on internet message boards?

What "progressive" person or group is calling him out for not being a good senate majority leader?

Well most of the groups I pay attention to you won't hear about on TV.

I'd imagine most of the mainstream Dem Pacs that represent the vast majority of the Democratic Party and the Obama and Clinton machines are probably mostly pro Harry Reid.

Progressive Democrats for America has been very critical of Harry Reid.

We don't have any radio personalities like Glenn Beck, or Rush with huge following as we the radio isn't our first place to go for information. Thom Hartman is a pretty big lefty broadcaster and he has blasted Harry and Obama in the past.

Ed Shultz (who I'm no longer a fan of as come to realize the MSNBC folks are corporate backed as well) another big left radio bashed Harry over filibuster reform (or lack of).

 

[GoIrish41]

Are you saying Marx was a brilliant economist?

No, I'm saying that he was great at observing what was going on around him and making predictions based on that information. His solutions were as full of problems as they system he was trying to fix. One does not have to fully embrace Marxism to recognize that he was right about some things.

 

[DSully1995]

No, I'm saying that he was great at observing what was going on around him and making predictions based on that information. His solutions were as full of problems as they system he was trying to fix. One does not have to fully embrace Marxism to recognize that he was right about some things.

He observed, made predictions, and was wrong everywhere. All his "solutions" caused more problems than they solved and his predictions were pretty wrong.

 

[DSully1995]

Technology took over these jobs and yet, income per person has risen ( and so have living standards, from technology). Technological advance are the best way to fuel growth, dont be so quick to try to downplay its importance.

 

[GoIrish41]

He observed, made predictions, and was wrong everywhere. All his "solutions" caused more problems than they solved and his predictions were pretty wrong.

The specific observatons we are discussing are the ones when he said technology would negatively impact labor. I don't think he was wrong about that.

 

[chicago51]

So for those arguing technology is not leading us to a painful transition then where are the jobs going to go.

We went from agriculture to manufanufacturing to a service based economy. After the service industry what's next?

 

[chicago51]

He observed, made predictions, and was wrong everywhere. All his "solutions" caused more problems than they solved and his predictions were pretty wrong.

Marx was wrong about capitalism (unregulated) leading to monopoly?

Marx was wrong the ever constant need for emerging markets, and also the business looking for labor at the lowest common denominator? With the lowest common denominator eventually being machines.

Sure the guy was wrong about how big of middle class grew out of capitalism. The question though remains if it is sustainable as a system in the future.

 

[connor_in]

President Obama’s Bogus Voting Rights Claims

 

[GoIrish41]

Marx was wrong about capitalism (unregulated) leading to monopoly?

Marx was wrong the ever constant need for emerging markets, and also the business looking for labor at the lowest common denominator? With the lowest common denominator eventually being machines.

Sure the guy was wrong about how big of middle class grew out of capitalism. The question though remains if it is sustainable as a system in the future.

Here is a brief article on the topic

Marx Was Right: 5 Correct Predictions About Modern Capitalism | Sean McElwee

 

[Rizzophil]

It's still strange to me that we love in the land of the free and yet people want to go back under government control.

 

[chicago51]

It's still strange to me that we love in the land of the free and yet people want to go back under government control.

?

The funny thing is I've never heard a liberal say we want to abandon free enterprise.

It is also kind of a joke because neither party really wants to shrink government. Certainly Democrats don't but Republicans don't either. The area Republicans want government shrunk is so large corporations can dominate a larger share of the market place. Neither side embraces economic competition.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's still strange to me that we love in the land of the free and yet people want to go back under government control.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, but I don't think anyone even hinted they wanted "to go back under government control". Indeed, I really am not sure what that means.

 

[chicago51]

President Obama’s Bogus Voting Rights Claims

Quick question on voting:

I get the whole concept of preventing voter fraud so I guess voter ID laws make sense. Although I think it is bogus that often times college students from out of state can't vote when they had to prove their identity to attend the school in the first place.

Anyway my question is how does cancelling or reducing early voting prevent voter fraud? All early voting restrictions do is make it harder for working people particularly with children who can't get off work to vote.

If it was just voter IDs I say "okay these guys really do care about voter fraud". When early voting is significantly reduced, and polling places are unserved in certain areas it gives me concerns to what exactly the whole agenda is.

 

[IrishLax]

Serious question... how close are we to a domestic or worldwide push at population curbs (i.e. two child max, etc.)? And how would you feel about that?

 

[chicago51]

Serious question... how close are we to a domestic or worldwide push at population curbs (i.e. two child max, etc.)? And how would you feel about that?

Just my take.

Domestically we got a lot of room to grow especially in our cities. Thanks to sprawl our cities are nowhere near as dense as major cities in other parts of the world.

Globally I think we might be in trouble. Rising temperatures in certain areas as well as natural resource depletion is leading to less and less natural resources globally. I believe we'll get to a point where globally the natural resources on this planet can't support the global population. At which point I assume we see wars and violence.

Kind of hard to see here since the US has not seen the temperature increases the way other parts of the world have especially with high concentrations methane gas displacing cold arctic air down into the US and Canada during the winter months. Though with the drought out west we are not immune.

 

[GoIrish41]

Quick question on voting:

I get the whole concept of preventing voter fraud so I guess voter ID laws make sense. Although I think it is bogus that often times college students from out of state can't vote when they had to prove their identity to attend the school in the first place.

Anyway my question is how does cancelling or reducing early voting prevent voter fraud? All early voting restrictions do is make it harder for working people particularly with children who can't get off work to vote.

Serious if it was just voter IDs I say "okay these guys really do care about voter fraud". When early voting is significantly reduced, and polling places are unserved in certain areas it gives me concerns to what exactly the whole agenda is.

Voter fraud is a red herring. IDs would prevent "in person" voter fraud that is virtually non-existent in any state in this nation. The goal here is to keep minorities away from the polls so that more Republicans have a chance to win elections. I don't think it could be more obvious. I have said it before. If there is a push to require voter ID cards, it should be made the day after the next election to maximize the time people have to come into compliance with the law. What typically happens is that attempts are made to impose such laws right before elections to cause confusion about who can and can't vote -- thereby limiting participation. Limiting voting is as unAmerican a tactic as there is and those who are trying to do these things are shameless.