Post New

Iraq War.

Americans killed.

America drained.

Dems win Congress in 2006 (lol!)

Bill Kristol and other NeoCons openly criticize Bush domestic policies.

Obama wins 2008 (lol)

Obama wins 2012

Trump - saying things that "Real Conservatives" used to be against- WINS.

Biden wins - and one of the first victory congratulations is from "Israel"!

Then Roe V Wade overturned.

A country immediately strengthens abortion rights - it's "Israel!"

Now, things were mildly ok. Employment, stock market, gas. inflation.

Iran war.

Let's see how Congress goes in 2026.

Let's see how the White House goes in 2028

But. "ISRAEL! " -- sorry, any God who needs fat-fuck humans to protect his little city or whatever --- is a weak-ass made up cartoon character- created so that people who want to pretend their sins are absolved and say "noun, verb, Rapture"! to everybody can belong to someone.

Get over it people.

Or better yet don't.

Maybe we need a few cycles to let "Israel" totally destroy the Right.

And then let Centrist Dems vs Progressives run the country.

Who knows, I won't agree with much of it but at least the policies will be done by thinking people....and those policies will actually have "America First" from the classroom to preschool to the hospital bed to the retirement home in mind.

I can't believe, we bend over for Israel this much.

It's time we get punished for this ---for starters, at the ballot box.

It's time we get punished for this ---for starters, at the ballot box.

Some suggest that the important election is the primary. The best funded candidate is probably the most corrupt, so vote for the candidate in the party of your choice, that is not swimming in money.

But maybe it doesn't matter?

Who is taking bets on there being a "free and fair" election in 26, or 28?

Steve

Who is taking bets on there being a "free and fair" election in 26, or 28?


There will be...if the GOP passes the SAVE act.

There will be...if the GOP passes the SAVE act.

If the most corrupt POTUS in the history of the republic wants it, do we assume that his reasons for wanting it are corrupt?

Steve

If the most corrupt POTUS in the history of the republic wants it, do we assume that his reasons for wanting it are corrupt?

Over 80% of the public wants it. The only people who don't are hard core democrat partisans.

What does that tell you about who's corrupt?

Some suggest that the important election is the primary. The best funded candidate is probably the most corrupt, so vote for the candidate in the party of your choice, that is not swimming in money.
***

Indeed - Hillary won the nomination - another darling of Israel.


Steve - tribals can't have free and fair elections. Tribals are divided amongst themselves and defeated by their Ruling Class---or by outside powers.

Sheeple doesn't realize this.

As someone who values Democracy, I want people to show valid ID to vote.

This isn't Somalia, we have rules and laws.

In the end, once again. Conservatives are being used and abused by NeoCons and Israel.

How many defeats does it take to learn?

There will be...if the GOP passes the SAVE act.

Horseshit.

Over 80% of the public wants it.

So sez the White House and Gallup.

But the actual legislation in the Save Act? Eighty percent support is pure horseshit.

So sez the White House and Gallup.

Hahahahahahahahahahha!

It's not my fault this board represents the 20% dead enders who think you need ID to shovel snow but not to vote.

There will be...if the GOP passes the SAVE act.

Utter nonsense.

It’s been over 5 years since Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. Trump has lied over and over (I know, hard to believe) about illegal voting. After 5+ years, where’s the evidence of voter fraud?

Crickets.


And the Georgia ballots seized by the FBI earlier this year? Where’s the fraud?

Crickets.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/electio...

If there so much voter fraud, why can’t anyone find it?

Apparently Republicans are figuring out that no one likes their policies, so the Republicans are falling back on their standard practice; lying.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-op...

Over 80% of the public wants it.

I agree that only citizens should vote, so that is 80%, +1. I further agree that people should have documentation of citizenship, but that documentation must be easily obtained, and free. If the dox are hard to obtain, and/or costly, requiring dox amounts to a poll tax, which was a popular was of suppressing voting by some groups.

The fact is, most people don't know what is really in the SAVE Act.


But when the poll asked about the actual piece of legislation, formerly known as the SAVE Act, support wasn’t anywhere close to those numbers. In fact, just 28% supported it, while 31% opposed it.

just 16% of Republicans said they knew a lot about the SAVE America Act. Another 33% of Republicans said they generally knew what it’s about, including some specifics. The rest — about half — said they don’t really know any specifics.

The poll shows 42% of Americans regard ineligible voting as a “major problem.” But about the same amount — 44% — say preventing eligible citizens from voting is also a “major problem.”

The survey finds 43% overall say the citizenship requirement would mostly prevent illegal noncitizen voting. But the rest — 57% — say it would either mostly prevent legal citizens from voting (29%) or would prevent both about equally (28%).

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/politics/save-ameri...

What happened when Kansas tried a version of Trump's SAVE Act? Chaos

At least 31,000 people were barred from registering to vote, according to the judge’s findings, including in a key statewide election in 2014 in which incumbent Republican Gov. Sam Brownback narrowly defeated Democrat Paul Davis.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elect...

The SAVE Act bans no excuse absentee voting.

Majority of Americans Continue to Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

58% favor allowing voters to cast their ballots by mail, but support remains much lower among Republicans than Democrats

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/ma...

Steve

Cut to the chase...

It is really the 'Save My Ass' act for Trump and the GOP.

It doesn't address a real problem. It just makes it harder for citizens to vote.

Utter and complete bullshit.

Republicans just don't like democracy because it gets in their way of wanting one party minority rule.

BTW, has Dope ever come out and admitted that the 2020 election was NOT STOLEN? I don't recall him ever saying that. It seems that being in the cult requires that kind of denial of reality.

I"m a citizen.

I have ID.

Voting has never been a problem.

AND....

This SAVE stuff distracts the Sheeple Lemmings...while Trump is rightfully deservedly raping your country.

LOL---- and the Sheeple's biggest problem: "They want SAVE!"

VLADDY, BIBI......stay thirsty my friends.

So glad I'm a chickenhawk.

Not my monkey, not my circus.

In the meantime get SP 500 to 5500 soon -- maybe Daddy will dip a toe. And if not, no sweat.

I agree that only citizens should vote, so that is 80%, +1. I further agree that people should have documentation of citizenship, but that documentation must be easily obtained, and free. If the dox are hard to obtain, and/or costly, requiring dox amounts to a poll tax, which was a popular was of suppressing voting by some groups.

I would say we pass a law that says any changes to voting requirements can only take effect after two years. The problem with voter suppression is that new requirements are designed so that when they are passed, there isn't enough time to run a check your registrations campaign centered on those it's designed to suppress. We should make voter register purges having to occur before 2.5 years of the election. I'm not against new thoughtful requirements, I'm against the designed voter suppression that occurs under the guise of fair elections.

I have ID.

What sort of ID? Passports and passport cards are proof of citizenship, but they are not free. Something like half of USians do not have a passport or passport card. I am one of them.

When I upgraded my Michigan driver's license to a "Real ID" license, which is still not proof of citizenship, I mosied down to the Secretary of State office, with the birth certificate I have had all my life, to prove my identity. The clerk looked at the certificate, sneered, and said it was a "souvenir from the hospital". I had to go to the County Clerk, which is where birth records are kept in Michigan, to obtain an official, certified, birth certificate. The certificate was not free.

My driver's license expires this year. I intend to upgrade to the "Enhanced" license, which *is* proof of citizenship, that I can conveniently carry. The "Enhanced" license is not free.

