>>1312177
It's already illegal for non citizens to vote in federal elections and in almost every state/local election as well.

>>1312178
Then you shouldn't have an issue with the law.

>In May, Johnson told reporters, “we all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable. We don’t have that number.
Republicans: The party of intuition.

>>1312180
When you can walk into a voting station in any blue state and give a name and address with no other questions asked, yes.

>>1312179
>Then you shouldn't have an issue with the law.
Setting aside the fact that amending law to be redundant for no reason is a waste of time and money, giving credence to the idea that this law is even needed isn't healthy for our democracy.

Also, the law requires states generate more identification records which just increases everyone's risk of identity theft, ostensibly the problem it is trying to solve.

Fuck's sake SSNs were never meant to be used as IDs.
>https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/ssn

This shit's just bad law. If it did anything uniquely useful, it might be defensible even if the law were offered in bad faith, but it genuinely doesn't unless there's some novel change in the options for accepted ID for registering for federal elections I missed when reading it. This shit's the legal equivalent of renaming a post office. If it were up to me, everyone that worked on this bullshit would have all their pay docked for the hours they put in.

>>1312181
Live in blue state here. You're full of shit.

>>1312184
Why don't you walk us through the voting process in your state then.

>>1312186
Why don't you sealion somewhere else?

>>1312187
In other words, you're full of shit.

>>1312188
In other words, no one believes you outside of your think tank.

>>1312189
Elections must be so secure in your state. Tell us what safeguards prevent illegal aliens and other unregistered people from voting.

>>1312190
Instead why don't you tell us what source told you >>1312181 so I can have a good laugh.

>>1312187
This is rich as fuck coming from Lord King Sealion I himself

>>1312178
It's illegal for Democrats to commit election fraud but they still do it all the time. Maybe you should read the op

>>1312192
I'm not whatever strawman you are battling in your head right now. I know it's hard for you when you haven't taken your meds but I'm a completely different person.

>>1312180
>But it’s not been something that is easily provable.
Why are Democrats so against having a system that can detect fraud? Serious question here. On one hand you claim it's barely ever detected, and then on another hand we find out it can't be detected.

It's literally choosing to bury your head in the sand so you can ignore a problem.

If it's not a problem, then this law isn't going to affect anything and your complaining about nothing

>>1312193
>read OP's headcanon
No thanks

>>1312195
It's a solution to a made up problem.

>>1312191
I just can't imagine why you won't answer such a simple question.

>>1312197
This isn't /pol/, you need a source to back up your claim in >>1312181 if you want people to respond to your think tank generated questions.

>>1312198
Still won't answer. Odd.

>>1312194
That's an ad hominem, not a strawman.
A strawman would be me misrepresenting your argument and debating something you never claimed.

Anyways, my mistake Emperor Bullshit, you should straighten out you knowledge of English words though

>>1312199
You won't find anyone here answering your false premise questions except larpers so good luck.

>>1312200
That's fine and dandy but what it has nothing to do with the claim made here >>1312181 being complete bullshit

>>1312196
Google any one of the names he listed: Shakir Khan, Gloria Torres, Wanda Geter-Pataky, Carlos Antonio De Bourbon Montenegro, Craig Callaway, and Abdul Rahman

I could even provide a few more off the top of my head if you want. Democrats try to rig elections all the time, it honestly surprises me more that five of them voted to secure elections then it surprises me that 198 voted against securing elections

>>1312201
It's a very simple question that would show everyone why these laws aren't necessary.

>>1312203
Do we need to post the Sidney Powell mea culpa again so you'll stop lying on the internet?

>>1312202
He's literally right.
5 seconds on Google searching for California voting process pulled up a website from the California secretary of state that says you are not required to bring anything to a polling station.

So yeah, all you need to know is your name and your address you don't need to bring shit with you in Cali to vote in a federal election

>>1312204
>my false premise is very simple
Good for you lmao

>>1312202
The Great Seal of the State of California
California Secretary of State
Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D.
View Search
View Navigation
Home Elections and Voter Information Voting Resources Voting in California - New Voter InformationWhat to Bring to Your Polling Place
What to Bring to Your Polling Place
In most cases, a California voter is not required to show identification to a polling place worker before casting a ballot.

>>1312206
>it turns out it's a chuds hate Gavin Newsom thread
Well that figures since half of you think he's going to be the DNC nominee

>>1312207
You could clear this up for everyone by walking us through the voting process in your state.

Democrats are so tricked into supporting voting fraud they cant even realize it.

It's like how these idiots believed Biden wasn't senile for 4 years despite every video of him falling down and getting lost and trying to shake hands with invisible people.

They will do anything to maintain belief in their false sense of reality

>>1312210
I'd rather hear you lamely dodge giving your source for >>1312186 again.

>>1312209
Great way to admit you were wrong, chump.

Lately proving you retards factually incorrect has been happening so often I'm almost tired of btfo'ing u people

>>1312212
Please enlighten us on how it really works in your state.

