How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://electionfraud.heritage.org/

database of election fraud. Never happens?

No one said it never happens. They’re saying that it has never happened at all scale that would affect outcomes of any elections.

That database has 1,680 entries. From 1982 - 2025. That is hundreds of millions of votes. If we assume that all of these happened in one year (2024), that would still only be 0.00109%. In actuality, it is orders of magnitude smaller.

Crime is crime, so it's ok to ignore murderers and rapes as long as it's statisticly small and won't affect most people ? Wow

We don’t ignore murder and rape, but we also don’t systematically castrate all men even though it would prevent 95% of those crimes. The prevention would be worse than the harm, just like stripping massive numbers of U.S. citizens of their voting rights unless they pay extra money would be a disproportionate solution to the nonexistent harm that’s occurred from the illegal voting.

I hardly think that showing documents is the equivalent of castrating men. I also don't think the harm done is "nonexistent."

And, that data posted is only the fraud that was proven. There are far more cases than go to trial.

Fraud is hidden crimes. It is not like a burglary where you see the results.

And then....not proven in courts, so...not fraud.

But, there are enough to show fraud.

if it isn't proven, then there isn't fraud. Anyone can make an allegation.

[Anonymous]

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://electionfraud.heritage.org/

database of election fraud. Never happens?

No one said it never happens. They’re saying that it has never happened at all scale that would affect outcomes of any elections.

That database has 1,680 entries. From 1982 - 2025. That is hundreds of millions of votes. If we assume that all of these happened in one year (2024), that would still only be 0.00109%. In actuality, it is orders of magnitude smaller.

Crime is crime, so it's ok to ignore murderers and rapes as long as it's statisticly small and won't affect most people ? Wow

We don’t ignore murder and rape, but we also don’t systematically castrate all men even though it would prevent 95% of those crimes. The prevention would be worse than the harm, just like stripping massive numbers of U.S. citizens of their voting rights unless they pay extra money would be a disproportionate solution to the nonexistent harm that’s occurred from the illegal voting.

I hardly think that showing documents is the equivalent of castrating men. I also don't think the harm done is "nonexistent."

And, that data posted is only the fraud that was proven. There are far more cases than go to trial.

Fraud is hidden crimes. It is not like a burglary where you see the results.

And then....not proven in courts, so...not fraud.

But, there are enough to show fraud.

Sure thing, Vlad. We absolutely put a comma after “But” in the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

If they cared they would provide a free and easy way to do it prospectively, not retrospectively disenfranchise voters with poll tax hoops to jump through, all to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist.

We know that this is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

If they cared they would provide a free and easy way to do it prospectively, not retrospectively disenfranchise voters with poll tax hoops to jump through, all to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist.

We know that this is about.

This is absolutely what a properly functioning government would do!

MAGA are so stupid to think we don't know that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

Not true. If that were the case, then a REAL ID would be sufficient. But that isn't what the law says. Be honest.

[Anonymous]

This is more projection from the GOP/MAGA. They’re the ones who have been caught with voter fraud. It just came out last week that Elon did. They’re all liars and pedos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

Not true. If that were the case, then a REAL ID would be sufficient. But that isn't what the law says. Be honest.

+1 and there’s a lot more to the SAVE Act than that, like running every voter through a federal database that’s riddled with errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

Just did some research on this. This was not a violation of federal law--it was a violation of Georgia law.

In Pennsylvania, where he was convicted and served time, he would be allowed to vote after being released.

Georgia has different laws. The problem is that he signed a document saying he had never been convicted of a felony indicating "moral turpitude."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

If they cared they would provide a free and easy way to do it prospectively, not retrospectively disenfranchise voters with poll tax hoops to jump through, all to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist.

We know that this is about.

If you aren't a citizen or are under 18, then I want you to be retrospectively disenfranchised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

You’re not answering the question. How does SAVE protect us from proven voter fraud like the below:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563

If you are saying this is your answer to voter fraud…why doesn’t it address voter fraud?

This is already a law.

It’s also already a law that only U.S. citizens can vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women that marry get the form to change your voters registration when you have a name change and also change your ID at the same time.

You change your drivers license and passport at the same time so all of your ID's match.

That doesn’t change the name on your birth certificate. If you do not have a passport, the SAVE Act would require you to show a drivers license and a birth certificate to register to vote. If the name on the birth certificate doesn’t match the drivers license (like because you got married), it’s a problem according to the law.

Just keep your name. You can answer to whatever name you want whenever you want, but officially just keep your own name.

Ever heard of a marriage certificate?
This is not hard.

Then make men present their marriage verification if their wives changed their names so men can vote

+1. Putting in measures that disproportionately disenfranchise only women is discriminatory.

I don’t think disparate impact is sufficient, must also show discriminatory purpose/intent. Also remember that any challenged could end up st Supreme Court and, today’s win regarding tariffs excepted, they have not been very amenable to complaints of discrimination these days!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever on DCUM. This is NOT going to disenfranchise women. It has been debunked countless times on this thread, but it does not fit your story board.

Women are NOT that dumb--except for the ones who want to believe this is what the SAVE act does.

Please point to exactly where it was “debunked.”

1. Birth certificate
2. Marriage Certificate

Do you think women do not work or have a Social Security card? Guess what you need to change your name?
And, if you don't change your name, there is no need for the marriage certificate.

You really think women are not smart enough to present their documents?

“Marriage certificates aren’t listed in either the original bill or the amended bill as an accepted form of additional documentation if you don’t have a passport.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hollycorbett/2026/02/13/how-the-save-america-act-could-block-millions-of-eligible-voters/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And so how does the SAVE act protect us from the proven cases of fraud like the one posted above? He would still have had his IDs when he voted illegally.

That is why you need to prove citizenship to register. That is what the SAVE Act is about.

Not true. If that were the case, then a REAL ID would be sufficient. But that isn't what the law says. Be honest.

+1 and there’s a lot more to the SAVE Act than that, like running every voter through a federal database that’s riddled with errors.

+1
It’s being sold as, “Just provide voter ID” and people are buying it. I’ve seen the social media posts this morning: “What’s wrong with showing ID? I have to do it when buying alcohol”.