Banning mail in voting also exerts a burden on voters. In some areas of the country 60-70% of people mail their ballots in. Banning mail in ballots, especially on such short notice, will result in huge lines at the polls, because local clerk's offices will not have time to increase the number of voting machines to handle the extra volume. Even where I live, where each polling place has a couple dozen stations for filling out ballots, before they are fed into a tabulator, the speed that the polling place volunteers can process each voter, is limited. Doubling the number of people voting, without doubling the number of polling place workers, will result in huge lines. And clerk's offices are having a hard time getting enough people to volunteer to work at a polling place. When I worked at a polling place, several years ago, there were 6 people working per precinct. The last time I voted, there were 3 or 4 per precinct.

The SAVE act will ration voting by ability to pay, and ability to stand in line, for hours, regardless of a person's physical or transportation limitations.

Again, if the most corrupt POTUS in the history of the republic wants it, can we assume his motives are corrupt?

Steve

The SAVE act will ration voting by ability to pay, and ability to stand in line, for hours, regardless of a person's physical or transportation limitations.

Again, if the most corrupt POTUS in the history of the republic wants it, can we assume his motives are corrupt?

The public wants it. The only people who don’t want this are partisan democrat operatives, who will do ANYTHING to keep the borders open and our elections non-secure.

So again. Who’s the most corrupt force in American politics? It’s not Trump.

The public wants it.

Half of Republicans say they don't know what is actually in the legislation. That is hardly indicative that "the public wants it", vs agreeing, in principle. that only citizens should be allowed to vote.

Steve

Half of Republicans say they don't know what is actually in the legislation. That is hardly indicative that "the public wants it", vs agreeing, in principle. that only citizens should be allowed to vote.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house...

The actual bill.

SEC. 2. ENSURING ONLY CITIZENS ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE.

(a) Definition Of Documentary Proof Of United States Citizenship.—Section 3 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20502) is amended—

(1) by striking “As used” and inserting “(a) In General.—As used”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(b) Documentary Proof Of United States Citizenship.—As used in this Act, the term ‘documentary proof of United States citizenship’ means, with respect to an applicant for voter registration, any of the following:

“(1) A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.

“(2) A valid United States passport.

“(3) The applicant's official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.

“(4) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

“(5) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:

“(A) A certified birth certificate issued by a State, a unit of local government in a State, or a Tribal government which—

“(i) was issued by the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;

“(ii) was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State;

“(iii) includes the full name, date of birth, and place of birth of the applicant;

“(iv) lists the full names of one or both of the parents of the applicant;

“(v) has the signature of an individual who is authorized to sign birth certificates on behalf of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;

“(vi) includes the date that the certificate was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State; and

“(vii) has the seal of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government that issued the birth certificate.

“(B) An extract from a United States hospital Record of Birth created at the time of the applicant's birth which indicates that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

“(C) A final adoption decree showing the applicant’s name and that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

“(D) A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States or a certification of the applicant’s Report of Birth of a United States citizen issued by the Secretary of State.

“(E) A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other document or method of proof of United States citizenship issued by the Federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

“(F) An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification ‘KIC’.”.

(b) In General.—Section 4 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20503) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking “subsection (b)” and inserting “subsection (c)”;

(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:

“(b) Requiring Applicants To Present Documentary Proof Of United States Citizenship.—Under any method of voter registration in a State, the State shall not accept and process an application to register to vote in an election for Federal office unless the applicant presents documentary proof of United States citizenship with the application.”.

I have a driver's license (albeit it's out of state----legal way of making sure the mooch treasury doesn't get any taxes from me. My 0% tax lifestyle continues)

I have a passport card.

I have a passport.

People can take a day off of god damn pilates and yoga and waiting in line from the new iPhone and go get it done.

And again---keep arguing "save"

Israel owns your asses while your tribes focus on "this"

good ol' Americans. Tribalism has trumped priorities for good.

Half of Republicans say they don't know what is actually in the legislation. That is hardly indicative that "the public wants it", vs agreeing, in principle. that only citizens should be allowed to vote.
***

You gotta pass the bill to see what's in it :)

And then be a savvy investor too :)

The actual bill.

The act takes effect when enacted. No time is allowed for people to get their papers in order. Those papers are not free. How many people understand that? States are required to scrub their voting rolls. Do people understand that they may need to run to their local clerk's office with their papers, to prevent them being scrubbed off the voting roles?

I was warning people on the Fool to get their papers in order, for years. I'm ready. I'll be even more ready by November. How many millions will be prevented from voting this fall, because they did not get their papers in order, before the rush enactment of this act will cause?

Technically, I should not need to do anything, as the Secretary of State office was supposed to make a copy of my certified birth certificate when I upgraded to a "Real ID" driver's license, and the Secretary of State also handles voter registration, so she has access to my birth certificate from my driver's license record.

Steve

People can take a day off of god damn pilates and yoga and waiting in line from the new iPhone and go get it done.

In later years, I did take the afternoon off of work, to vote. There was a stretch, in the 80s, when that was not an option, because I had zero help in the store. I had to be there, from open to close. If I could not get in, and out, in time to get to the store to open, I could not vote.

Steve

The act takes effect when enacted. No time is allowed for people to get their papers in order. Those papers are not free.

The REAL ID act has been in place since shortly after 9/11. If you fly, you have documentation already that can allow you to vote.

This is the classic ramsfanray logic from back in the day: What about the 105 year old man born in a lot cabin in the woods 3ho never had a birth certificate because the courthouse burned down in the Great Fire of 1901? or something.

To exist in society, you have to have valid photo ID. That’s the world we live in. And only one party believes that verified ID is anathema for voting…all the while shouting about how they’re “protecting democracy”.

To exist in society, you have to have valid photo ID. That’s the world we live in. And only one party believes that verified ID is anathema for voting…all the while shouting about how they’re “protecting democracy”.

It's certainly possible to exist in society without photo ID. There are many things that you need to have a photo ID to do, of course. But those things are (mostly) privileges. For the most part, you don't need to have a photo ID to simply live an ordinary life.

If it were only "the 105 year old man born in a lot cabin in the woods who never had a birth certificate because the courthouse burned down in the Great Fire of 1901," it would be one thing. But many people - about 10% of the population - do not have either a passport or a certified copy of their birth certificate. Another large tranche of people - married women - do not have access to such documents that match their current legal names. That's a very large number of people.

There's clearly an asymmetry here. Republicans are worried about a vanishingly small number of people who aren't allowed to vote actually voting. Democrats are worried about a large number of people who are allowed to vote being prohibited from voting. The GOP frame regards a person who shouldn't vote casting a ballot as far, far worse, than a person who should be allowed to vote being wrongly prohibited from voting - even though in the abstract they have exactly the same impact on the election results. The GOP can't understand why Democrats don't prioritize maximally keeping prohibited folks out of the ballot; Democrats can't understand why Republicans aren't concerned about all the voters they might wrongfully exclude, given that the latter vastly outnumbers the former.

What do you think, Dope? Which would be worse for the integrity of an election - taking 10,000 citizens who are allowed to vote and excluding them from casting a ballot, or allowing a single non-citizen to wrongfully cast a vote?

But many people - about 10% of the population - do not have either a passport or a certified copy of their birth certificate. Another large tranche of people - married women - do not have access to such documents that match their current legal names. That's a very large number of people.

Uh, huh. Curious.

Where does one go to change their name?

The REAL ID act has been in place since shortly after 9/11. If you fly, you have documentation already that can allow you to vote.