>>1312211
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/sidney-powell-s-legal-defense-reasonable-people-wouldn-t-believe-n1261809
>Sidney Powell's legal defense: 'Reasonable people' wouldn't believe her election fraud claims

>>1312208
>In most cases, a California voter is not required to show identification to a polling place worker before casting a ballot
Lmao there it is.
Libshits lying yet again

>>1312214
Who told you >>1312181 was true and why did you believe them?

>>1312215
>Get btfo
>BUT SIDNEY POWELL
retard.
Take your L and move on with life rather than staying here embarrassing yourself.
I'm sure there's another yahoo.com article about project 2025 you can post or something

So far in this thread we've established the names of six different Democrats convicted of widespread voter fraud since 2020, and we've established that at least in the case of California you need nothing besides a name and an address to vote.

Libshits really are underwater here.

>>1312218
But you're wrong and you know you're wrong. You can't walk into a walk into a voting station in any blue state and give a name and address with no other questions asked. It's retarded to think you could. I'd really like to know who tells you people this bullshit and why you were gullible enough to believe it.

>>1312217
Your repeated attempts to deflect the issue make those claims seem reasonable and likely.

>>1312181
Here you go, friend
16 states in the United States require no form of identification to walk into a polling station and vote, they only require a name and address. Surprise, all democrat states.

https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

>>1312219
>we
Who do you imagine you are speaking for right now?
>six different democrats
Oh no not 6!
>widespread voter fraud
Absolute bullshit and you know it.
>muh California
We get it, you need to find something to attack the next nominee over.

>>1312221
Maybe if you're 15 years old and you've never actually registered to vote before it might.

>>1312220
>You can't walk into a walk into a voting station in any blue state and give a name and address with no other questions asked.
Ballotpedia seems to think that yes, this voting strategy that you claim is "retarded" is actually the voting strategy in 16 Democrats States

>>1312224
I live in a blue state, sweaty.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

>>1312225
Let me know when 16 is "every blue state", until then you will continue to be full of shit (but you already knew that)

>>1312222
It's laughable how much these libshits just lie, lie, lie.
They are the very caricature of dishonesty

>>1312227
>it's only the majority of them, chud

>>1312226
summerfags need to lurk moar, people don't answer unsourced false premise questions here

>>1312228
ok liar whatever you say

>>1312227
So that's the bar now? We've moved on from "no state does that, it's retarded" and now we are at "16 democrat states do it, but come back to me when it's all 19 democrat states that do this"

Take the L and move on with life, Chief

>>1312229
for the umpteenth time, the original claim was "every blue state". You have been repeatedly BTFO on that claim yet you still continue to parrot it. It's almost like you're getting paid.

>>1312230
What is an unsourced false premise question?

We are having a discussion about voting laws here and everyone is dying to know what procedures are in place in your state to prevent voter fraud at the polling location.

>>1312227
Why are these 16 democrat states the only ones that are "retarded"?

>>1312231
A simple review of the thread prove no one ever said no state did that, retard. Jesus christ do any of you people have an IQ above 50?

>>1312233
Why don't you tell us who told you >>1312181 so I can at long last have a good laugh.

>>1312232
That's nice, but I'd like to know how it works in your state.

>>1312232
Lmao who cares if he said every blue state, he's correct on 16 out of the 19 blue states.

>>1312235
>A simple review of the thread prove no one ever said no state did that
Btfo you people is literally one of the easiest things to sit around and do, it's like arguing with retarded children.

Here you go, Mr Thread Reviewer: >>1312220
>You can't walk into a walk into a voting station in any blue state and give a name and address with no other questions asked.

>>1312236
You really should lurk at least 6 months before posting here again, falsepremisekun

>>1312235
Sweaty, you are being unreasonable here. We've established in this thread that you can walk into a voting location in sixteen states run by democrats, give a name and address, and then cast a vote. Two or three states having slightly stricter requirements does not invalidate people's concerns about the validity of the elections in your state.

So, please. Walk us through the voting process in your state.

>>1312237
>who cares
this guy >>1312238

>>1312238
He's right. You can't.

>>1312239
That's not an answer to this very simple question.

If you're lying about this. What else are you lying about?

>>1312240
I'll repeat myself because you are clearly one of the most partisan retards on the site. 16 is not "any" blue state as >>1312181 originally claimed. Sorry you're wrong and BTFO. Consider suicide to fix your problems.

>>1312243
So how does it work in your state, one of the other three democract controlled states?

>>1312242
>>1312244
Wrong board
>>>/pol/

The amount of salt produced by the leftfags lately on this board is unreal.

They are literally falling apart at the seams becoming more and more desperate.

I didn't think that verifying citizenship when you register someone to vote would be a big deal for anyone, but here we are with the DNC shills absolutely imploding

>>1312245
Is this not a board for discussing things? Is /pol/ where you direct people to questions you are unable to answer?

>>1312245
Is this your default response when you've been utterly reamed by reality?

>>1312247
Give him 10 minutes. He's probably going to make a new thread about project 2025.
Or he's taking a break to smoke some fentanyl in his tent behind Starbucks one of those

>>1312247
>however /news/ is exclusively for recent news articles, and not general discussions of politics, social phenomenon, or world events.

