quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Man, so goddamn pathetic.

I agree wholeheartedly.

To those who say there is no evidence of systematic voter fraud in 2020 are either criminally uninformed, stupid, or one of the goddamn commies who celebrate stealing elections. The evidence is out there in states like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan. States where the margin of difference in winning and losing between Trump and Biden were decided by less than 15,000 votes in each state.

Absolutely, the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:

Since I have a star on my drivers license would that be considered proof enough or would I need to prove my citizenship?

Star (Real ID) is not proof of citizenship. It can be issued to any legal resident of the U.S.A.

A few things I notice.

Those who seem to be the most terrified of this passing also state there is only a small amount of cheating that goes on.

Those same people would not entrust the systems in place to send cash money, but claim that it is fine for ballots.

Those who are terrified of this have to prove who they are to do dozens of things less important than voting, but claim again that somehow voter security is bad.

Asked Grok to summarize the bill since some of the comments here imply you'll need to show up with a birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce papers, realID, passport and your priest to confirm who you are to vote.

None of that is in the vote section of the bill, all you need is a valid realID, that's it.

The requirements for proof of citizenship are for registration to vote. Nothing in the bill eliminates your current registration, so if you are registered, you just show up with your valid DL and vote.

From Grok:

In early February 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (also referred to as the SAVE America Act or an updated version of the SAVE Act), a Republican-backed bill focused on election integrity measures for federal elections.
Key Provisions

Proof of U.S. Citizenship for Registration: States would be prohibited from accepting or processing voter registration applications for federal elections unless the applicant provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., a U.S. passport, birth certificate, certain REAL ID-compliant documents indicating citizenship, or other specified items like military records or tribal documents). Currently, registrants only attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury.

Photo ID Requirement to Vote: Voters would need to show an approved form of photo identification (such as a driver's license or state ID) before casting a ballot in federal elections. This would impose a national standard, affecting states that currently do not require photo ID.

Additional Measures: The bill includes provisions for states to cross-check voter rolls against federal databases (like DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) to identify and remove noncitizens, and processes for handling name discrepancies (e.g., for married individuals).

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
if you are registered, you just show up with your valid DL and vote.

Assuming the bill becomes law, it will be interesting to see how many registered voters don't vote compared to historical data. All the dead people, non-existent people, unqualified voters, etc who are prevented from voting because a valid ID cannot be acquired.

Where the changes happen and which party is affected will give a good indication of how badly fraud compromised previous elections.

Apologies for being crass.

https://x.com/nickshirleyy/sta...535502700540048?s=20

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FenderBender,

quote:

Now that we have 50 Senate votes for the SAVE America Act, Vice President JD VANCE can swoop in and break the tie, enshrining voter ID and citizenship into our laws

ALL we need to do is have Sen. John Thune force Dems to a standing filibuster — and OUTLAST them for hours.

Make them debate against the 85-15 issue of voter ID on the Senate floor.

I agree. End the filibuster.
Make it a "standing filibuster" ... and when they've exhausted themselves, take the vote.
This is the hill to die on...

JMO but the thing that should be a part of this bill is that no ballot drop boxes or harvesting can be done in a federal election, zero, none, we see in GA and other states where these were used to change the results.

IF this becomes law, voter turnout will decrease due to reduced fraud. And democrats will say the decrease is due to voter suppression. But they’ll be protesting from the sidelines because they’ll be voted out.

They’re already on the sidelines but with the gutless cowards (republicans) unwilling to step up, the losers still seem to be the ones calling the shots.

Concerning the Senate filibuster procedure:

https://www.theburningplatform...ime-out/#more-395246

When Senators return to DC, they will have to overcome the filibuster in its current mode, which is the silent or so-called “zombie” filibuster. You see, in the old days, before 1972, if senators wanted to filibuster, they had to actually hold the Senate floor and keep talking — bringing all Senate business to a complete halt until either they gave up or the majority could gather enough votes for cloture (ending debate). It was physically very hard on the senators, an ordeal, and to get through the hours of mindless blather, they would read the phone book, or the World Almanac, or a Sunday newspaper from page one to the obituaries, which subjected them to ridicule. [This was as it was when performed by Jimmy Stewart in the 1939 movie “Mr Smith Goes To Washington”].

After 1972, the Senate introduced what they called “the two-track” system, which allowed the body to move on to other business under a filibuster, without requiring a member to stand and speak. All that was needed was for a senator to inform the leadership that he intended to block a vote, with the backing of 40 other senators. This led to a dramatic increase in the use of filibusters — transforming them from a rare, physically demanding gambit into a routine procedural threat.