Real ID is NOT proof of citizenship. REAL ID only says you showed documentation who you are. That documentation could be a passport from Botswana, rather than a certified US birth certificate. And obtaining a REAL ID license is optional. No-one ever said you MUST have one, unless you intend to fly commercial, or enter certain facilities. That's why I intend to upgrade to an "Enhanced" driver's license this year. An "Enhanced" license *is* proof of citizenship, and it's easier to carry around that all my other dox.

Steve

Where does one go to change their name?

Usually the clerk's office where you live at the time. Which is very frequently a different clerk's office from the one that has your birth certificate. Which means that in addition to not being able to provide you with a copy of your birth certificate, it also means that they are often not going to be in a position to help you reconcile the fact that your current legal name no longer matches your birth certificate.

Where does one go to change their name?

If a person does not have a certified birth certificate, does it matter which name is (NOT) on it?

There's clearly an asymmetry here. Republicans are worried about a vanishingly small number of people who aren't allowed to vote actually voting. Democrats are worried about a large number of people who are allowed to vote being prohibited from voting.

This point has been raised, underlined and explained for over a decade- not only here, but earlier on the Fool.

It’s not as if dope hasn’t had ample opportunity to understand the issue.

It’s not as if dope hasn’t had ample opportunity to understand the issue.

I do understand the issue:

The democrat party and its bots, hacks and corrupt partisans absolutely do not want secured elections. Or borders for that matter. So they oppose simple things like photo ID to prove who you are when you vote.

And along the way these same people who claim to be thoughtful about the issue will ignore facts they don't like and pretend that their logically inconsistent positions just don't exist. Like how we need to present 2 pieces of photo ID and other pieces of identification to shovel snow in New York City but you can just show up to vote, no questions asked.

There's a reason why gazillions of people support the SAVE act and only partisan democrats and their sycophants don't: they like unsecured elections. It's that simple.

And it's why we see the pretzel logic and the ramsfanray examples come out whenever the subject comes up. As a species we can put Man on the moon, crack the human genome and retrieve things from the bottom of the ocean but we evidently cannot comprehend a way to help married women deal with a name change. It's impossible, I tell you.

Humorous true story.

When my wife was born he mom chose Gina as her name. She was known as Gina to everyone and went all the way to 7th grade as Gina. In 8th grade she found out her father had mistakenly filled out her birth certificate as Gemma, not Gina. So in 8th grade her name became Gemma so it matched the botched birth certificate. :) Some people in her home town still call her Gina because they've known her all her life.

And along the way these same people who claim to be thoughtful about the issue will ignore facts they don't like and pretend that their logically inconsistent positions just don't exist. Like how we need to present 2 pieces of photo ID and other pieces of identification to shovel snow in New York City but you can just show up to vote, no questions asked.

It's not logically inconsistent.

Shoveling snow is a privilege. Voting is a constitutionally protected right. There are stronger limits on what a government can require, and should require, as a condition for engaging in voting than for something that isn't a constitutionally protected right.

Trivial example: The government can charge you $10 for a permit to shovel snow. The government is absolutely forbidden to charge you $1 for the right to vote.

The fact that government can make you jump through a lot of hoops for something trivial but can't make you jump through a lot of hoops in order to vote is not a logical inconsistency. The importance of the right to vote is why the government can't impose a lot of requirements on it. Comparisons to more trivial things that have more stringent application requirements doesn't prove your point - it proves the democrats' point. Government is allowed to require a bunch of things (like payment of a fee) to be licensed to shovel snow in NYC precisely because it doesn't matter if lots of people are excluded from shoveling snow; they are forbidden from requiring a bunch of things (like payment of a fee) for voting precisely because it matters a lot if even a single person who should be allowed to vote is excluded because of the requirements.

Do you really not get that by now?

Do you really not get that by now?

That’s a lovely sermon and you have done a terrific job of climbing Mt. Righteous and proclaiming the Word to the heathens.

Still doesn’t change the fact that phot ID for voting is a common sense idea and the only people against it are fans of fraud.

And no. Shoveling snow isn’t a privilege. In some justifications they’ll cite you for NOT shoveling snow.

It’s not as if dope hasn’t had ample opportunity to understand the issue.

Maybe Joe Rogan has a point?

https://www.aol.com/articles/joe-rogan-rips-maga-c...

Steve

"What do you think, Dope? Which would be worse for the integrity of an election - taking 10,000 citizens who are allowed to vote and excluding them from casting a ballot, or allowing a single non-citizen to wrongfully cast a vote?" - Albaby

I am pretty sure that Dope's answer would depend upon who those people are likely voting for.

"I am pretty sure that Dope's answer would depend upon who those people are likely voting for."

Put another way.....

One of the biggest security threats to voting is the distributed nature of voting locations. Even a small rural state has dozens of voting locations throughout the state. Medium sized urban states have hundreds of places to vote throughout the state, and I am too lazy to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large, populous state like California has well over a thousand different voting locations throughout the state.

Each of those locations require some duplicative effort and having so many are a logistical nightmare which creates more opportunities for a security breakdown.

It would be much, much easier to maintain election security if there were fewer voting locations.

So if there was a proposal to improve election security to limit voting locations within the state. Let's say each state is only allowed to have 5 voting locations throughout the state. These locations would be within the 5 biggest population centers throughout the state. I mean everyone within the state is still allowed to vote, but they have to drive to one of the 5 biggest population centers within the state and vote there.

It would make keeping the elections secure much easier.

Obviously it would make it tougher for lots of people to vote. Especially for those who did not live near one of those 5 biggest population centers. If a person lived in rural Texas and had to drive a few hours to Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio, park, wait in long lines, vote, then drive a few hours home, a lot less rural people would be voting. But..... Election security would be much higher.

I don't think Dope would support those policies even though they make elections more secure. It is because it requires his "tribe" to jump through a lot more hoops in order to vote, so he doesn't want to make elections more secure that way. Requiring voters to have to show a very specific valid ID in order to vote places hoops to jump through for poor people, minorities, and women. Those are groups more closely associated with Dope's opponent's "tribe", so he has no problem putting extra hoops in front of them to have to jump through in order to vote.

"What do you think, Dope? Which would be worse for the integrity of an election - taking 10,000 citizens who are allowed to vote and excluding them from casting a ballot, or allowing a single non-citizen to wrongfully cast a vote?"

I will bet lots and lots of money that Dope will not ever truly answer this question. His answer will just be a dismissive wave of his hand at all of the real obstacles certain people will have to go through in order to vote. In his mind everyone would still be easily able to vote. After all, it is easy for him to comply, why can't everyone else?

Still doesn’t change the fact that photo ID for voting is a common sense idea and the only people against it are fans of fraud.

No, the people who are against it aren't "fans of fraud." They're people who don't want citizens that lack ID to be prohibited from voting.

I mean, even if you're a total cynic about all this and think Democrats care about nothing other than their own power - the effect of these laws on fraudulent voting is super super-tiny compared to the effect on citizens who get pushed out of the vote. It's just numbers. The people who are citizens but who lack the specific documents to prove citizenship number in the tens of millions; the people who might be voting while here unlawfully is going to be 0.0001 of that, at most. You don't have to be a "fan of fraud" to be really concerned about the former number, which is going to have a vastly greater impact on election outcomes than the latter.

To exist in society, you have to have valid photo ID. That’s the world we live in. And only one party believes that verified ID is anathema for voting…all the while shouting about how they’re “protecting democracy”.

Dope, you are just regurgitating the lies you've been told to believe by your lying RW media and Trump.