>>1312249
>one of those
*One of those things im sure he's planning

>>1312248
Naah you got BTFO and your whole discord is here now to make sure the thinktank's talking points are disseminated without opposition

>>1312250
Hey great!
Did you see the news?
We were busy talking about it in this thread when some leftist started melting down shouting falsehoods

>>1312252
Lmao!!!!
Haha you are so unhinged right now I'm loving it

>>1312250
We are discussing a news article. You don't seem to want to talk about it.

>>1312253
I wouldn't know due to OP editorializing the news article, something which is forbidden on this board. You've got a long way to go before you fit in, interloper.

>>1312256
>something which is forbidden on this board
There you go with your lies again!
You're really building a reputation here.
You got anymore?

>>1312254
Maybe when you sober up you can tell us what source told you >>1312181 so I can have a good laugh

>>1312257
The projection is strong in this one

>>1312258
I'm not the one who posted that, you are responding to two different people, but he's literally 85% correct.

>>1312258
>it's only 16 of 19 democrat states

>>1312259
You're defending his claim when he already got BTFO, which is almost worse than him

>>1312258
Ah come on liarman, post the rule forbiddding editorializing. Don't give up now. Link a pastebin or some shit, try to gaslight me

>>1312260
Still not all of them like you originally claimed

>>1312262
>Blogs and editorial articles are not acceptable news sources.
The source is editorialized

>>1312261
I'm sorry but he's *way* more correct than he is incorrect.

You really have a hard time taking that L don't you

>>1312178
Then why are you malding about it?

>>1312264
>I know I'm wrong but you should take the L
What place are you from where people do this? I'd like to block it in my hosts file.

>>1312263
>Blogs and editorial articles are not acceptable news sources.
>The source is editorialized
Kek.
Thanks for humoring me with your gaslighting, but the source is neither a blog nor an editorial and we all know that

>>1312263
>it's not all of them
You creatures really are children.

I think it might be time to start locking you retards up.

>>1312266
That's not how a host file works, it has no knowledge of geographic location. It resolved names

You literally can't stop being wrong can you?

>>1312267
>U.S. people everywhere scored a huge in today as 198 election-rigging democrats were absolutely blown the fuck out by 5 of their own party and every republican in congress.
The article doesn't say this. This is the OP's editorial. Editorializing is forbidden here. It's really not hard.

>>1312268
There aren't enough of you far right extremists to do anything.

>>1312180
Because in California it is literally illegal to inquire about citizenship when registering someone to vote.

>>1312269
>resolved names
*resolves names

>>1312181
>all but one or two responses are from the same seething Democrat
Loving every laugh.

>>1312273
Enjoy your botnet lmao

>>1312270
>The article doesn't say this
It does say that tho, Op just used his own words he didn't plagiarize the source, and plagiarism is not required to do as per board rules.

>>1312275
Lmao!!!
Enjoy your mental illnesses bro hahaha

>>1312270
That's what your fellow travelers thought in 1926.

>>1312278
Krk

>>1312270
No, posting editorials as news sources is against the rules. There is no rule stating you have to copypaste the article from an actual news source, as you'd know because you do this shit constantly and then throw a shrieking fit when anyone does it to you.

>>1312280
>There is no rule stating you have to copypaste the article from an actual news source, as you'd know because you do this shit constantly and then throw a shrieking fit when anyone does it to you.
He is well aware.
This lowlife is probably the dumbest person on this board. He acts like a paid shill who is unhappily forced to post here and shill DNC garbage but I dont think he actually is, I think he's just a miserable, mentally ill democrat thinking he's fighting some war against fascism or something by running his own little personal crusades against election integrity reform and doing project 2025 doomposting

>>1312280
Called it
He's back to posting and talking to himself in his project 2025 thread

>>1312282
The funny part to me is that this board would be almost completely dead if it wasn't for the fact that it's a reliable place to come and bully a singular leftist.

>>1312285
What the fuck are you talking about cletus?

>>1312286
That's kind of why I like this board so much now.
I've been posting here for maybe like 6 years maybe plus or minus one, but there is at least one leftist here that absolutely gets unhinged and it's been extremely fun to fuck with him.

He says the most wild easily disproven BS and when you call him out on it he just implodes

>>1312286
The funniest part for me is that anyone on this board to the left of Steve Bannon is automatically "the same leftist" to you

There's definitely more than one leftist who posts here, but there is only one with a propensity to implode at the drop of a hat.

It's like he has a hormonal imbalance or something I don't know

>>1312289
It's funny because you and the gun nut are the only chuds on this board until the think tank gets summoned here. John Bearden doesn't count.

>>1312292
And there he is now.

>>1312285
I saw it too lmao.

>>1312288
We're talking about you, tranny.

>>1312293
>It's funny because you and the gun nut are the only chuds on this board until the think tank gets summoned here.
You absolutely need to seek mental health anon.
You live with mental illness. Maybe multiple. It's not healthy.

>>1312293
Conspiracy ideations like this are a sign of schizophrenia

>>1312293
>the gun nut
Americans privately own half the world's firearms, you're gonna have to be a little more specific. I own at least a dozen and I'm profoundly disappointed not to be THE gun nut, but there's chaps out there who own over thirty and run militi-I mean gun clubs. ;)

>>1312297
>>1312298
>>1312299
>>1312300
gun rights are never going to be human rights

>>1312302
Why did you reply to me in that post?

>>1312302
lmao

This one was over before you were born.

Back to the elections though. How does it work in your state?

>>1312305
I think he's given up.
He's been dominated, proved wrong and utterly btfo every step of the way and he's probably back to his project 2025 doomposting.

>>1312302
Apparently the Constitution disagrees. Human rights aren't real and don't matter. If it's not a natural right guaranteed by the Constitution, nobody cares.

>>1312310
He's over in the "Joe Biden Warns Project 2025 Will Destroy America" (lol) thread trying to claim that there's no inflation.

>>1312314
Of course he is.

>>1312314
He's totally unhinged, and he's gotten even worse since the whole Biden debate.
I really think he's internalized some sort of primal fear regarding a trump presidency or something and he's legitimately freaking out and lashing out

>>1312314
>>1312316
>>1312317
totally organic discourse fellow 4channelers

>>1312318
Go back to your project 2025 doomposting, loser oh wait you already have

They should also verify that people are living.

>>1312323
That isn't me, retard

>>1312317
Lots of low-info people genuinely think Trump is a fascist and not the most moderate Republican ever who made fun of Ted Cruz for caring about trannies. Which is fair, I don't give a shit if some guy gets his jollies pretending to be a girl, until he starts exploiting it to nefarious ends or trying to brainwash kids to believe he really is a girl.

>>1312327
I don't really even care much about the whole trans issue. I was going to vote for Biden mostly because of Israel up until I saw the debate. I realized Joe Biden hasn't done shit to stop Israel because he's incapable of living independently at this point, he needs to be in a retirement home.
So idk, honestly I'd rather have someone I agree with border policy and individual liberties on than a guy who do anything about Israel

>>1312325
Can we start with Joe Biden?

>>1312357
Lol nice

>>1312183
>our democracy
>have all their pay docked

shalom rabbi

>>1312334
I don't think we should be funding foreign conflicts at all, but the Palestinians are absolute shitbags who have been ungrateful to literally everyone who's ever helped them and actively fomented revolutions against other Arab states who tried to shelter them. I can't say they aren't getting what they deserve, and Trump will at least make them wrap that shit up instead of dragging it out. It's impossible to discuss this issue on most of this website though because it attracts genuinely crazy people, including thirdies who think that (rather than jews being a wealthy and donor-heavy constituency with pet issues) that Israel secretly controls the US because the idea of a large nation being allies with a small nation and not openly ruling it like the USSR or China rule their puppets is completely foreign to them, so they HAVE to rationalize it as some kind of hebraic mind control.

>>1312183
Sixteen states do absolutely nothing to ensure illegals aren't voting, and in California at least it's illegal to help federal authorities investigate whether an illegal is voting.

>>1312362
>Sixteen states do absolutely nothing to ensure illegals aren't voting
Why would you lie about something so easily disprovable?

>and in California at least it's illegal to help federal authorities investigate whether an illegal is voting.
The feds have no authority in state elections.

>>1312390
Read the thread, you got btfo already, and California happily registers illegals to vote in federal elections.

>>1312390
See >>1312240

Editorializing the text of the article to the extent OP has done should be a bannable offense.

>>1312421
Being you should be a capital offense.

>>1312423
I bet you really wish you could execute me, but alas, you wouldn't do it even if you legally could

>>1312195
It's how they win.

>>1312421
You scream at the sky all you want about board rules that don't exist, but this is a good bill and it's good that it passed the house

According to the ca state website, you can register to vote using just an name and address, it does ask for last 4 of a social security number but marks it as optional.
If you don't use last 4 of an SSN, you will have to send a photocopy doc of evidence to the state.
According to the state, acceptable evidence is "A copy of a recent utility bill, the county Voter Information Guide you received from your county elections office, or another document sent to you by a government agency are examples of acceptable forms of identification"

Lmao this is a joke. No wonder Shakira Khan, a Cali democrat, was able to register and vote in the name of hundreds of people

Democrat states are ripe with voter fraud

>>1312437
Full excerpt:

Voting for the First Time
When you registered to vote, you were asked to fill in your driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number. If you are a first-time voter in a federal election and did not include this information when you registered, send a photocopy of some personal identification to your county elections official before the election.

A copy of a recent utility bill, the county Voter Information Guide you received from your county elections office, or another document sent to you by a government agency are examples of acceptable forms of identification. Other examples include your passport, driver license, official California identification card, or student identification card.

>>1312431
>I bet you wish you legally could but if you legally could you wouldn't
Did this make more sense before you typed it out or something?

>>1312437
>>1312438
And don't forget, it is ILLEGAL in California to investigate if a voter isn't a citizen.

>>1312477
This
They've designed an entire system around voting fraud. No wonder so many of their politicians get arrested for systematic vote fraud

>>1312235
Jesus Christ you are an embarrassment, you're lucky this website is annonymous
>>1312233
I admire your patience, I could not handle interacting with such dense creature for so long

>>1312502
>I admire your patience, I could not handle interacting with such dense creature for so long
The leftist being argued with is a legit unhinged retard and in some ways it's fun

>>1312486
Its already illegal for noncitizens to vote.
Sorry chud, we're not wasting millions of dollars to do nothing.
But rest assured that noncitizens aren't voting, so its like you won.

>>1312507
It's illegal for Democrats to commit vote fraud but yet they still do it large scale every election year and get arrested for it

>>1312515
According to whom?

>>1312520
To name a few, Shakir Khan, Gloria Torres, Wanda Geter-Pataky, Carlos Antonio De Bourbon Montenegro, Craig Callaway, and Abdul Rahman
I could Google for more

>>1312177
>>1312178
brandon says he plans to veto the bill because he believes illegals should be allowed to vote

>>1312181
>>1312184
>>1312191
>>1312198
I can confirm. I live in NJ and I've never, ever shown my ID to vote. pretty sure its illegal for the poll workers to ask for my ID when I vote. I just say my name and sign a tablet and vote no questions asked

>>1312504
The chance to articulate one's arguments against such a mentally supine target is like calisthenics for the brain. Or hitting a punching bag.

>>1312531
Meanwhile in Ohio I have to show my driver's license every time.

>>1312540
yeah and ohio doesn't have voter fraud. meanwhile NJ got caught having rigged primaries, some insurance guy in south jersey had complete control over the state's government and used it to embezzle and both senators are rapists and one sold egypt intelligence about the jews for gold bard

>>1312545
Indeed, and funny enough Ohio has gone from a swing state to solid red as a result. How interesting, almost like Democrats can't win elections without cheating.

>>1312531
Didn't the most powerful singer Democrat in New Jersey and a bunch of his buddies just get charged with corruption and election fraud?
Dude was literally a DNC superdelate

>>1312563
>singer
*Single

>>1312548
It's amazing to me how Democrats are so against the notion of having secure voting processes

>>1312545
Yeah this is what I was talking about here >>1312563
The Democrat who got arrested was literally a DNC super delegate and he controlled the entire Democrat Party in New Jersey through corruption and rigged elections

>>1312568
>can't provide evidence of non-citizens voting
So you're just going to jump from debunked conspiracy theory to debunked conspiracy theory, huh?
Its already illegal for non-citizens to vote. No one wants to waste money on a useless law, except conservicunts.
Why are they so wasteful with taxpayer money?

>>1312570
George Norcross is very real and very corrupt.

Why do you repeatedly act so retarded? This is a real question.

>>1312570
To be fair, if it were required to have a birth certificate to register to vote, every Democrat called out in the op that was arrested for systematic vote fraud probably never could have committed the crime to begin with

>>1312573
>>1312574
So you continue to have no proof that noncitizens are voting
Its already illegal
I'll accept your concession, because you have nothing else.

>>1312548
Didn't the same thing happen in a few states? I seem to recall Florida started doing some check to make sure you were legally eligible to vote and suddenly it went deep red

>>1312575
I know you're trying really hard to miss the forest for the trees, but you're not very good at this type of gas lighting

>>1312575
Personally I don't care if someone who is voting illegally is an illegal alien or not, so I have no reason to engage you with your arbitrary goal post you dictated other people meet.

I care more about the fact that there is provable systematic vote fraud and this bill would make that more difficult

>>1312578
>provable systematic vote fraud
Is there? Beyond your schizo ramblings?

We'd be better off stopping non-citizens from donating to US political campaigns, but Republicunts won't turn off their money source.

>>1312579
Shakir Khan, Gloria Torres, Wanda Geter-Pataky, Carlos Antonio De Bourbon Montenegro, Craig Callaway, and Abdul Rahman

Are your eyeballs exploding yet? Or are you a robot?

>>1312580
Man, if any of that had anything to do with noncitizens voting...

>>1312583
I've never once claimed I care about that specifically.

If you're not going to respond to things that very clearly blow you the fuck out of the thread, maybe you should just go make another new thread on project 2025

>>1312570
>No one wants to waste money on a useless law,
biden wasted $7.5 billion on 7 EV charging stations. Dems constantly waste taxpayer money on redundant gun laws. pretty sure I remember some state, probably NJ, a year or 2 ago banning domestic abusers from buying guns even though they are already federal prohibited persons and have been for years.
hell NJ does a retarded thing where they are a "point of contact" state. When you buy a gun in NJ the FFL has to send your info to the state of NJ who then sends your info to NICS, unlike say texas where the FFL directly sends your info to NICS. there is literally no reason for this extra step. NJ literally doesn't even retain the data so it isn't even for a registry, they just added a middle man to type in the exact same info the FFL typed in for no reason.

>>1312583
Do get paid hourly or by the post to post here?
Because you definitely don't get paid based upon the quality of your content

>>1312584
Why would things that have nothing to do with the useless law this thread is about blow me out of this thread?
You don't care about it. GTFO.

>>1312585
no one cares what Gun Schizo rants about, since its all lies

>>1312178
Not enough. I should be able to shoot them in the head at will, sell their organs for profit, and sue the family for the execution and organ extraction costs.

>>1312588
>Why would things that have nothing to do with the useless law this thread is about blow me out of this thread
Simply put, because it's been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that Democrats have a problem amongst their party with election fraud, and your only rebuttal is "well they aren't illegals".

I'm glad that this makes it harder for Democrats to continue to commit election fraud. Now they're going to need to harvest birth certificates as well, which I imagine will be pretty difficult

>>1312590
This board is for talking about news articles less than 48 hours old.
Your inane schizo conspiracy theories belong on /x/ or /pol/

>>1312592
I knew you would give up and either reference a think tank or /pol/.

Go ahead and make another thread on project 2025. I think you've been btfo enough here already, champ

>>1312588
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/congress-ev-chargers-billions-00129996
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/
tranny shill got btfo'd and has no dick. dems love wasting taxpayer money

>>1312592
Also, don't forget to reuse the same image when you make that project 2025 thread. It doesn't seem like you really have too many approved images yet to be posted in those threads

>>1312593
Yes, your nonsequitors that have nothing to do with noncitizen voting btfo me in a thread about noncitizen voting, which you don't care about.
You won. Go back to your handlers for the prize.

>>1312596
Your the only one claiming I care about illegals.
So seriously. Save yourself some embarrassment and go get btfo in a thread I won't be posting in

>>1312590
Yeah, you'll have to update your conspiracy theories
>they're handing out fake birth certificates on the busses they use to drive illegals around to vote multiple times
>now they're printing out fake ids!
>no, we have no proof and will provide none.

>>1312599
Sure, if that's your hot take let's go with that, I don't really care how much you cope

>>1312598
>posting in a thread about illegals voting
>mad that the discussion is about illegals voting
Maybe you should go to another thread if you don't want to talk about what the thread is about.
Maybe you should go back to your shillfarm if you're going to be this confused.

>>1312599
Weird cope since we've already established that you don't need a birth certificate or I'd to vote in 16 Democrat states.

>>1312603
>or I'd to vote in 16 Democrat states.
translation program is fucking up, ivan

>>1312189
I believe them.
>t. Blue State Haver

Fundamentally the issue is that all of this should have been outlined in law from the very start but the Founding Fathers of our nation did not have to conceive of an America where the collective Brown is in danger of outvoting legitimate Americans in their own system. They kept outlier populations on a tight leash, sometimes literally, and the voting wars they had to deal with were largely between whites of different states crossing state lines to corrupt the vote in a competing state.

Now that this is all enshrined in law, we can go back to the entirely normal premise that only natural born Americans should ever be voting in America.

>>1312606
>t. ignorant non-american shill

>>1312608
>Non-American shill
>Literally a natural-born American of European stock, and not shilling for anything except that the third world get the fuck out because we're full
Yeah, nice headcanon there Anon. You're not very good at this.

>>1312609
Very good English, pajeet.
Now go back to work dismantling car batteries.

>>1312610
>Implying for even a second that a Pajeet would know the difference between You're and Your and would properly use contractions, ever, even on our Czechian Bean-Counting Forum

Only Americans speak American English properly. If you lived here, you would know that. Every single Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Haitian transplant that has ever come to the states has failed on basic English comprehension and that's why our laws waive those older requirements for people to apply for citizenship, because otherwise every single person applying who wasn't European would fail the test.

>>1312611
No, go back to making up fake voting processes in your imaginary and unspecified 'blue state'
Don't just be generically racist. I want better schizo retardation, not the regular stuff.

>>1312605
>it's Russian disinformation to point out our state laws on voting

>>1312613
>No, go back to making up fake voting processes in your imaginary and unspecified 'blue state'
Lmao it was already established in this thread 16 of the 19 blue states don't need id to vote, just a name and address.

Even btfo you citing ca law which literally says all you need is a name, address, and utility bill to register to vote.

It is no coincidence these states have democrats committing voter fraud non stop in them

>>1312614
Bro he's a retard. He's a desperate, unhinged retard dealing with mental illnesses

>>1312620
>reddit spacing
You didn't cite shit, shill who lives in one of 19 states but can't specify which

>>1312570
>debunked conspiracy theory
Where? You've had the evidence shoved right in your face and you keep repeating this.

>>1312627
You're losing this thread pretty hard if you have to go that far back to try to appeal something that doesn't have anything to do with noncitizens voting.
You may want to sit this one out, or ask one of your handlers for advice.

>>1312476
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh? To spell it out for you: I am saying if if you were legally able to kill me, you are too fearful/weak to engage me, and I would thwart your attempt.

>>1312631
Bro shut up you are flopping around so bad it's embarrassing for those around you.

