How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So no one has actually answered the question…

I did. It’s unlikely, because it needs 60 votes.

There are currently 53 R Senators.

I’d bet a lot Murkowski votes against. She will break with Rs to represent her constituents and she represents indigenous tribes and people who vote by mail because it takes a plane ride to get to the polling station. And she has common sense.

Susan Collins votes for, but is “concerned” women can’t vote. She is the most “achieve something and pull the ladder up as you go” woman ever.

Fetterman votes for, because he really, really wants to be the next Sienma and/or Manchin.

So, it gets a max of 53 votes.

It will never get 60. Which the House is counting on. This looks good to the MAGA base, and they are on record— they tried. But, dang it, Dems obstructed. Oh well…

If this passed and became law, it would hurt MAGA more than UMC liberals with passports, and there would be a huge backlash. I’d kind of like Dems to sickout the day of the vote and make Rs pass this piece of garbage. And then live with the angry constituents and fallout. I’m tired of Rs doing insane things and Dems having to be the guardrails. If this is what MAGA voted for, give it to them.

[Anonymous]

Can we at least all agree that if this primarily impacted or inconvenienced white men, we 100% would not be doing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently it passed?

Thankfully I have a passport but my birth certificate is obviously not under my married name.

This is insanity.

Passed the house. Still pending in senate

Where it faces long odds, according to the NY Times article.

Anyone who says there are long odds for the GOP screwing over Americans is a total, blathering idiot. Call your senators!

Yes! We should be calling our senators ever. Single. Day.! Not once but every day. Tell them you want them to vote. No on the Save Act. It literally will take you less than one minute.

Here’s the link to find out your senators contact. You don’t even need to know who your senator is just put in your state.

There’s no excuse for not making these calls starting tonight.
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no one has actually answered the question…

I did. It’s unlikely, because it needs 60 votes.

There are currently 53 R Senators.

I’d bet a lot Murkowski votes against. She will break with Rs to represent her constituents and she represents indigenous tribes and people who vote by mail because it takes a plane ride to get to the polling station. And she has common sense.

Susan Collins votes for, but is “concerned” women can’t vote. She is the most “achieve something and pull the ladder up as you go” woman ever.

Fetterman votes for, because he really, really wants to be the next Sienma and/or Manchin.

So, it gets a max of 53 votes.

It will never get 60. Which the House is counting on. This looks good to the MAGA base, and they are on record— they tried. But, dang it, Dems obstructed. Oh well…

If this passed and became law, it would hurt MAGA more than UMC liberals with passports, and there would be a huge backlash. I’d kind of like Dems to sickout the day of the vote and make Rs pass this piece of garbage. And then live with the angry constituents and fallout. I’m tired of Rs doing insane things and Dems having to be the guardrails. If this is what MAGA voted for, give it to them.

Let me guess you are a white man. As a woman, this is not a risk I’m willing to take.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be a lot of outrage over this. In 1992 I stood in the college quad with an ironing board helping students sign up to vote in the hopes that Clinton would win.

No more voter registration drives allowed. I never could have imagined then that my future children would have so many fewer rights than me.

If you’re not outraged, they’re going to take more from you.

In Europe they all need passports. Really shouldn’t be too much trouble for Americans to get one.

Oh, now maga loves Europe.

Anyway, to vote? No, while they do a need a photo Id, they don’t specifically need a passport. It’s a dumb voter disenfranchisement scheme. Maybe the trumps are getting a percentage of passport fees…?

Besides the cost, it is time consuming to get an appointment for a passport and then wait while it is processed by our now dysfunctional civil service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least all agree that if this primarily impacted or inconvenienced white men, we 100% would not be doing it?

Of course. It is discriminatory against women b/c it disproportionately affects them and requires them to expend time and money that it doesn't require of men. Period.

[Anonymous]

how does this change things for me

[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?

That is democratic propaganda

It should pass and it will pass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22

Here is the bill. You can interpret it many ways. The problem is it is vague. The Dems tried to get the Republicans to pass an amendment to this bill stating that already registered women would not have to re-register- they voted it down right before this bill passed. They want to keep it vague so they have power to do what they want. This is the issue. You MAY have to re-register. Also, it says “and”- meaning you will have to have 2 forms of identification. That being a birth certificate and the only other Federal approval voting document which is a passport. If they don’t match you MAY be screwed this is where things are fuzzy for all. There is no clarification. It’s to scare people, fear=control.

Not to mention- this can/will affect anyone who has changed their legal name. Trans, low income families, military families/people. It’s so broad it could have LOTS of implications.

Posers like Vance, too.

Seriously, that guy has changed his name so much that it’s really weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be a lot of outrage over this. In 1992 I stood in the college quad with an ironing board helping students sign up to vote in the hopes that Clinton would win.

No more voter registration drives allowed. I never could have imagined then that my future children would have so many fewer rights than me.

If you’re not outraged, they’re going to take more from you.

In Europe they all need passports. Really shouldn’t be too much trouble for Americans to get one.

The problem is that they are expensive. 130 dollars is a lot for Americans making minimum wage. As someone said earlier it’s essentially a poll tax

A poll tax that you have to plan for at least two months in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least all agree that if this primarily impacted or inconvenienced white men, we 100% would not be doing it?

+1 Because they know if you make it hard enough for women to vote, no Democrat will ever win the presidency. The gender gap has turned into a canyon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no one has actually answered the question…

I did. It’s unlikely, because it needs 60 votes.

There are currently 53 R Senators.

I’d bet a lot Murkowski votes against. She will break with Rs to represent her constituents and she represents indigenous tribes and people who vote by mail because it takes a plane ride to get to the polling station. And she has common sense.

Susan Collins votes for, but is “concerned” women can’t vote. She is the most “achieve something and pull the ladder up as you go” woman ever.

Fetterman votes for, because he really, really wants to be the next Sienma and/or Manchin.

So, it gets a max of 53 votes.

It will never get 60. Which the House is counting on. This looks good to the MAGA base, and they are on record— they tried. But, dang it, Dems obstructed. Oh well…

If this passed and became law, it would hurt MAGA more than UMC liberals with passports, and there would be a huge backlash. I’d kind of like Dems to sickout the day of the vote and make Rs pass this piece of garbage. And then live with the angry constituents and fallout. I’m tired of Rs doing insane things and Dems having to be the guardrails. If this is what MAGA voted for, give it to them.

Let me guess you are a white man. As a woman, this is not a risk I’m willing to take.

No. White woman. Also a lawyer, so I know how government works. They need 60 votes. They don’t have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least all agree that if this primarily impacted or inconvenienced white men, we 100% would not be doing it?

Yes.

It's marketed to the stupids that it will hurt trans people, but this bill will mostly hurt married women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how does this change things for me

it depends