As albaby1 has so politely tried to tell you: you have your head up your ass.

except these blowhards (mtg, etc...) are why we have trump twice.
and up until recently, a core part of 'team idiot' , who will never admit responsibility.

no one should be surprised some these turn away 'just in case' trump may not be able to get a 3rd term.
imagine if any of them found themselves in need of a pardon, or seek publicity via the next gop cult leader.
even fox news and some of the dolts on shrewdm were 'team desantis' for a few months.

as with trump himself, never mistake these for who they really are.

Like how we need to present 2 pieces of photo ID and other pieces of identification to shovel snow in New York City

Dope, do you ever have an original thought? That meaningless comparison is bullshit straight from the FOX 'news' fundament.

Oh no, Steve how did you manage to get there and vote for Reagan :) ?

Oh no, Steve how did you manage to get there and vote for Reagan :) ?

Would you believe the honchos at the pump seal company would give you the afternoon off, if you were voting for Saint Reagan, but not if you would vote for Carter? ;^)

Steve

Do you really not get that by now?

They refuse to accept what is (everyone gets to vote) vs what they want (only they get to vote).

I mean, even if you're a total cynic about all this and think Democrats care about nothing other than their own power - the effect of these laws on fraudulent voting is super super-tiny compared to the effect on citizens who get pushed out of the vote. It's just numbers. The people who are citizens but who lack the specific documents to prove citizenship number in the tens of millions; the people who might be voting while here unlawfully is going to be 0.0001 of that, at most. You don't have to be a "fan of fraud" to be really concerned about the former number, which is going to have a vastly greater impact on election outcomes than the latter.

Must be tiring climbing up Mt. Righteous. Or perhaps there's a funicular that one can ride up there.

See, I don't believe this (that democrats care about leaving people behind). In today's society, one needs ID to

=Petition the government (get into Federal Buildings)
-Buy a firearm
-Get healthcare
-Fly
-Board a train
-Open a bank account
-Buy cold medicine
-Get welfare
Etc.
ETc.

So if TENS of MILLIONS of Americans don't have ID then none of them are doing any of the above. It seems like we would know if there were hordes of people who couldn't buy firearms or fly or even get looked at by their doctors.

Seems to me that all this ""concern"" the democrats have for their fellow man would be better served making sure Americans have secure photo ID rather than fighting to keep the borders open, stopping deportation of people who shouldn't be here and preventing common sense security of The Franchise.

So I don't buy it. Not for a second.

No offense.

See, I don't believe this (that democrats care about leaving people behind).

You don't have to believe they care about leaving people behind. As I said, you can simply be cynical and assume they care only about their power.

Of the two groups involved - the "so tiny that it has never been proven to exist beyond a bare handful of individuals" population of alleged non-citizens voting in person and the tens of millions of people who lack the documentation required by the SAVE act - which would anyone care about if they just wanted to win elections?

It doesn't make sense. There's no reason at all the Democrats would care about the tiny, tiny, tiny number of people that might theoretically be doing in-person voting illegally, compared to even the approximately 1% of adults (2.6 million people) that do indeed lack any type of photo identification (and thus aren't able to do the things you identify above) despite the efforts of lots of liberal groups to try to help them get that photo ID. To say nothing of the 11% of the population that has the photo ID necessary to do all those things but lacks the specific type of ID that the GOP is trying to force as a condition to voting (passport or RealID compliant driver's license).

Again, even if you assume Democrats are nothing but power-hungry monsters the number of alleged in-person illegal voters is so unbelievably tiny compared to the population of even the smallest number of folks who would be excluded by ID laws that it's utterly implausible that Democrats would care at all about the illegal voters vs. the excluded voters.

Seems to me that all this ""concern"" the democrats have for their fellow man would be better served making sure Americans have secure photo ID rather than fighting to keep the borders open, stopping deportation of people who shouldn't be here and preventing common sense security of The Franchise.

So I don't buy it. Not for a second.

You want a US National Identity Card. Fast, cheap, easy, and verifiable.

Exactly what THE RIGHT DOES NOT WANT.

All US citizens could then vote--and not be stopped. Exactly what THE RIGHT DOES NOT WANT.

As I said, you can simply be cynical and assume they care only about their power.

I prefer "logical" and "observant" as descriptors regarding democrats and their lust for power.

Of the two groups involved - the "so tiny that it has never been proven to exist beyond a bare handful of individuals" population of alleged non-citizens voting in person and the tens of millions of people who lack the documentation required by the SAVE act - which would anyone care about if they just wanted to win elections?

"Tens of millions" of people who can somehow get health care or fly or buy a firearm, yet you contend they can't vote. Sure, why not.

Again, even if you assume Democrats are nothing but power-hungry monsters the number of alleged in-person illegal voters is so unbelievably tiny compared to the population of even the smallest number of folks who would be excluded by ID laws that it's utterly implausible that Democrats would care at all about the illegal voters vs. the excluded voters.

Which is why I know this population of "Tens of millions" doesn't actually exist. Because if it did and the democrats actually cared like you claim, there would be a National Conversation about getting everyone free ID who is eligible for it.

And guess what? It would pass by a mile in Congress - with support from both parties - and Trump would sign it. Voila!

But that's not the democrats' focus. At all. Never has been, never will be.

"Tens of millions" of people who can somehow get health care or fly or buy a firearm, yet you contend they can't vote. Sure, why not.

Ummm...there's lots of people who don't fly - about 10-15% of Americans have never ever flown. And who don't buy firearms - about 68% of Americans do not own a gun. And who are uninsured - although I'm not entirely sure why you think you need a photo id to get health insurance, about 10% of the population is currently uninsured. Do you genuinely not believe that such people exist?

Which is why I know this population of "Tens of millions" doesn't actually exist. Because if it did and the democrats actually cared like you claim, there would be a National Conversation about getting everyone free ID who is eligible for it

Are you not aware that there are numerous non-profit groups who work with the indigent, elderly and others to try to help them get documentation? One of the posters here used to talk about their time volunteering with such groups - I think it might have been David, but it's been a long time.

Are you also not aware that progressive Congressbeings do keep trying to get free ID cards for these populations from time to time, such as this effort from House progressives:

Today, U.S. Representatives Sean Casten (IL-06) and Cori Bush (MO-01) introduced the IDs for an Inclusive Democracy Act, legislation that would create a federal photo identification card that is free and optional for the American public.

“12% of Americans lack a drivers license and 11% Americans lack any form of government issued ID,” said Congressman Casten. “That’s 26 million people who cannot access the basic necessities to take care of themselves in our society, like getting a job, opening a bank account, or visiting urgent care. The IDs for an Inclusive Democracy Act creates no-cost federal photo IDs accessible to any American over the age of 14, and gives folks that important first step to provide for themselves.”

https://casten.house.gov/media/press-releases/cast...

...but it doesn't pass by a mile in Congress, even though it's been introduced over and over again. Because even though progressives keep trying to get these ID's made available for folks who need them, these bills involve the federal government to spend money to help mostly poor, older, and often lower-education-level folks out. Which traditionally haven't been very popular among conservatives.

Did you really not know that progressives have been trying to have a National Conversation about this for many years, and it's just been shut down? If we're being cynical, I might intimate that it's because conservatives don't want especially care much about securing elections from fraudulent in-person voting (which is so unbelievably infrequent that no one's ever been able to provide proof of it happening often enough to matter), but that they actually want the impact of having a lot of people no longer being able to vote.

