The Save Act
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
My pleasure!
I think, if I remember correctly, you are a fellow veteran who served our great country. If not, that doesn't change my best thoughts of you, and your recuperation from surgery.
Take care of yourself and we wish you a speedy recovery.
Trump does what he says he will do.
I spend exactly 0.00 seconds caring about projections from Polymarket, Kalshi, etc.
What the public think will happen, and what actually happens, are two completely different things.
Trump told us there will be voter-ID, either via the SAVE America Act, or via EO. If this is true (it is), then the Dems are going to lose the midterms in a catastrophic landslide, to the point where the public will have no choice but to accept that the Dems’ support is largely manufactured via election fraud and manipulation of public perception.
The Dems manage perception with phony polls and projection sites. Everything is fake. Perception and reality are not the same.
The GOP will win the midterms by a landslide, because things are now in motion that cannot be undone. Trump has already fully committed to saving the Republic, and this is what must happen for the public to wake up.
Once the public see how the Dems are engaged in widespread election fraud, the veil will be lifted, and Trump will have not just the ability, but the RESPONSIBILITY, to hold the Dems accountable for hijacking our nation.
It must be done.
I spend exactly 0.00 seconds caring about projections from Polymarket, Kalshi, etc.
What the public think will happen, and what actually happens, are two completely different things.
Trump told us there will be voter-ID, either via the SAVE America Act, or via EO. If this is true (it is), then the Dems are going to lose the midterms in a catastrophic landslide, to the point where the public will have no choice but to accept that the Dems’ support is largely manufactured via election fraud and manipulation of public perception.
The Dems manage perception with phony polls and projection sites. Everything is fake. Perception and reality are not the same.
The GOP will win the midterms by a landslide, because things are now in motion that cannot be undone. Trump has already fully committed to saving the Republic, and this is what must happen for the public to wake up.
Once the public see how the Dems are engaged in widespread election fraud, the veil will be lifted, and Trump will have not just the ability, but the RESPONSIBILITY, to hold the Dems accountable for hijacking our nation.
It must be done.
Ned: Read and learn.
Opinion | The GOP’s worst argument for voter ID
Philip Bump: Republicans defending the SAVE Act ask, “You have to use an ID to show you’re 21 if you want to drink, so why not do the same for voting?” Here’s why that's nonsensical.
www.ms.now
The article was just hot air bear. If election fraud is rare then no problem to.pass the save act. Trying to compare it to kids trying to drink illegally is a weak argument imo.Ned: Read and learn.
Opinion | The GOP’s worst argument for voter ID
Philip Bump: Republicans defending the SAVE Act ask, “You have to use an ID to show you’re 21 if you want to drink, so why not do the same for voting?” Here’s why that's nonsensical.
makes a good case for ID for drinking...but lest's look at a different argument...that women will be disenfranchised..if this was the case, no married woman would ever be allowed to vote...that's just a stupid argument. I've been married for almost 60 years. Even that many years married a woman went to DMV and changed their license....it's even easier now, because you can change your voter registration at the same time.Ned: Read and learn.
Opinion | The GOP’s worst argument for voter ID
Philip Bump: Republicans defending the SAVE Act ask, “You have to use an ID to show you’re 21 if you want to drink, so why not do the same for voting?” Here’s why that's nonsensical.
The argument that you'll have to prove citizenship at each election is also dumb. Once you show citizenship at registration, that's it..and I've already given info on how "difficult" it is to get copies of birth certificates.
I think the entire debate over ID is nonsensical. You can do hardly nothing (except vote) without some form of ID in this country. Also, democrats arguing against voter ID now were for it in years past. What changed?
Dan Bongino had John Solomon on his show today and Solomon made an interesting prediction:
That Trump will soon unveil evidence that foreign powers meddled in the 2020 election, which will result in John Thune ultimately caving on the filibuster and the Save America act will get passed.
“I think Donald Trump is going to change the narrative in America. I think he is going to change some Senators minds…
He is going to start revealing some of the intelligence that was kept from the American people. And we’re going to see that our foreign adversaries have monkeyed around with our (election) system more than we knew…
And I think when Senators realize their state could have been targeted… there is going to be a different debate in America…
I think there’s some big, significant, and very troubling revelations about the vulnerabilities of our elections that the President is about to unveil on the American public.”
That's an interesting thought. Irrespective of some big reveal which i personally don't put much faith in, I wonder if dragging this whole voter id discussion out is not somewhat by design. It remains popular with the american people and i don't think that's changing.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoleon Bonaparte
You can't just say "nuh uh" in the face of evidence that supports the opposing view. This is what you do with everything, while you're running around littering the board with your conspiracy nonsense. If your conspiracy nonsense didn't make you look crazy and untrustworthy enough, a complete inability to counter anyone else's logical arguments, yet insistence that your unsupported stances are the correct ones make you look sadly incompetent and confused.
bear, I'm really surprised that as an "officer of the court" you are not more on the side of protecting/enforcing the laws than in excusing the numbers of undocumented people from registering to vote and, in limited cases, voting.Ned: Read and learn.