Now, the catch is that this change in procedure was never formally voted on. Going from “talking” filibusters to “silent” filibusters didn’t happen through a deliberate decision by the full Senate to change the rules — it emerged in 1972 from a procedural workaround that then Majority Leader Mike Mansfield introduced. It’s just a custom masquerading as a rule, and one that now Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) could declare null and void.

Doing so would bring back the old talking filibuster. Opponents of a given bill, such as the SAVE Act, would have to step into the well of Senate and offer arguments against election reform, or they could read through the Chicago phone book. In either case, they’d expose themselves to ridicule. Perhaps those ten days at home during the present government shutdown will lead to an attitude change.

I'd like to see the math. How much is the loss of a grumpy old man vote in terms of illegal votes? 1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1000?

FenderBender, mind your manners

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
None of that is in the vote section of the bill, all you need is a valid realID, that's it.

From the lower part of your post, Read ID is NOT required to vote, just an approved photo ID, such as a state issued driver’s license or state issued ID. Real ID is mentioned under registration, not under voting.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
FenderBender, mind your manners

edited, apologies, I got carried away.

^^^^ @slosig: Right!

Once again, proof of citizenship (birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or whatever approved method) is required only when you register to vote. Once that’s done, you’re in the system as legit.

On voting day, you bring whatever approved ID to the voting place. No need to drag others docs along. You’re already tagged as legit.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Asked Grok to summarize the bill since some of the comments here imply you'll need to show up with a birth certificate, marriage certificate, divorce papers, realID, passport and your priest to confirm who you are to vote.

You’re mixing registering with voting, two different processes with different requirements. I thought the point was pretty clear from my post on page one.

https://www.newsmax.com/politi...dkt_nbr=01050217ed25

GOP Eyes Election Changes, Cautious on Mail Voting

Congressional Republicans are charging ahead with a sweeping overhaul of the nation's election system, pushing stricter voter ID standards and proof-of-citizenship requirements.

However, they are proceeding more carefully when it comes to President Donald Trump's call to sharply limit mail-in voting, Politico reported Wednesday.

Trump has long warned about the risks of widespread mail balloting and renewed his criticism this week.

"Why would you want mail-in ballots if you know it's corrupt?" Trump asked reporters aboard Air Force One on Monday. "It's a corrupt system."

While Republicans share the president's concerns about election integrity, some are reluctant to eliminate mail voting entirely, noting that many of their own voters rely on it.

"I support the use of mail-in voting," said Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. "The idea that some states just mail out ballots without any requests is absurd, but the use of mail-in balloting, I do not have an objection."

Many GOP lawmakers say the focus should be on tightening security. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., who is running for governor, pointed to Florida as a model.

"In Florida, we treat ballots like they're evidence in a trial," Donalds said. "Other states need to follow that."

"I think that's what the White House is referencing. You just can't have ballots out there in the ether."

The House last week passed the SAVE America Act, which includes proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration and new photo ID rules for casting ballots.

The legislation, however, does not directly address mail voting — even though Trump posted days earlier on Truth Social: "NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPT FOR ILLNESS, DISABILITY, MILITARY, OR TRAVEL!)"

Behind the scenes, the White House urged lawmakers to include language restricting mail voting, Politico reported, but concerns about maintaining support in the narrowly divided House led Republicans to leave it out.

Many GOP lawmakers say Trump's primary target is "universal" vote-by-mail systems in states such as California and Oregon, not absentee ballots for legitimate reasons.

"We have to be very cautious about mail-in ballot voting," Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., said. "But I think that if we get the registration process correct, then that'll fix a lot of this."

Another bill advancing in the House, the Make Elections Great Again Act, would ban universal vote-by-mail and crack down on ballot harvesting while still allowing voters to request absentee ballots.

"If you're sick and you can't get to the polling [place], he wants you to have a ballot. If you're a military member, he wants you to have a ballot," Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., said of Trump.

"Who he doesn't want to have a ballot is the illegal alien that registered or even a lawful alien who got a driver's license to be registered to vote and get a mail-in ballot."

Democrats argue that requiring free voter photo IDs – even when the ID itself costs nothing – harms eligible voters by creating practical barriers to casting a ballot. They contend that blacks would be especially hard hit. Interestingly, every country in Africa requires government-issued identification to vote.

They also argue that such requirements would disenfranchise Hispanic voters. Yet Mexico, all twelve South American countries, and Spain require government-issued photo IDs to vote.

All of these countries have lower per-capita incomes than the United States. If citizens in those nations can obtain the necessary identification to vote, why would American Hispanics and blacks be unable to do the same?

The answer is simple. Enact every requirement to buy a gun to voting. Simply pass a FOID card type ID that covers buying guns and voting.

quote:

They contend that blacks would be especially hard hit.

So apparently, EVERY black person you see driving does not have ID to operate that vehicle.
Good to know.