How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Just googled. About 1 percent have no or expired picture ID. That does not mean they are not able to get one. That may also include undocumented immigrants.

Where does Harris get her information. She said 40% don't have ID.

What office does Harris hold that her opinion matters to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Just googled. About 1 percent have no or expired picture ID. That does not mean they are not able to get one. That may also include undocumented immigrants.

Where does Harris get her information. She said 40% don't have ID.

Hey now, we make it up as we go along. Just run with it. This is DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Just googled. About 1 percent have no or expired picture ID. That does not mean they are not able to get one. That may also include undocumented immigrants.

Where does Harris get her information. She said 40% don't have ID.

Hey now, we make it up as we go along. Just run with it. This is DCUM.

Fact: 93.6% of statistics are made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Just googled. About 1 percent have no or expired picture ID. That does not mean they are not able to get one. That may also include undocumented immigrants.

Where does Harris get her information. She said 40% don't have ID.

Harris did not say “40% don’t have ID.” Watch the clip. She said “40% don’t have those documents” and was referring to the documents required by the SAVE Act, which are MORE than just photo ID.

Seriously. Do you think people are this stupid? You can’t even come up with a valid argument and instead have to deliberately misquote someone to make your position seem reasonable. This is what people do when they’re trying to pull one over everybody else. We’re not falling for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This sounds juicy. Let me see if I can find a news article. I hope she goes down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Karl Rove must not understand that there are lots of Americans out there who are not jet-setting hotel-dwellers.

Yes, but those tubes no doubt still get paper checks.

Who still issue paper checks?

[Anonymous]

So if you have lived in a small town all your life, ID becomes much less important. I saw this with my mom when she moved back to her 1,200 person town. And even when I went to the bank on her behalf, everyone knew who I was because the employees knew my mom so well, I never showed my ID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

You have a low estimate of women. You really think GOP women vote like their husbands tell them?

I was an Election Officer.

The only person I ever saw who did this was a couple with the woman in ethnic garb from the Middle East. The husband insisted he needed to stay with his wife to show her how to vote. This was before MAGA and I seriously doubt he was voting GOP. I had to get the Chief Election Officer (a man) to tell him that this was not allowed in the polling place.
This is one more reason to insist on in-person voting over mail-in voting. The old way with Absentee Ballots being only for valid reasons needs to come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

You have a low estimate of women. You really think GOP women vote like their husbands tell them?

I was an Election Officer.

The only person I ever saw who did this was a couple with the woman in ethnic garb from the Middle East. The husband insisted he needed to stay with his wife to show her how to vote. This was before MAGA and I seriously doubt he was voting GOP. I had to get the Chief Election Officer (a man) to tell him that this was not allowed in the polling place.
This is one more reason to insist on in-person voting over mail-in voting. The old way with Absentee Ballots being only for valid reasons needs to come back.

It’s a secret ballot. How could you possibly know who people voted for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

You have a low estimate of women. You really think GOP women vote like their husbands tell them?

I was an Election Officer.

The only person I ever saw who did this was a couple with the woman in ethnic garb from the Middle East. The husband insisted he needed to stay with his wife to show her how to vote. This was before MAGA and I seriously doubt he was voting GOP. I had to get the Chief Election Officer (a man) to tell him that this was not allowed in the polling place.
This is one more reason to insist on in-person voting over mail-in voting. The old way with Absentee Ballots being only for valid reasons needs to come back.

It’s a secret ballot. How could you possibly know who people voted for?

Just a guess based on the results of our precinct. Very few GOP votes. Hi ethnic population. Nevertheless, when people vote from home, it is far more likely that others can vote for them. Common sense. If a man goes into a polling place and insisting he needs to sit with his wife to vote, what do you think happens at home?
He openly told me he needed to be with his wife to show her who to vote for? He insisted on it until the male Election Chief told him otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

You have a low estimate of women. You really think GOP women vote like their husbands tell them?

I was an Election Officer.