Ummm...there's lots of people who don't fly - about 10-15% of Americans have never ever flown. And who don't buy firearms - about 68% of Americans do not own a gun. And who are uninsured - although I'm not entirely sure why you think you need a photo id to get health insurance, about 10% of the population is currently uninsured. Do you genuinely not believe that such people exist?


I never mentioned health insurance. I said "health care". So...nice try on your part, but no dice: doctors ask to see photo ID when you check in.
Here's the rest of the problem with the facts you're attempting to assume into existence - the list of things that one needs photo ID for creates a logical AND condition.
For you claim to be true, tens of millions of people

-would never fly
AND
-would never see a doctor
AND
-would never get welfare
AND
-would never buy a firearm
AND
-never buy cold medicine
AND
-never buy alcohol
AND
(insert about 50 other things here)

...which is why your claim is bad. In reality people do in fact do some of those things and for every bunch of people who do EVEN ONE of those things your list tens of millions, I tell you! gets smaller. Much smaller.

Right on down to the ramsfanray example of the guy born in a log cabin in 1860 who's miraculously still alive and has voted for every President since Grover Cleveland's first term. And even though the guy served in the Spanish-American War and was with Commodore Dewey himself on the USS Olympia's flag bridge in Manilla Bay he can't get ID because the War Department (as it was called back then) lost all his papers and the courthouse in Bumf#ck County, Tennessee was burned to the ground by moonshiners protesting Prohibition in 1925.

To that I say: let's grant this 166 year old veteran a waiver. How many of him can there be?

Because even though progressives keep trying to get these ID's made available for folks who need them, these bills involve the federal government to spend money to help mostly poor, older, and often lower-education-level folks out. Which traditionally haven't been very popular among conservatives.

Huh. Seems like there's an opportunity for a caring, well-intentioned group of politicians - democrats, allegedly - to do some horse trading and get this in the SAVE act. Do the whole win-win thing where one side gets something (conservatives get ballot security) and the other side gets something (liberals who theoretically care about people not having ID can solve that problem).

Or not.

Did you really not know that progressives have been trying to have a National Conversation about this for many years, and it's just been shut down? If we're being cynical, I might intimate that it's because conservatives don't want especially care much about securing elections from fraudulent in-person voting (which is so unbelievably infrequent that no one's ever been able to provide proof of it happening often enough to matter), but that they actually want the impact of having a lot of people no longer being able to vote.

liberals claim X and liberals claim Y. Doesn't make either thing true. Usually the opposite.

So...nice try on your part, but no dice: doctors ask to see photo ID when you check in.

Really? My doctors don't always require me to provide one. I just went to a new doctor the other day, and his staff didn't require me to provide a photo id.

I've had to provide ID when receiving treatment in a hospital from time to time, but only in connection with using health insurance.

And of course, under EMTALA the emergency room can't deny you coverage simply because you lack ID.

How many of him can there be?

It's about 1% of the population. About 2.6 million people:

Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non-expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name… Just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.

https://papersplease.org/wp/2024/06/07/who-lacks-i...

You might be incredulous that such people exist, but they do. And they will vastly outnumber the unbelievably miniscule number of people who engage in fraudulent in-person voting.

So...nice try on your part, but no dice: doctors ask to see photo ID when you check in.

No, they don't. Never have. If you're a new patient, they ask for your medical insurance card, so they know who to bill. Otherwise they ask for your name and your birth date to verify that they're looking at the correct record.

The public wants it. The only people who don’t want this are partisan democrat operatives, who will do ANYTHING to keep the borders open and our elections non-secure.

The public doesn't want "it". The public would support a reasonable voter ID requirement, just to silence the demagogues who keep complaining about nonexistent voter fraud. The SAVE act is not about voter ID. It's about removing millions of eligible citizens from the voter rolls, and making it much harder to vote for those who remain eligible.

The SAVE act is not about voter ID. It's about removing millions of eligible citizens from the voter rolls, and making it much harder to vote for those who remain eligible.

And several “hot mike” episodes have confirmed Republicans stating almost exactly that.

Eliminating eligible voters is their only path to majority status.

It would pass by a mile in Congress - with support from both parties - and Trump would sign it. Voila!

Spankee would veto it 10E100 times in ONE femto-second. No way would Spankee, MAGA, or the Gay Old Perverts EVER agree to a US National Identity Card. It would allow the "wrong" people to vote--and there would be no way for the states to stop them from voting !!

Really? My doctors don't always require me to provide one.

See? There you go. There's the logical AND at work. Your population for no ID just went down again.

"You may fire when you are ready, Gridley"...maybe our theoretical dude heard that first hand.

It's about 1% of the population. About 2.6 million people:

Uh, huh. So your "tens of millions" claim was just cut by over 5x due to the power of AND.

Let's whittle it down some more:
Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license

How many of them have a passport, a passport card, or a non-driving state ID?


And they will vastly outnumber the unbelievably miniscule number of people who engage in fraudulent in-person voting.

You're having difficulty proving your first claim, so now let's go shooting at this one.

For starters, you have zero idea who shouldn't be voting because we...don't have a verification check that involves secure identification.
What if we did? Would we see stuff like this:
https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2025/12/23/fulton...

ATLANTA, Ga. (Atlanta News First) — Fulton County officials admitted they did not properly sign tabulator tapes after the 2020 election, a violation of state regulations. The county also noted it had misplaced other tabulator tapes and documents related to the controversial election.

The admission was made by county attorney Ann Brumbaugh during a Dec. 9, 2025, meeting of the State Elections Board.

Tabulator tapes are essentially receipts printed from ballot tabulation machines that help to verify the number of voters matches the number of votes. They are a key piece of the verification and certification process in every county election across the state.

Georgia regulations state that a poll manager and two witnesses must be present for the printing, checking and signing of each tape from the machines.

RELATED: Justice Department files lawsuit against Fulton County for 2020 election records

“We do not dispute that the tapes were not signed. It was a violation of the rule,” Brumbaugh said. “They should have done it.”

According to Brumbaugh, since the 2020 vote, the county has made significant changes to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

“Procedures have been updated. People are taking this very seriously now,” she said. “Since then, the training has been enhanced, the poll watchers are trained specifically. They’ve got to sign the tapes in the morning, and they’ve got to sign the tapes when they’re run at the end of the day.”

Causing more concern, the unsigned tapes — around 130 of them from voting machines — accounted for some 315,000 early voters in 2020, almost every ballot cast before Election Day.

“At best, this is sloppy and lazy,” said Janelle King, a Republican member of the State Elections Board. “At worst, it could be egregious, and it could have affected an election.”

The left always waves their hands and inflates the numbers of people who can't possibly be bothered to get photo ID, then also waves their hands and pretends that voting irregularity never exists or is "miniscule".

Me, I'd like to err on the side of secure ballots. The democrats' values are different.

And several “hot mike” episodes have confirmed Republicans stating almost exactly that.

Which means those comments likely don't exist at all or are taken wildly out of context. Thanks for playing, both you and al.

See? There you go. There's the logical AND at work. Your population for no ID just went down again.

What are you talking about? My statement was that you don't need a photo ID to receive medical care. That removes one of the gates you were claiming exists.

Uh, huh. So your "tens of millions" claim was just cut by over 5x due to the power of AND.

No, it wasn't. "Tens of millions" is the number of people who do not have the specific type of ID that proves their citizenship, which is what the SAVE act would require. There are 2.6 million that have absolutely no photo ID whatsoever.

How many of them have a passport, a passport card, or a non-driving state ID?