Nobody's going to disprove a claim nobody said except you

>>1312648
>Nobody's going to disprove a claim nobody said except you
*Nobody's going to prove a claim nobody said except you

>>1312635
Lol you couldn't thwart a damp cotton ball

>>1312362
>Sixteen states do absolutely nothing to ensure illegals aren't voting,
This is an out and out lie.
>and in California at least it's illegal to help federal authorities investigate whether an illegal is voting.
It's illegal in California to waste state resources chasing down federal immigration crimes they could be using to chase down state crimes. We pay federal agencies for that. You want the feds to get extra resources to hunt down illegals, you can pay for it. Don't see why that shit should be on the people of California.

I'd imagine you're the type to bitch about the crime rate in California, so maybe fuck off with trying to divert police funds.

>>1312360
>ESL thinks "our democracy" is indicative of everything
Fuck off.

>>1312651
>This is an out and out lie
16 states refuse to address risks of voter fraud
All democrat states.

>>1312620
>just a name and address
All states require registration to vote and all states' registration processes require you prove citizenship.

You're a delusional fuckwit.

>>1312654
>16 states refuse to address risks of voter fraud
Can't address shit that doesn't exist.

And the state with the biggest risk of election fraud is fucking Louisiana that does paperless voting, you uneducated dumbfuck.

>>1312658
NTA, but obviously he's not entirely delusional if our government passed a law that makes this an issue. Somebody saw there was a problem and drafted legislation to put an end to the issue.

As an aside, this has been a hot-button topic of conversation in both blue and red states for decades, and an open joke almost everywhere in America. Only the blindest boomers actually believe there's no leaks, gaps or immigrants in the voting system. Regardless of the veracity of the claims, something has to be done to restore public trust in our election process.

>>1312177
>what some analysts are referring to as "super-rigging"
Fucking kek

>>1312668
>Regardless of the veracity of the claims
so you admit republicans are pathological liars

>>1312668
>NTA, but obviously he's not entirely delusional if our government passed a law that makes this an issue.
>Somebody saw there was a problem and drafted legislation to put an end to the issue.
No part of our government requires that you prove something is an issue before you pass legislation.

>Only the blindest boomers actually believe there's no leaks, gaps or immigrants in the voting system.
Nobody in the history of this conversation has ever made the claim that there's no leaks, gaps or immigrants voting in the system. The substance of the conversation has always been, how much voter fraud actually exists and how well does our system prevent it. Every single time our voting systems have been analyzed the answer has been there's very little voter fraud, to the point that it has little to no impact on the outcomes of our elections, and our system does a pretty good job of catching it. Republicans have never been able to prove otherwise.

>>1312674
No, I'm simply saying that since the two sides of our government can't have a discussion about actual issues anymore, and one side is as legitimate as the other, that its as reasonable to allow one side of our bicameral legislature to put for an issue as the other.

>>1312675
>Prove something
You just admitted yourself that its not required to prove it as long as they believe there's an issue, so why would they?

>Very little voter fraud
That's good enough for it to be worth hunting down what little there is. Nobody in this country should be voting without verified identification and citizenship, bar none. We do not want economic migrants voting in our elections. Simple as.

>>1312687
>You just admitted yourself that its not required to prove it as long as they believe there's an issue, so why would they?
Why would they pass it is an entirely separate question. There's a lot of reasons why people would draft legislation that have nothing to do with a tangible issue existing.


>That's good enough for it to be worth hunting down what little there is.
Not really, anon. Proportionality is primary consideration. A shred of an issue existing doesn't justify an infinitely large and expansive response. Your argument doesn't make any sense. You have to remember that the job of a politician is not to fix problems. Their job is to win elections. You live in a country where most conservatives polled think trans people make up like 30-40% of the country. The actual number is 0.5%. There is often zero correlation between legislation aimed at fixing a problem and the problem being real.

>We do not want economic migrants voting in our elections. Simple as.
There is no evidence that non-citizens are voting in state and federal elections in any meaningful or impactful numbers, anon. The margin of error clearly can't be 0% because that isn't how reality works, right? The question is what sort of safeguards and response are proportional to the issue. So far, the evidence shows the issue to be nearly non-existent.

>>1312689
Well, now that there's a federal law to put a stop to something that there's no evidence for, if there is any going on, we should know that its happening, given that its now both the Federal and State governments' problem to make sure that it doesn't happen. If there is no issue, then there should be no problem with the legislation, if there is an issue, then the legislation should make it easier to garner proof of same.

If the actual number of people that all of the pro-Trans laws protect is 0.5%, then by that logic those protections shouldn't have been passed to begin with because they represent a disproportionately small portion of the population to warrant legislation. By that token, rolling back trans protections is actually the Federal Government doing what its supposed to do, and representing the other 99.5% of the population, who still react with disgust and derision.

>>1312245
>referencing other boards for…..reasons
Good post

>>1312696
>and representing the other 99.5% of the population
you keep forgetting that you always lose the popular vote. are you senile?

>>1312675
>No part of our government requires that you prove something is an issue before you pass legislation.
Rational basis review requires you had a fucking reason to pass legislation, actually.

In principle, the government has no right or power to do pointless shit.

