How likely for save act to pass senate?

[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?

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.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

The issue is that photo ID cost money. Voting is a right that should not cost money, so as long as the GOP is willing to fund states so that everyone entitled to vote can get a free card, then it is fine. However, the GOP has NEVER been willing to provide that funding. So a voter ID then becomes a poll tax, which is supposed to be illegal.

[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?

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.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

I took my husbands name too and have never had trouble either, but we’re discussing a proposed new federal law that will cause that trouble if passed as written. Please keep up.

[Anonymous]

The law of unintended consequences. Keeping in mind that Trump won about 70% of the rural voters in this country.

"Long Commutes: Many of the 60 million rural Americans live hours away from their designated county election offices. Analysts have estimated that in some large Western counties, voters might face a 4.5-hour round-trip drive to show their papers in person.

Economic Costs: For a typical rural voter, the cost of gas and the time taken off work to complete an in-person registration update could be a significant deterrent."

[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?

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.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A bunch of women voted for Trump. Let them deal with the consequences of their own choices.

I get this mentality but it's not ok for all the women and our daughters who didn't vote for his nasty arse to have to deal with the fall out of his presidency. We will not go back. IF MAGA women want to live the trad wifey lifestyle then have at it that is their choice BUT it is not ok to take away others choices and rights.

This.

[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?

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.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

It is not. Read the SAVE Act, it is very explicit that the birth certificate MUST match the ID, so if you were born Mary Jones but are now Mary Smith due to marriage, then you are not in compliance.

I already told my daughter if she chooses to marry DO NOT CHANGE her name. Enough with this women hating garbage.

[Anonymous]

What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

[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?

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.

This is a ludicrous claim. I took my husband’s name and have NEVER had an issue voting in states where photo ID is required. Same with all my friends.
You all are going to have to find an excuse that is not this lame.

You need to look at the SAVE Act.

It will require proof of ID and proof of citizenship which need to be presented IN PERSON in order to register for federal elections.

Your current driver's license shows your identification, but then you need to prove citizenship. If you have a passport, fine. But if you don't you need to show a birth certificate. That name is different that your married name. In that case, you need a marriage certificate too. And remember. Birth certificates must be AUTHENTIC copies. That is with a real seal embossed on it by the issuing state. Photocopies will not do. And also keep in mind that the Act does not specifically speak toward using a marriage certificate to bridge the name gap between birth certificate and the driver's license. Rather, Chip Roy and the Act's proponents say they "expect" guidelines to be issued.

Obviously, this will not be able to be implemented for the mid-terms. And very unlikely to be implemented any time soon. It took 20 years to implement Real ID. And this anticipates and entore voter registration system where all these things need ot be presented IN PERSON.

And it isn't funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

Which part of the constitution says you can only vote if you have a hundred-dollar passport or special type of driver’s license only available in five states?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

You mean the constitution that says the STATES administer elections, not the federal government? You mean the Constitution that bars a sitting president from accepting emuluments from other countries? You mean the Constitution that has amendments that gaurantee free speech, which doesn't mean the state can arrest you for blowing a whistle?

Please, go on about the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you're also asking for is that one state accept the results of another state's votes in a national election. So pass the Save Act.

No more excuses.

It's been working fine for 250 years. Literally only Trump and his MAGA cult followers have an issue with this.

[Anonymous]

71% of democrats and 95% of republicans approve of requiring to show ID to vote.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=929320492989042&id=100077332989811


As usual, DCUM is on the 20% side of an 80/20 issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

Which part of the constitution says you can only vote if you have a hundred-dollar passport or special type of driver’s license only available in five states?

REAL ID is available in all 50 states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?

Which part of the constitution says you can only vote if you have a hundred-dollar passport or special type of driver’s license only available in five states?

The part where it says you must be 18 to vote and we don't just take your word for it.