Very few. Again, surveys of the American people indicate about 10% have neither a driver's license or a passport, or any government-issued photo ID.

https://voteriders.org/article/who-doesnt-have-an-...
https://cdce.substack.com/p/new-cdce-survey-shows-...

Me, I'd like to err on the side of secure ballots. The democrats' values are different.

Indeed. We like to err on not denying people the right to vote. Especially since there is zero evidence that ballots are not secure due to lack of in-person examination of photo ID, but lots of evidence that there are millions of people who do not have the type of ID required by the SAVE Act. The claim of people showing up and doing fraudulent in-person voting is unsupported by evidence - even in this post, you're just linking to some other potential problem, not anything having to do with people fraudulently showing up at the polling place.

Let me ask you a very simple question. Which number do you think is larger? The number of people who fraudulently vote in person each year, or the number of people who lack the identification materials required by the SAVE Act?

Me, I'd like to err on the side of secure ballots.

Our elections have been secure.

You are full of shit and believe lies.

Me, I'd like to err on the side of fascism. ~Dope1

What are you talking about? My statement was that you don't need a photo ID to receive medical care. That removes one of the gates you were claiming exists.

You said, "Doesn't always..." meaning that it's happened at least once. Which mean your population just got whacked thanks to AND.

Indeed. We like to err on not denying people the right to vote. Especially since there is zero evidence that ballots are not secure due to lack of in-person examination of photo ID, but lots of evidence that there are millions of people who do not have the type of ID required by the SAVE Act. The claim of people showing up and doing fraudulent in-person voting is unsupported by evidence - even in this post, you're just linking to some other potential problem, not anything having to do with people fraudulently showing up at the polling place.

So perhaps we should focus on getting people ID. After all, liberals are okay with requiring ID to petition the government (directly from the 1st Amendment) and in keeping and bearing arms (directly from the 2nd Amendment).

Let me ask you a very simple question. Which number do you think is larger?

It's irrelevant what I think the number is because we have no way of knowing.

Let's ask you a simple question: Why are you concerned with finding out what the number is?

Why are you concerned with finding out what the number is?

Because the right to vote is important. And to point out why your assumption that Democrats support fraud is wrong.

It is exceedingly unlikely that any large number of people have engaged in in-person voting fraud that could be detected by voter ID (which is basically impersonating a registered voter). There are records of exactly who voted in each election, those records are fairly comprehensive, and several efforts have been made to parse those records to try to find people voting fraudulently. Those efforts always fail to find any of the type of voter fraud that voter ID could protect against - sometimes to very embarrassing effect, like with Tucker Carlson's investigation. Any of that specific voter fraud that was large enough to ever matter would be large enough to detect, after the fact. Since no one is ever able to find it, we know that a miniscule number of such instances exist.

Meanwhile, we know there are millions of people who don't have the type of governmental ID that is required by most of these voting measures. We know this because unlike the above example, each time we survey the population we find about 10% of the population (give or take) doesn't have that ID.

These types of proposals always require balancing two separate sets of interests - enabling citizens to lawfully vote and preventing non-citizens from fraudulently voting. It's not one or the other. It's one thing to say (correctly and everyone agrees with this) that no one should be allowed to fraudulently vote, but the flip side to that is that any measure that imposes conditions or restrictions on voting or registering will end up not just filtering out the fraudsters but also prevent citizens from voting.

So here's the thing - it's almost certain that the number of people who lack ID is orders of magnitude higher than the number of people fraudulently voting. So you erode the integrity of elections more when you kick all those legal people out of the polling place and block their ballots in order to keep out the small handful of ballots (if even that much) cast by the fraudsters.

Which is why it's wrong when you claim that Democrats are motivated by a desire for fraud in elections (or whatever the terminology was above). Democrats are motivated by what happens to the people without ID, not what happens to the people who try to fraudulently vote in person, because they are aware that the former population is at least 1000X larger than the latter. Even if you think that motivation is purely self-interested and driven by a desire for power, rather than protecting the interests of the voter, it's still the much much larger number. The fraudulent votes (if any exist) are too small to matter, but the people being blocked from voting is large enough to matter - so that's what motivates Democrats.

Now then - Democrats also believe that Republicans also know this. That Republicans know that the number of legal people being blocked is orders of magnitude higher than the number of fraudulent people that will be filtered out, and that the real impact on the elections will be driven exclusively by eliminating legal voters rather than blocking illegal ones.

But even if you don't believe that Democrats are correct in believing this, it is still what they believe. They believe that requiring voter ID will have virtually zero impact on blocking fraudulent votes, but have a very large impact on blocking legal votes. And that is why they oppose it. Because the legal number is much much larger than the illegal number.

Which is why I asked you that question. And am curious what your answer is.

Because the right to vote is important.

Indeed it is. Which is why we owe it to ourselves to ensure that our elections are free, fair and secure.

It is exceedingly unlikely that any large number of people have engaged in in-person voting fraud that could be detected by voter ID (which is basically impersonating a registered voter). There are records of exactly who voted in each election, those records are fairly comprehensive, and several efforts have been made to parse those records to try to find people voting fraudulently.

I keep hearing this, variations on the theme that our elections are completely secure, blah blah blah. But then there are Fulton Counties and Mar-A-Lago and my all-time favorite from my home city:

https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/king-c...

It is fair to say Sawant and her supporters conducted one of the better election ground games in recent memory by utilizing a system most voters don't know about.

"It is legal," said King County Elections Chief Julie Wise, unequivocally, about the pop-up voting sites that Sawant supporters created around Seattle's Capitol Hill.

"We heard this election from about 100 voters that were concerned and I think frustrated," said Wise, in reference to the tents where people were printing ballots for the recall election.

"That's a program that we've offered our voters for over a decade now. Since 2010, voters have been able to go online and access their ballots," said Wise, who believes the print-at-home option enhances access to voting.

Wise said the online platform allows registered voters to replace their ballots and print them at home, putting the ballot in a postage-paid envelope. She said the ballots are held to the same strict standard and verification as ones mailed out by the elections department.

In this particular election, 3% of ballots, or 1,400, were printed. Wise said the normal rate during an election is one-half of one percent. Given the small margin, it is highly likely the ballots printed at pro-Sawant locations were the difference in the race.

Sawant held several events where she would print up a ballot for you. You could then vote and she'd turn it in for you. I'm sure they did a bang-up job of verifying IDs.

And back up to Mt. Righteous we go:
Which is why it's wrong when you claim that Democrats are motivated by a desire for fraud in elections (or whatever the terminology was above). Democrats are motivated by what happens to the people without ID, not what happens to the people who try to fraudulently vote in person, because they are aware that the former population is at least 1000X larger than the latter. Even if you think that motivation is purely self-interested and driven by a desire for power, rather than protecting the interests of the voter, it's still the much much larger number. The fraudulent votes (if any exist) are too small to matter, but the people being blocked from voting is large enough to matter - so that's what motivates Democrats.

Yep, there's a funicular that takes you up and down. They must have a nice cafe up there as well.
You're testifying on behalf of your entire party. Sure, go ahead, but since you don't live in the heads of guys like this

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/court-documen...

Stealing encryption keys is the first step; reverse-engineering them is the second.

What if the SAVE act mandated the feds provide anyone who wanted a secure ID could have one for free?

Indeed it is. Which is why we owe it to ourselves to ensure that our elections are free, fair and secure.

...and everyone who has the right to vote, can do so, without obstruction.

If "secure" is the primary objective, don't let anyone vote, then there will be no "fraudulent" votes.

