How likely for save act to pass senate?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


Well go through the proper process after a name change. Stop being a victim and do your part.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


Well go through the proper process after a name change. Stop being a victim and do your part.

And the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a passport or a drivers license that indicates citizenship? How should they "stop being victims"?
Anonymous
The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false. Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters? Very likely yes. But what happens then? Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


Well go through the proper process after a name change. Stop being a victim and do your part.

And the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a passport or a drivers license that indicates citizenship? How should they "stop being victims"?


And tens of millions of other Americans don't want their vote diluted by non-citizens, people under 18, people who vote more than once in an election, or people that don't even exist in real life. You have a duty to clean up the voter rolls and keep them current. You have a duty to ensure elections adhere to a minimum set of standards, not just on paper through nice flowery worfs in legislation, but also that it is actually implemented in every state.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


Well go through the proper process after a name change. Stop being a victim and do your part.

And the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a passport or a drivers license that indicates citizenship? How should they "stop being victims"?


Only 5 states have these "enhanced" REAL ID drivers licenses.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false. Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters? Very likely yes. But what happens then? Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?


Why are you so invested in background checks for firearms purchases that are actually implemented and not just nice words in law that never are followed?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


Well go through the proper process after a name change. Stop being a victim and do your part.

And the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a passport or a drivers license that indicates citizenship? How should they "stop being victims"?


Only 5 states have these "enhanced" REAL ID drivers licenses.


You don't get on an airplane without a real ID or a passport.

"enhanced"?
Anonymous
Do you mean enhanced driver's license?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


She's not jumping the gun. Things like that have already happened in previous GOP purges of voter rolls. If things don't match perfectly they will take every advantage to purge you. Especially if you have a last name like Ramos or many other names that they were shown to have profiled in Kansas and elsewhere for their targeted voter purges.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false. Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters? Very likely yes. But what happens then? Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?


Why are you so invested in background checks for firearms purchases that are actually implemented and not just nice words in law that never are followed?


You're either naive and uninformed or dishonest. When you say "actually implemented" it's implemented with holes so big you could float the USS Abraham Lincoln through them.

The core weakness in America’s background‑check system is that it was never designed to cover the full universe of gun transfers. Federal law only requires checks for sales by licensed dealers, leaving a massive parallel market: private sales, gun‑show transactions, online listings, and informal person‑to‑person transfers, where no check is required at all. That gap is not theoretical: a large national survey found that 45% of people who bought a gun online in the previous two years did so with no background check, meaning millions of firearms move through channels where prohibited buyers can shop freely. This loophole is so large that only 19 states and D.C. have closed it with universal background‑check laws; everywhere else, a buyer who would fail a check at a gun store can simply walk around the system and buy privately.

And even when a background check is performed, the system is built on incomplete, inconsistent, and often outdated records. The federal NICS database depends on states voluntarily submitting criminal, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence records, and the quality of those submissions varies dramatically. Domestic‑violence cases are especially prone to falling through the cracks: restraining orders, misdemeanor domestic‑violence convictions, and related court records are often missing or delayed, even though they are supposed to disqualify a buyer. Mental‑health disqualifications are even narrower - only certain adjudications or involuntary commitments count, meaning that people with documented histories of violence, threats, or severe instability often remain legally eligible to buy guns because their records never meet the technical threshold for reporting. The system screens for a tiny subset of mental‑health‑related risks, not the broader reality of dangerous behavior.

The result is a background‑check regime that looks strict on paper but is porous in practice. It blocks some prohibited buyers at licensed dealers, but it leaves open a vast unregulated market, relies on incomplete state reporting, and fails to capture many of the behavioral red flags: domestic abuse patterns, escalating threats, violent outbursts, untreated crises - red flags that correlate most strongly with gun violence. Policymakers have begun tightening rules around private sales and trafficking, but the underlying structure still allows guns to flow easily to people who would never pass a check in a fully functional system.

Sorry but you walked right into that one and it blew up on you.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


Well go through the proper process after a name change. Stop being a victim and do your part.

And the tens of millions of Americans who don't have a passport or a drivers license that indicates citizenship? How should they "stop being victims"?


Only 5 states have these "enhanced" REAL ID drivers licenses.


You don't get on an airplane without a real ID or a passport.

"enhanced"?


Enhanced shows citizenship.

"An Enhanced Driver’s License (EDL) is a REAL ID-compliant document that also functions as a passport card for land/sea reentry into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Valid for domestic air travel, EDLs are only issued in specific states—NY, MI, MN, VT, and WA—and often cost about $30 more than a standard ID."
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.


That is the biggest crock of shit.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?


it will 100% screw over women who have changed names...that is part of the point.


I’m sure it’s in project 2025 or heritage documents somewhere.
Anonymous
This is only controversial if you are a far left Democrat and don’t care if noncitizens vote.

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: