Voter ID is an 85-15 issue. Guess what side the Ds in Congress are on

[mspart]

No, that was not the question.   The question is, why are the Ds opposed to voter ID when 85% of the country are for it.  That is the question.   

mspart

[braves121]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

No, that was not the question.   The question is, why are the Ds opposed to voter ID when 85% of the country are for it.  That is the question.   

mspart

The Ds are opposed to the voter id presented in this bill. Support for the SAVE act is nowhere near 85-15. Are our elected representatives supposed to vote yes on any issue without making sure the bill would actually work as intended?

[Caveira]

23 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Because the bill Is so bad. I’m sure the gop could craft a bi partisan bill that COULD pass without all the things that even GOP senators are against in this bill 

Be specific what is so bad.   You can’t use in your argument needing ID to vote.  You already acknowledged that part is ok given 85% of Americans want it 

[braves121]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Be specific what is so bad.   You can’t use in your argument needing ID to vote.  You already acknowledged that part is ok given 85% of Americans want it 

Well first of all, in many states in order to register to vote you already need to already provide citizenship, it’s a redundant bill that’s federal overreach to states elections. The REAL IDs that everyone needs to drive an travel throughout the US is not a qualifying document. You can pay $185 for a passport which is for all intents and purposes a poll tax and less than 50 percent of Americans have one. You could bring a certified copy of your birth certificate but that’s only if it matches your license so married women have even more hoops to go through. All these documents cost money and therefore makes it less accessible for the average American to be able to vote. You would need a to physically go down to an election office to change any of your information such as political party a name. People who live in rural areas and the elderly and disabled would find it far more difficult to be in compliance with this bill. 
This bill objectively makes voting harder and that is the purpose of it.

[wrestlingguy]

7 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Well first of all, in many states in order to register to vote you already need to already provide citizenship, it’s a redundant bill that’s federal overreach to states elections. The REAL IDs that everyone needs to drive an travel throughout the US is not a qualifying document. You can pay $185 for a passport which is for all intents and purposes a poll tax and less than 50 percent of Americans have one. You could bring a certified copy of your birth certificate but that’s only if it matches your license so married women have even more hoops to go through. All these documents cost money and therefore makes it less accessible for the average American to be able to vote. You would need a to physically go down to an election office to change any of your information such as political party a name. People who live in rural areas and the elderly and disabled would find it far more difficult to be in compliance with this bill. 
This bill objectively makes voting harder and that is the purpose of it.

I believe this may be applicable to some, but these measures don't affect people that are already registered to vote.

[braves121]

12 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

I believe this may be applicable to some, but these measures don't affect people that are already registered to vote.

Under this bill, states have to hand over voter rolls and purge their voter rolls every few months to ensure compliance with the save act. That is going to affect people already registered to vote.

[wrestlingguy]

46 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Under this bill, states have to hand over voter rolls and purge their voter rolls every few months to ensure compliance with the save act. That is going to affect people already registered to vote.

Interesting. I don't see the purpose of purging every few months.

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, braves121 said:

Well first of all, in many states in order to register to vote you already need to already provide citizenship, it’s a redundant bill that’s federal overreach to states elections. The REAL IDs that everyone needs to drive an travel throughout the US is not a qualifying document. You can pay $185 for a passport which is for all intents and purposes a poll tax and less than 50 percent of Americans have one. You could bring a certified copy of your birth certificate but that’s only if it matches your license so married women have even more hoops to go through. All these documents cost money and therefore makes it less accessible for the average American to be able to vote. You would need a to physically go down to an election office to change any of your information such as political party a name. People who live in rural areas and the elderly and disabled would find it far more difficult to be in compliance with this bill. 
This bill objectively makes voting harder and that is the purpose of it.

In Minnesota you don’t need an ID to vote at the booth.  Just be registered 21 days before the election. I presented my ID and it was denied as not needed.  Asked me my name and address, turned the IPad towards me and said is this you??  Whatever could go wrong. 

Edited March 24 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

What in the save act are you asked to that you wouldn’t have to do to get a passport or enhanced Drivers License that allows you to fly on a domestic  flight across the country?  Or to sign up for social Security?  

Edited March 24 by JimmySpeaks

[braves121]

7 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

What in the save act are you asked to that you wouldn’t have to do to get a passport or enhanced Drivers License that allows you to fly on a domestic  flight across the country?  Or to sign up for social Security?  

I don’t really care about what you have to do to provide documents in order to travel. I care more about how many extra steps and ways it will cause confusion and essentially adding a poll tax for many Americans.

[braves121]

18 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

In Minnesota you don’t need an ID to vote at the booth.  Just be registered 21 days before the election. I presented my ID and it was denied as not needed.  Asked me my name and address, turned the IPad towards me and said is this you??  Whatever could go wrong. 

Ok cool? States rights and everything. If you don’t like it lobby your local officials instead of having federal overreach 

[ThreePointTakedown]

 

Its essentially a poll tax and that's illegal. Simple as that. Prove me wrong? 

 

The ID's that would qualify, a large number of people, do not have and would be burdensome to get. 

 

I would be fine with this if a system was put in place to provide the IDs and/or documentation to EVERYONE, free of charge. Regularly updating so that people turning 18 could vote in the earliest possible election every year. Yes, that would be great. 

 

But how would that be different from the current system that we have for registering to vote when you get a license or just register to vote? 

If its not considerably different or better than the current system then why make the change? 

Why force millions of people to scramble for documentation in the next few months to register? Give everyone 2-3 years. Build the infrastructure so that everyone can be guaranteed the proper ID for, say, the 2028 federal election season rather than one that is right around the corner? 

 

Could there be any nefarious reason for potentially disenfranchising millions of voters? Married people that changed their last name. People that have lost track of necessary documents because they have not needed them for the voting process for years or decades. People that would be unduly financially burdened by being forced to pay with either money or time to get a new and proper ID. 

How are you comfortable with the thought of anyone not being able to vote due to such a sudden and arbitrary change to the voting policy? 

 

I have a guess.

[JimmySpeaks]

Only one reason you’re trying to avoid requiring an ID to vote. 

[JimmySpeaks]

8 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I don’t really care about what you have to do to provide documents in order to travel. I care more about how many extra steps and ways it will cause confusion and essentially adding a poll tax for many Americans.

I know you don’t.  It’s the only way your side. can win. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Releasing the voter Rolls is like releasing the Epstein files  If there’s nothing to hide why not? 

Edited March 24 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

10 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I don’t really care about what you have to do to provide documents in order to travel. I care more about how many extra steps and ways it will cause confusion and essentially adding a poll tax for many Americans.

Good luck getting your social security 

[braves121]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Good luck getting your social security 

Why are we talking about social security? I was asked what i thought was bad about the bill so i did. It’s already illegal to vote as an illegal immigrant in federal elections so maybe they should enforce laws that are already in place instead of writing new ones. When the plan to win mid terms is to make sure as little people are able to vote with the most restrictive disenfranchising legislation written yet you can tell they are scared. 
 I’m sure both sides can actually come up with a voter id bill that people and congress can get behind but this one ain’t it 

[braves121]

10 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I know you don’t.  It’s the only way your side. can win. 

Make passports free for citizens, and not charge people to gain documents that prove their citizens would be a pretty simple way to ease both gop and dem senator fears

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Why are we talking about social security? I was asked what i thought was bad about the bill so i did. It’s already illegal to vote as an illegal immigrant in federal elections so maybe they should enforce laws that are already in place instead of writing new ones. When the plan to win mid terms is to make sure as little people are able to vote with the most restrictive disenfranchising legislation written yet you can tell they are scared. 
 I’m sure both sides can actually come up with a voter id bill that people and congress can get behind but this one ain’t it 

It’s not that hard to do any of the things being asked to be able to vote.   It’s the same things being asked of someone to fly on a plane, travel abroad and to receive their social security checks.  If you don’t like it tough.  

[JimmySpeaks]

33 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Ok cool? States rights and everything. If you don’t like it lobby your local officials instead of having federal overreach 

So glad you’re doing the same for abortion rights. States rights instead of federal overreach huh? 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 hours ago, braves121 said:

Well first of all, in many states in order to register to vote you already need to already provide citizenship, it’s a redundant bill that’s federal overreach to states elections. The REAL IDs that everyone needs to drive an travel throughout the US is not a qualifying document. You can pay $185 for a passport which is for all intents and purposes a poll tax and less than 50 percent of Americans have one. You could bring a certified copy of your birth certificate but that’s only if it matches your license so married women have even more hoops to go through. All these documents cost money and therefore makes it less accessible for the average American to be able to vote. You would need a to physically go down to an election office to change any of your information such as political party a name. People who live in rural areas and the elderly and disabled would find it far more difficult to be in compliance with this bill. 
This bill objectively makes voting harder and that is the purpose of it.

You mean safer. 

[braves121]

Just now, JimmySpeaks said:

So glad you’re doing the same for abortion rights. States rights instead of federal overreach huh? 

Yes I am not im favor of a federal abortion ban. Here in AZ we enshrined abortion rights in our constitution. States have rights and i believe in that. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, braves121 said:

Yes I am not im favor of a federal abortion ban. Here in AZ we enshrined abortion rights in our constitution. States have rights and i believe in that. 

But you’d be in favor of allowing abortions via federal law 

[braves121]

7 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It’s not that hard to do any of the things being asked to be able to vote.   It’s the same things being asked of someone to fly on a plane, travel abroad and to receive their social security checks.  If you don’t like it tough.  

The key point is you have to pay in order to travel, you can always travel privately and skip TSA and other regulators. I have no problem with requiring these documents to vote, it’s the fact that they cost significant money and time that WILL affect everyday Americans. I would have no problem with this bill if government provides passports and other documents that prove citizenship at no cost to the citizen. 

[braves121]

4 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

But you’d be in favor of allowing abortions via federal law 

How would a law like that even work. Just a one paragraph bill saying Americans are allowed to receive health care  based on the patients wishes? 

Edited March 24 by braves121