Opinion | The GOP’s worst argument for voter ID
Philip Bump: Republicans defending the SAVE Act ask, “You have to use an ID to show you’re 21 if you want to drink, so why not do the same for voting?” Here’s why that's nonsensical.
I am, served in the army for 20 years. Loved it...had great opportunities for growth that put me in position for opportunities in the corporate world. Would have stayed in forever, but war is a young man's game.
"Hot air?!" If you actually read the article (which I strongly suspect you did not), the comparison between requiring the showing of an ID to vote and showing an ID to purchase alcoholic beverages was first made by GOP congressmen Bryan Stell and Zach Nunn. Nunn said "You have to use an ID to show you’re 21 if you want to drink, so why not do the same for voting?"
So they invited that comparison. If you think it is a weak argument, then perhaps you should direct your critique to them. Or to the thousands of other Trump cult followers who have made that same comparison.
That comparison also inevitably raises the question of why? Why ask for an ID? What purpose/need does it serve? (And because requiring would be voters to produce an ID places a burden on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, it had better address a clear need.) I think it is pretty obvious that requiring persons to show ID in order to purchase alcoholic beverages is intended to address (and hopefully minimize) underage drinking. There's no doubt that a whole lot of underage drinking happens in the U.S., sometimes with tragic consequences (car crashes resulting in serious injury or death). According to the linked article, in calendar year 2020, ,there were approximately 26,000 arrests of persons under age 18 for liquor related violations (e.g., drunkenness, DUI's, open container violations, etc.)
Compare that with incidences of in-person voter fraud (i.e., impersonating someone in order to cast a fraudulent ballot). That is what the I.D. requirement in the Save Act is presumably intended to address. At least, that is what its Republican proponents in Congress are telling us. However, it looks like a solution in search of a problem. Since 2004, there have been a total of 34 arrests in the United States for in-person voter fraud. Thirty four. As the author of the article I linked noted:
"Those aren’t my numbers. Those are numbers from the Heritage Foundation’s “Election Fraud” database, an online tool meant to give the impression that election fraud is rampant and hugely problematic. Yet the best they could gin up in terms of in-person voter impersonation is 34 incidents during a period in which about 1.5 billion votes were cast in federal elections."
I would add one other comment that you did not address in your post. The SAVE Act also would require that would-be voters present proof of citizenship in order to vote. The stated purpose of this proof of citizenship requirement is to prevent noncitizens from casting votes in U.S. elections. As the author of the article notes: "This is something that happens about as much as people heading to polling places pretending to be someone they’re not, which is to say it almost never happens. (See the libertarian Cato Institute’s analysis of state-level investigations.)" It also happens that it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections.
What is interesting about this proof of citizenship requirement is that it may exclude more Republicans than Democrats from voting. Viz.:
"By requiring proof of citizenship, and not just identification, the SAVE Act might be more likely to exclude Republicans than Democrats. The Center for American Progress estimated how many residents in each state had valid U.S. passports ... Redder states are ones where less than half the citizen population was estimated to have a valid passport; bluer ones are those where more than half did. On average, 40% of citizens in states that voted for Trump in 2024 are estimated to have valid passports. In states that didn’t vote for him, the average is 60%."
Whoops! Maybe the Republicans should reconsider that proof of citizenship verbiage in the SAVE Act. LOL ...
Voter I'd and one day elections are coming. A huge and permanent reduction in Mail in voting coming.
you don't need a passport to satisfy proof of citizenship....that's a deflection....
I have been saying it for a while now.
Trump doesn’t need Congress to do anything to protect the midterms.
It’s a “national security” issue.
Quit worrying about the midterms.
Quit worrying about passing the SAVE Act.
When Trump exposes the EVIDENCE of the “conspiracy” to steal the 2020 election, the game is over.
That makes it a coup.
That makes it treason.
That makes our entire election “system” unconstitutional.
You better prepare yourself.
The Constitution gives the president full authority to do whatever he has to do, in order to preserve the Constitution and the Republic.
He doesn’t need permission from Congress.
If you think Trump can’t direct the military to oversee an election with all the SAFEGUARDS he keeps talking about, then you are completely missing what’s happening.
Most people really have no clue exactly how much Constitutional power that Trump possesses right now.
There’s a reason why he keeps winning every single “emergency” decision at the Supreme Court.
Trump is saving the Constitution and the Republic and it will happen on his timing.
Interesting.
Unpopular opinion.
Even if the SAVE Act is somehow passed in the Senate.
What happens next?
Blue states will sue and find a District Judge to block it before the Midterms.
What I don't understand is why people are not paying attention to the Watson case that will be argued b4 SCOTUS in March.
If the RNC wins that case, it means ballots CANNOT be received after election day.
That nullifies the California plan.
