How likely for save act to pass senate?

[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.

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!

then where have you been?

[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.

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!

then where have you been?

Not on conspiracy sites. I live in the real world. I read the bill.

[Anonymous]

Check out project2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

then where have you been?

Not on conspiracy sites. I live in the real world. I read the bill.

Here you go. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/04/women-right-to-vote-disenfranchisement

I’m sure you’ll dismiss it, but the evidence is there for you and everyone else to read.

[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.

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!

Well I suggest you start listening - this is an actual thing that is happening in the real world:

"A controversial pastor who supports repealing women’s right to vote and believes homosexuality should be a crime led a worship service at the Pentagon this week, saying he was invited by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/19/politics/douglas-wilson-pastor-pentagon-service-christian-nationalism

Peter Thiel -he funded JD Vance's Senate campaign - "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women—two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians—have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.” (He elaborated, after some backlash, that he did not literally oppose women’s suffrage, but neither did he affirm his support for it.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/11/peter-thiel-2024-election-politics-investing-life-views/675946/