Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh no! One single person! And they can’t even say if that one person even voted. That’s a great justification for disenfranchising tens of thousands of people.

That person didn’t vote because the human error that allowed him to register was caught before he left the building.
Also Tim DeFoer, the Pennsylvania Auditor General who conducted this review, is a Republican.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh no! One single person! And they can’t even say if that one person even voted. That’s a great justification for disenfranchising tens of thousands of people.

I’m 52 years old and have no idea where my birth certificate is. I’ve been married divorced once and remarried so three different names as record. I’m not an exception.

As I understand it, under the SAVE act, a birth certificate would be accepted as valid proof of citizenship, but an expired passport would not. I am not particularly woke, and think that the left is so focused on looking for offense, that sometimes it overestimates the actual fault. However, it is hard to see how an administration can claim to be acting in good faith when it prioritizes birth certificates that are older documents that lack any sort of picture, over an expired passport which was almost certainly issued more recently and more current document and comes with a photo. I’m sure the fact that men are more likely to retain their name as listed on their birth certificate and thus be eligible to use it is merely a coincidence. 🙄

Moreover, why aren’t people linking the fact that the president who is pushing to ensure that only citizens can vote is also trying to redefine citizenship in violation of the Constitution, an attempt which the Supreme Court has yet to rule on? Not to mention, he has frequently accused political opponents of treason, especially those whom he blames for stealing an election (with any election he loses being identified as “stolen”). It does not seem to require much imagination to conceive of a future where political opponents have their citizenship revoked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you know.
It happened again.

When they are naming singular people, you know it’s all they have. If they had proof of more, they’d be sharing it.

There will be more. Lots more. And other cases of fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least seven GOP senators are opposed to eliminating the filibuster. It's not happening.

won't believe this. Trump will make a call. and enough will cave.

Thillis, Murkowski, Collins, and McConnell equals no chance. It doesn't even matter who the other three are.

Anonymous wrote:What do you know.
It happened again.

When they are naming singular people, you know it’s all they have. If they had proof of more, they’d be sharing it.

What do you know.
It happened again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least seven GOP senators are opposed to eliminating the filibuster. It's not happening.

won't believe this. Trump will make a call. and enough will cave.

If the filibuster goes away, it will damage GOP senators who use it to shield themselves from MAGA. Also, count on a pro-choice law, DC statehood and a whole host of other reforms the minute the dems get control.

It’s a safeguarding, from a standpoint of voter eligibility.
And we’re taking a look at some of the elegies.
Voter legibility needs to be safeguarded.
And safeguarded very strongly.

Nobotty has more integrity than Trump,
Nobotty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least seven GOP senators are opposed to eliminating the filibuster. It's not happening.

won't believe this. Trump will make a call. and enough will cave.

I don't know if you're paying attention. Being maga Trump aligned is not the electoral flex it was.

Anonymous wrote:At least seven GOP senators are opposed to eliminating the filibuster. It's not happening.

won't believe this. Trump will make a call. and enough will cave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, I know this is unpopular on this site, but... I'm French, and in my country, and many others, voters do need to show a formal ID to vote: a national identity card, or a passport. Driver's licenses are never used in France to identify people in their administrative tasks.

Americans should organize a similar system, because driver's licenses are easier to fake. But I understand that the timing of this White House push is suspect. However I want to remind you that if they go into effect, voting restrictions will apply equally to Republicans and Democrats, and perhaps more to Republicans, who tend to be more present in rural areas, and who might therefore not have a passport.

I mean, it solves a non-existent problem, but ok. The national identity card in France is free, right?

I’d support a free national ID program in the US that allowed for enough time for everyone to acquire one. So first we need the ID and the program, and then lead time for people to get one. It might take several years but I personally wouldn’t object to it. You’d likely have to phase it in.

It does have an on effect both parties, but the data shows that it affects democrats more, which is why they are pushing it hard now, to keep the pedophiles and other criminals from seeing justice.

But the Republicans will never agree to fund such an endeavor. That’s the gimmick to their political positions. Women shouldn’t have abortions…but we’re against policies that make child rearing more affordable. Obamacare should be abolished…but we have no alternative policies for making healthcare accessible and affordable. Mass shootings are caused by mental illness, not lax gun control…but no, we won’t fund accessible mental healthcare.

Agreed, and the fact that they won’t just shows that they don’t care about voter ID. They probably could have done it for the amount that we spend on this war daily.

It shows that their goals are really 1) using unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud as a wedge issue to stir up their base and/or 2) voter suppression. They know voter fraud isn’t costing them elections, but the will of the majority of Americans would.