Steve

Let's ask you a simple question: Why are you concerned with finding out what the number is?

I have the answer to this and all of your other questions.

Crikey, you're boring.

...and everyone who has the right to vote, can do so, without obstruction.

I have zero problem with this. I'm not so sure why it's so hard for some to just come out and offer a solution.

It’s been over 5 years since Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. Trump has lied over and over (I know, hard to believe) about illegal voting. After 5+ years, where’s the evidence of voter fraud?

Two more weeks

And the Georgia ballots seized by the FBI earlier this year? Where’s the fraud?

Holding Putin accountable for attacking Ukraine?<.i>|


Two Weeks Again Trump

I have zero problem with this. I'm not so sure why it's so hard for some to just come out and offer a solution.

It's not. As noted upthread, progressive lawmakers have introduced a bill to provide a national ID card for people who need one. It appears it's been introduced in the last several Congresses. It fails each time.

https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%...

I think you're overly optimistic in your assessment that such a bill would be welcomed on the GOP side of the aisle. Partially that's because it would require the federal government to spend money to provide people with ID's, and there's a general dislike of increasing government spending on almost anything. DOGE, and all that - but Grover Norquist was here long before Musk. I suspect that the "small government" types who fear the idea of any national ID have also torpedoed this proposal - even apart from the spending, they distrust federal government programs, and certainly don't want the feds to be in charge of doing something like this.

If everyone had an ID, it's unlikely Democrats would care. Again, few on the Democratic side believe that there's any material in-person fraudulent voting going on. Voter fraud sometimes happens (at very modest levels), but it almost never involves a person showing up to in-person voting and pretending to be someone else. Democrats generally think the only effect these laws have is keeping legal people from voting. If everyone had an ID Democratic opposition would vanish. But if everyone had an ID then there would no longer be much benefit to the GOP to enacting these kinds of laws, so there's that....

Democrats generally think the only effect these laws have is keeping legal people from voting. If everyone had an ID Democratic opposition would vanish. But if everyone had an ID then there would no longer be much benefit to the GOP to enacting these kinds of laws, so there's that....

And yet, the democrats can engage in horse trading at any time...and yet refuse to. Perhaps you're the one vastly overestimating your party's proclivities to do good and instead are falling for the left wing version of what we on the right call "Republican failure theater": where some conservative position that would undoubtedly do the country some good is merely given lip service by the Establishment Republican types (almost always in the Senate) who ultimately fail to deliver but make it look like they're trying. So as to not appear completely useless to the donor base, you see.

No, they don't. Never have. If you're a new patient, they ask for your medical insurance card, so they know who to bill. Otherwise they ask for your name and your birth date to verify that they're looking at the correct record.

Well, at least where I am in NY, both Quest Diagnostics and an MRI facility have asked to see a photo ID. A driver's license is assumed.

And yet, the democrats can engage in horse trading at any time...and yet refuse to.

Why would they do that? They think the whole concept of in-person voter impersonation fraud is made up by the GOP, and they have a point. There's nothing to horse trade, because there's no "horse" there, from the Democrats' perspective.

Again, I would be really interested to hear what you think the sizes of the two populations are: how many people actually engage in in-person polling place fraudulent voter impersonation vs. how many people lack the ID required by these bills. It seems rather obvious to me that imposing a photo ID requirement would end up blocking far more legitimate votes than fraudulent ones - and thus would hurt election integrity. But you seem to disagree, so I'm curious about what you think the facts are.

where some conservative position that would undoubtedly do the country some good is merely given lip service by the Establishment Republican types (almost always in the Senate) who ultimately fail to deliver but make it look like they're trying. So as to not appear completely useless to the donor base, you see.

Well, that's the filibuster, you see. You can't pass something in the Senate without getting more than a half-dozen of the opposing party to go along with it, so "conservative positions" - like "progressive positions" - are pretty much doomed from the start. The other part of the GOP base that isn't the donor base doesn't accept that the filibuster imposes a real limit on politics, so they will destroy their own Senators who commit the betrayal of finding a deal that can get that many of the opposing party on board. The same is true on the Democratic side.

Why would they do that?

Because they could get something they wanted (assurances for the according to you tens of millions of people the GOP would otherwise disenfranchise) in exchange for absolutely nothing (because again according to you our elections are free from fraud and 100% secure already. After all, it's "miniscule" the number of people who vote who shouldn't, right?)

It's interesting how you won't even take the layup. Why is that?

It's interesting how you won't even take the layup. Why is that?

Because the layup isn't on offer. It's somewhat difficult and expensive to make sure that everyone who is eligible for an ID is able to get an ID, and "difficult and expensive" are things that the GOP doesn't want to hear when it comes to federal government programs - especially federal government programs that help populations that don't reliably vote for them. Which is one reason why all the free ID bills that have been introduced for years keep failing. Setting up a system where it's possible for homeless 19 year olds or poor 80 year olds, living in a state other than where they were born, to obtain a new ID at no charge to them isn't simple.

Unless you mean me, personally. I'm totally on board with that - if the government sets up a program where any person who wants a federal ID that demonstrates their citizenship can get one, free of charge, with the government taking the steps necessary (or paying to have them taken) to obtain their documentation to confirm their identity, then I am 100% on board with the prospect that said ID must be shown at the polling place.

Now that I've answered your question, might you answer mine? What's your belief on the number of in-person fraudulent impersonation voter fraud vs. the number of folks without ID.

Because the layup isn't on offer. It's somewhat difficult and expensive to make sure that everyone who is eligible for an ID is able to get an ID, and "difficult and expensive" are things that the GOP doesn't want to hear when it comes to federal government programs - especially federal government programs that help populations that don't reliably vote for them. Which is one reason why all the free ID bills that have been introduced for years keep failing. Setting up a system where it's possible for homeless 19 year olds or poor 80 year olds, living in a state other than where they were born, to obtain a new ID at no charge to them isn't simple.

Ell.
Oooooh.
Ell.

So even if the GOP offered to pay for all this and solve the problem of "tens of millions of Americans" languishing without ID, you'd still say no.
Amazing.

Unless you mean me, personally. I'm totally on board with that - if the government sets up a program where any person who wants a federal ID that demonstrates their citizenship can get one, free of charge, with the government taking the steps necessary (or paying to have them taken) to obtain their documentation to confirm their identity, then I am 100% on board with the prospect that said ID must be shown at the polling place.

Okay, better.

Now that I've answered your question, might you answer mine? What's your belief on the number of in-person fraudulent impersonation voter fraud vs. the number of folks without ID.

Asked and answered: I've no idea.
Voter ID to me is about more that just proving who's who. It's about making sure our elections are participated in by people who are supposed to participate in them - in other words, part of the entire process of ensuring that our elections are fair and secure.

Because if you don't have that, you literally don't have a country.

Because if you don't have that, you literally don't have a country.

Why not? By definition, you almost can't ever have perfection in elections. Our elections are already fair and secure, without making any further changes. You might not know how many people turn up and engage in in-person voter impersonation fraud, but it cannot be very high - because there are so many procedures in place that allow for such things to be caught both during and after the fact (and people check nearly every vote every time there's a tight election) it couldn't possibly go undetected at any material amount.

The flip side is there as well - one could argue that if our elections aren't open to participation in by all the people who are supposed to participate in them, then we will literally not have a country. If you start carving out millions of folks that are citizens and allowed to vote and keep them from voting, you're making the elections less fair and secure also.