The only person I ever saw who did this was a couple with the woman in ethnic garb from the Middle East. The husband insisted he needed to stay with his wife to show her how to vote. This was before MAGA and I seriously doubt he was voting GOP. I had to get the Chief Election Officer (a man) to tell him that this was not allowed in the polling place.
This is one more reason to insist on in-person voting over mail-in voting. The old way with Absentee Ballots being only for valid reasons needs to come back.

It’s a secret ballot. How could you possibly know who people voted for?

Just a guess based on the results of our precinct. Very few GOP votes. Hi ethnic population. Nevertheless, when people vote from home, it is far more likely that others can vote for them. Common sense. If a man goes into a polling place and insisting he needs to sit with his wife to vote, what do you think happens at home?
He openly told me he needed to be with his wife to show her who to vote for? He insisted on it until the male Election Chief told him otherwise.

The point is you have no evidence or experience to indicate that GOP women aren’t treated the same by their husbands. You just said you’re in a district with very few GOP votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

You have a low estimate of women. You really think GOP women vote like their husbands tell them?

I was an Election Officer.

The only person I ever saw who did this was a couple with the woman in ethnic garb from the Middle East. The husband insisted he needed to stay with his wife to show her how to vote. This was before MAGA and I seriously doubt he was voting GOP. I had to get the Chief Election Officer (a man) to tell him that this was not allowed in the polling place.
This is one more reason to insist on in-person voting over mail-in voting. The old way with Absentee Ballots being only for valid reasons needs to come back.

It’s a secret ballot. How could you possibly know who people voted for?

Just a guess based on the results of our precinct. Very few GOP votes. Hi ethnic population. Nevertheless, when people vote from home, it is far more likely that others can vote for them. Common sense. If a man goes into a polling place and insisting he needs to sit with his wife to vote, what do you think happens at home?
He openly told me he needed to be with his wife to show her who to vote for? He insisted on it until the male Election Chief told him otherwise.

There are signature validations that mitigate this. It doesn't happen as often as people like you believe that it does. That said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/us/voter-fraud-nevada.html

https://www.koaa.com/news/crime/castle-rock-woman-convicted-of-voter-fraud-for-casting-ballots-for-dead-ex-husband-son

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-curtis-former-colorado-gop-chairman-sentenced-for-voter-fraud/

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/georgia-officials-find-pro-gop-ballot-was-cast-dead-voter-n1286647

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-man-mail-in-ballot-dead-wife-voter-fraud-charge

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-politics-d34effeea6c341d6c44146931127caff

When it seems to happen, it is ALWAYS republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

The goal is to disenfranchise women in general. There's a not insignificant belief on the right that the 19th Amendment should be rolled back. Making it difficult or impossible for women to vote is just one step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court ruled this week that the USPS can decide not to deliver mail to people without recourse. So if the leadership decide not to deliver mail in ballots because people are black or democrats, it is totally legal.

But sure, let's limit people's ability to vote because they got married and changed their name.

1. Pretty sure that if they don't deliver ballots, there are other laws that would apply.
2. Quit claiming that married women will not be able to vote. That is a bogus accusation and it is getting tiresome.

For some reason, it would appear that you do not want any limits on who can vote--i.e. you do not want people to prove their citizenship.

There is not one sentence in the law affirming a marriage certificate as adequate to prove a change name of a US citizen. Not bogus.

PROCESS IN CASE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN DOCUMENTATION.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant can provide such additional documentation to the appropriate election official of the State as may be necessary to establish that the applicant is a citizen of the United States in the event of a discrepancy with respect to the applicant’s documentary proof of United States citizenship

The first bolded makes the second irrelevant. Marriage certificate does bupkis unless a board that doesn’t currently exist eventually says it does. Zero protection for married women who changed their names.

LOL! You really think they are going to disenfranchise married women? Why would they want to do that?

Unfortunately, it is married women with MAGA husbands that vote who hubby vote for on Election Day. Single women are more independent in thought as they make their voting selections. This will hurt maga married women most.

The goal is to disenfranchise women in general. There's a not insignificant belief on the right that the 19th Amendment should be rolled back. Making it difficult or impossible for women to vote is just one step.

I've heard no one say that!