The SAVE Act will help us in 2028.
The Watson case is for all the marbles in 2026.
And NO ONE is paying attention to it.
Unpopular opinion.
Even if the SAVE Act is somehow passed in the Senate.
What happens next?
Blue states will sue and find a District Judge to block it before the Midterms.
What I don't understand is why people are not paying attention to the Watson case that will be argued b4 SCOTUS in March.
If the RNC wins that case, it means ballots CANNOT be received after election day.
That nullifies the California plan.
The SAVE Act will help us in 2028.
The Watson case is for all the marbles in 2026.
And NO ONE is paying attention to it.
Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon just argued before SCOTUS, “Election Day” means ONE ELECTION DAY, not weeks or MONTHS of early voting and endless counting!
DHILLON: “Election Day means Election DAY! Proud to have co-authored this brief with our colleagues in the Solicitor General’s Office.”
Finally someone with guts fighting to SECURE our elections. Back to one day, in-person, ID required, the way it SHOULD be!
Look, I get it, Ned. You just want to reduce the number of likely Democratic voters any way you can. I just happen to believe that is anti-democratic (with a small "d").
Well, at least ol' Turtlehead is getting SOMETHING right.
well, I respect your beliefs, but they somehow should be based on fact as opposed to supposition. If we're basing the decision on ability to get documents, that's specious. If we're basing it on disenfranchisement for married women, even more specious.
So, those opposing ID just might have to come up with an argument that passes the "intelligence" quotient, because the ones they're using now don't.
I don't want to reduce the number of voters. I just want the number of voters to be authorized to vote.
Dogs voted in California. We need voter ID
Who is being disenfranchised by having to have an ID?
Voter id is required everywhere, even for constitutionally protected rights like gun ownership.
There is no logical reason to not require voter id, unless you want to cheat.
Last edited:
We deserve fair elections. Period. No qualifications.
If there is evidence of cheating, then it should be eliminated. Dogs voting is cheating.The dog was a republican? Good you proved my point. Republicans
Doesn’t matter if it’s enough to affect the outcome of the election or not. Fair is fair. Cheating is cheating.
The most developed country in the world, the most powerful country in earths history, DESERVES FAIR ELCTIONS.
You can not guarantee a fair election without voter id.
Trump is going to cheat if yall don’t require voter ID.
And last thing, 81 million didn’t vote for Biden.
If there is evidence of cheating, then it should be eliminated. Dogs voting is cheating.The dog was a republican? Good you proved my point. Republicans
Doesn’t matter if it’s enough to affect the outcome of the election or not. Fair is fair. Cheating is cheating.
The most developed country in the world, the most powerful country in earths history, DESERVES FAIR ELCTIONS.
You can not guarantee a fair election without voter id.
Trump is going to cheat if yall don’t require voter ID.
And last thing, 81 million didn’t vote for Biden.
You have to be so disingenuous to say there is no cheating. Our elections. Evidence is everywhere you look. California elections are a total joke.
No, they didn't. The Trump voter that tried to register his dog failed in doing so, and ended up getting arrested for it. This was debunked this very week on this forum in response to a post from you and you still try and spread falsehoods. This is why no one thinks you engage in good faith.
So if I find one instance of real voter fraud, that means I am arguing in good faith? On it
There have been ~35 instances of voter fraud (proven) over the last 20+ years. Yes, please find some more since it's such a pressing issue.
Edit: Please see the most recent CATO institute findings on illegal immigrants and voter fraud.
No... you can't. Because this is an astroturfed issue by Republican think tanks. They want to put up road blocks for women and poor folks to vote. Thats it.
There is literally study after study showing that this isn't an issue. You actually think Nick Shirley is a good source for anything is telling. That kid is probably mentally retarded. I'm not kidding.
So.....if there's proof showing that voter fraud is not an actual problem at any large scale, why do we need these changes? You know, since things should be based on fact as opposed to supposition......
Last edited:
Here is one lady that stuffed 52 ballots. 35 instances of how many ballots? Why should there be ANY instances?
How can you prove there was no voter fraud if there is no voter ID?
You have to have an ID to do anything in this country. Democrats wanted you to show a vaccine passport to enter the grocery store. You have to show ID to exercise other constitutional rights such as buying a gun.
There is no logical reason to oppose voter ID other than wanting to cheat. Almost every other nation around the world, including the poorest nations, require voter ID.
Kim Taylor (Iowa, 2020 primary): Convicted in 2023 of 52 counts including fraudulent registration, providing false information in voting/registration, and fraudulent voting. She ran a scheme to stuff the ballot box in her husband's unsuccessful Republican congressional primary bid by fraudulently registering and voting using others' information or false details.
If you see one cockroach, you can guarantee there are 100's more behind the wall. Same concept with voter fraud. You only detect a small portion of what you actually get's caught. Same thing with drugs. They catch drugs at the border, but somehow there are drugs everywhere.