| Massie and Sanders said that if they are forced to filibuster that they will read the redacted names of the abusers in the Epstein files. |
Massive is not in Senate. |
Yes, my mistake! If Pam Bondi’s DOJ refuses to unredact the Epstein client names Massie will read them on rhe house floor. Bernie Sanders suggests reading them during the filibuster on Donald Trump's SAVE Act. |
Also not like people don't experience fires, floods, sudden moves, etc. My spouse had to reorder all his documents when he became an adult because when he was a kid a tree fell in their house during a hurricane and all their filing cabinets were destroyed. |
And it might not matter if you did, because what this poster continues to refuse to grapple with is the fact that there’s absolutely nothing in the SAVE Act that says you can use your marriage license to show a name change. |
There is a provision for discrepancies. A marriage license would resolve the discrepancy between names. (There are also other reasons people change names--even just not liking their name. Adoption would be another document that could apply. Really, if you have a document that explains the name change, there would not be a problem.) |
|
We really need to be calling the bill what wants to do: GOP Voter Elimination Act. Its a desperate attempt by a would-be dictator to save himself from losing power and with it facing consequences for his crimes.
Calling it by the name MAGA has given to it simply aids their cause - it makes it sound good to voters. We must call things by their true names, not the deliberate monikers MAGA invents. |
This is your creative interpretation, because not one single word in the SAVE act says a marriage license is sufficient to show a name change. Women will be at the mercy of the same people posting videos saying they should not be allowed to vote in the first place. |
You must really be desperate. because not one single word says that it cannot be used. There is a provision. They cannot possibly spell out every single issue--so if you have documentation justifying a name change, you are good. Certainly, an official document (a marriage license) would be sufficient. And, you might not even need that if you have other documentation and proof. It is actually more flexible than you think. Here is a quote from the bill: Directs States to establish a process, subject to EAC guidance, for individuals to register to vote if there are discrepancies in their proof of citizenship documents (i.e. if the name on an individual’s ID and birth certificate do not match due to a name change). |
This issue impacts 69 million voters. Adding one sentence to protect them does not open the slippery slope to anything. It was omitted for a reason, one that Pete Hegseth made very clear in his public posting. |
You realize this bolded means they can refuse to accept marriage licenses right? |
If anything it opens the door for them to establish discriminatory practices. Such as how some states won't accept state issued school IDs or tribal documents but will take fishing and hunting licensea. |
You really believe they would do that? It is an official document. Sounds like you really don't think voter ID is a good thing. I bet you support blanket mail in voting. |
It’s very simple, there has never been any reason for this act other than to disenfranchise voters. It’s stupid and it’s going to fail, and honestly, the people behind it should be investigated. |
If they made IDs free and easy to acquire that wouldn't be an issue. But that's very much not what they are doing. |