So unless you have an actual reason for imposing a burden on people that would result in people who are lawfully permitted to vote being unable to vote, you shouldn't do it. And there isn't an actual reason, here. If this were going on to any material degree, people would get caught. They'd show up pretending to be someone known to the polling volunteer, or a bystander checking in at the same time. Or the person they're pretending to be would show up later to try to vote - or even sometimes when the person was still there. Or if you do a survey of a few thousand voters after-the-fact, you'd find several who would tell you that they didn't actually vote on election day. That's why we keep all those records, and why the political parties have access to all those lists.

Literally tens of millions of ballots get cast on election day, so 0.1% of those would constitute hundreds of thousands of in-person votes - cycle after cycle after cycle. There's no possible way that you wouldn't be able to detect large numbers of in-person fraudulent voting over time if it were happening at a level that "you literally don't have a country."

Replying to Steve203

I have ID.

What sort of ID? Passports and passport cards are proof of citizenship, but they are not free. Something like half of USians do not have a passport or passport card. I am one of them.


**************

What kind of a dipshit constantly bloviates anti-Semitic garbage on internet message boards, other kinds of paranoid conspiracy theories, pretends to know everything about everything (I guess your actual expertise is in some kind of industrial pump valves right? I tip my cap to your knowledge in that area, only, and even that's a probably a bit of a reach)---and JFC doesn't even have a passport? Or even a passport card.

Holy crap it's appalling.

Replying to Steve203

Over 80% of the public wants it.

I agree that only citizens should vote, so that is 80%, +1. I further agree that people should have documentation of citizenship, but that documentation must be easily obtained, and free. If the dox are hard to obtain, and/or costly, requiring dox amounts to a poll tax, which was a popular was of suppressing voting by some groups.

*************

Wrong again, Steve. If you make it easy to get and free, then you get tons of fraud, even if not in the elections themselves (since you claim there is no such thing as "election fraud" by non-citizens, O.K.), then identity theft which is already endemic.

Easy security is no security, that's something we all should have learned by now in our on-line lives.

Get a clue.

Replying to albaby1

Still doesn’t change the fact that photo ID for voting is a common sense idea and the only people against it are fans of fraud.

No, the people who are against it aren't "fans of fraud." They're people who don't want citizens that lack ID to be prohibited from voting.

I mean, even if you're a total cynic about all this and think Democrats care about nothing other than their own power - the effect of these laws on fraudulent voting is super super-tiny compared to the effect on citizens who get pushed out of the vote. It's just numbers. The people who are citizens but who lack the specific documents to prove citizenship number in the tens of millions; the people who might be voting while here unlawfully is going to be 0.0001 of that, at most. You don't have to be a "fan of fraud" to be really concerned about the former number, which is going to have a vastly greater impact on election outcomes than the latter.

************

Typical Leftist drivel which makes no sense. You need a photo I.D. to get a drink in a bar or buy alcohol in a bottle store. You telling me all these imaginary U.S. citizens who "lack ID" never have a beer or other adult beverage once in a while?

You also need ID for lots of other things. Such as, being lawfully employed. So you're telling me you're cool with all these imaginary people who don't have IDs, but are otherwise law-abiding U.S. citizens (LOL) and "follow all the rules," are all working off the books (if they are working)?

Also if you want to get a bank account. Or a driver's license. Or buy a house. Or lease a rental. Or get a credit card.

And a million other things too. Look, if all these supposedly legal U.S. citizens don't have I.D.s, how do they function, at all, in lawful society?

Answer: There aren't. The only people who don't have I.D.s, or don't want to get them, or can't get them, are criminals, whether or not they have been charged or convicted of anything (yet).

Replying to albaby1
See, I don't believe this (that democrats care about leaving people behind).

You don't have to believe they care about leaving people behind. As I said, you can simply be cynical and assume they care only about their power.

Of the two groups involved - the "so tiny that it has never been proven to exist beyond a bare handful of individuals" population of alleged non-citizens voting in person and the tens of millions of people who lack the documentation required by the SAVE act - which would anyone care about if they just wanted to win elections?

It doesn't make sense. There's no reason at all the Democrats would care about the tiny, tiny, tiny number of people that might theoretically be doing in-person voting illegally, compared to even the approximately 1% of adults (2.6 million people) that do indeed lack any type of photo identification (and thus aren't able to do the things you identify above) despite the efforts of lots of liberal groups to try to help them get that photo ID. To say nothing of the 11% of the population that has the photo ID necessary to do all those things but lacks the specific type of ID that the GOP is trying to force as a condition to voting (passport or RealID compliant driver's license).

Again, even if you assume Democrats are nothing but power-hungry monsters the number of alleged in-person illegal voters is so unbelievably tiny compared to the population of even the smallest number of folks who would be excluded by ID laws that it's utterly implausible that Democrats would care at all about the illegal voters vs. the excluded voters.


******************

Name one, a single, person, who is not a criminal, mentally ill, or addict, who doesn't have a photo I.D. and is unable to easily get one.

Just one, Jack O.

What kind of a dipshit constantly bloviates anti-Semitic garbage on internet message boards, other kinds of paranoid conspiracy theories, pretends to know everything about everything

You mean as on Pravda Socialnaya? Or Spankee and any/all of his psychophants?

If you make it easy to get and free, then you get tons of fraud

A. If Spankee and his psychophants do it--then the above quote is what you get.

B. If someone knows what to do AND how to do it, then the above quote is impossible.

I do, and have done, B.

Everyone has seen Spankee and his psychophants do A--over and over again.

Hey !!

How do you like Spankee's $4+/gallon gas in the US?

It hasn't been this high since the Spankee Plague !!

Typical Leftist drivel which makes no sense.

Not a surprise. When was the last time *anything* made sense to you?

Are you not aware that there are numerous non-profit groups who work with the indigent, elderly and others to try to help them get documentation? One of the posters here used to talk about their time volunteering with such groups - I think it might have been David, but it's been a long time.

I think it was MrFungi. I think he was doing it in Detroit, as I recall.

And it's conservatives that don't want a national ID. Dems are -to my knowledge- down with it as long as the IDs are free, and if people need help to produce valid documentation, they get that help (free). MrFungi did a great post a few years ago about the challenges for many people, mostly poor and disenfranchised. When I was in my teens, or maybe early 20s, there was talk of a national ID, and conservatives (of which I was one at that time) were vehemently against it. They were drawing parallels to "your papers please" (and I naively bought it at the time).

ungi did a great post a few years ago about the challenges for many people, mostly poor and disenfranchised.
****

And those poor school districts. Inner city districts. Housing projects.

I wonder who was advocating for those people.

And after a half century---these people --- need help-----getting ID.


Slavery - White Liberals are masters at doing it on the quiet.

And spending billions to get it done.

Keep Whole Foods White----

Slavery - White Liberals are masters at doing it on the quiet.

You'll have to justify that statement before I'll even consider entertaining it.

Liberals are the ones who recognize that those folks are starting at a disadvantage, and trying to rectify it. Conservatives deny it, and insist they should grab their bootstraps. Which is probably why most folks of color are liberals.

I agree with you.


Some people - in racist America can pull themselves up by the bootstraps. People from the Philippines, China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and so many others kick ass as first generation Americans who start with little or nothing.


but SOME people - - can't freaking do it --

And who has been their steward in the inner cities for 50 years?

White Slave owning Liberals.

I'm fine with it - I used to lament it.

The cream is rising to the top.

As long as lazy white IT people and Engineers get their desserts --I'm good.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.