>>1312699
>Lose the popular vote
On what? I'm not in politics, I don't have a vote that I'm trying to get passed. Also worth noting that the public face that people profess is not the private face. If you actually took the time to talk to people who aren't like yourself, you'd realize that the human race has changed very little in the last 2,000 years. Most people are basically good, as long as being good doesn't get in the way of being greedy, gluttonous and self-interested. You'll find that most peoples' opinions on anything center largely around how it personally benefits them, and when it doesn't personally benefit them, its either more about putting forth the 'right' answers for the public face, or about an attack on groups that they don't like. That should not be misconstrued as actual support for causes that they're not a part of, and 99.5% of people don't benefit from that legislation.

>>1312700
Rational basis is not a law, that's an opinion. I'd love to see the law that requires the government to ask the people for their opinion before putting forth legislation - we elect representatives to vote for our interests primarily because our government wouldn't function if every person had a direct vote.

>>1312700
>Rational basis review requires you had a fucking reason to pass legislation, actually.
Incorrect. Ration basis review is a test to determine the constitutionality of a law or statute. There is no constitutional mechanic in the U.S. government that prevents duly elected officials from passing legislation because their response is disproportional to a problem. There is no constitutional test of "A problem has to be this bad before you're allowed to pass a law to address it". I don't know where you got that idea from or who told you but you're just dead wrong.

>>1312703
what is this, a filibuster? your policies are unpopular

>>1312696
>If there is no issue, then there should be no problem with the legislation, if there is an issue, then the legislation should make it easier to garner proof of same.
Our government has a limited amount of political and economic capital to operate. The issue is that you're spending money to fix a problem you can't prove exists. "If you don't support the problem then there should be no issue with us spending money to fix a thing we can't prove is real" doesn't make any logical sense, anon.

>If the actual number of people that all of the pro-Trans laws protect is 0.5%, then by that logic those protections shouldn't have been passed to begin with because they represent a disproportionately small portion of the population to warrant legislation
This argument also doesn't make any logical sense. We're talking about two entirely separate functions of the law. Civil protections extend to 100% of the people living in the U.S., without exception. There is no civil or legal right for elections to be 100% perfect without a single fraudulent vote. We're talking about legislative response in proportionality to an issue. You completely missed the point of me bringing this up.

>By that token, rolling back trans protections is actually the Federal Government doing what its supposed to do, and representing the other 99.5% of the population, who still react with disgust and derision.
Nothing you're saying logically follows. Civil protections are a completely separate topic from election laws. Civil protections have nothing to do with the percentage of people it affects. That being said, I'm not pivoting to reee'ing about trans people with you. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

>>1312668
>Somebody saw there was a problem and drafted legislation to put an end to the issue.
That's not how it works. There is not automatically a real issue just because a law was drafted to address an issue.

>Only the blindest boomers actually believe there's no leaks, gaps or immigrants in the voting system.
Only the blindest of boomers actually believe there's any meaningful amount of leaks/gaps/immigrants in the voting system or that any proposed voting system reform would even deal with the majority that are there.

>Regardless of the veracity of the claims, something has to be done to restore public trust in our election process.
No, it doesn't and this thinking is just a defense of shitty policymaking. How many god damn times are chumps like you going to let lawmakers lie to create moral panics to give them an excuse to pass laws to look like they're solving a problem that doesn't exist, to erode our rights, or to reinforce the notion of the panic itself to foster some politically expedient public backlash?

There is no such thing as "restoring public trust". Nobody that thinks the government is currently incapable of doing a shit job thinks any reforms they'll pass would be worth a damn. People care more about who has the reins of government than what they're on and how well they're tied on.

>>1312700
Well there's plenty of election fraud committed by people who couldn't have done it in the first place without the victims birth certificate.

So this was badly needed, and I'm glad that US citizens stood up to the democrat cartel and are working to reform our insecure election process

>>1312708
A lot of laws are unpopular, they're still laws and thus legally binding. Popularity doesn't decide how a Republic works, this isn't a one-person-one-vote system. We elect representatives for the Senate and the House, and leaders for the Presidency, and those people represent the rest of us in our REPRESENTATIVE Democracy. As in, a Democracy of Representatives. Also known as 'Fuck Populism: Government Edition'.

Besides, if it were a direct vote we'd just have economic migrants running the table on the rest of us and it would no longer be a matter of voting or civilization, but a matter of civil war, since the vote would no longer function in favor of the people that this nation belongs to.

>>1312706
He's a retard anon.. you are engaging with a retard suffering from several mental illnesses

Why does securing our voting process anger the DNC shill so much?

>>1312714
are you drunk or something? did you forget your own point this quickly

>>1312703
>Rational basis is not a law, that's an opinion
It's a legal principle based in the Constitution enforced by judges against laws. It "appears" in opinions, much like any other part of the Constitution as justification for opinions.

Dumbfuck.

>>1312706
I feel like you're splitting hairs. That's like saying there's no law that requires you not to kill people, just a law that punishes you if you do.

Congress is physically capable of breaking the law, yes, but that's besides the point.

>>1312719
I'm not even the one you're arguing with, but rational basis is not a law its a judicial review test, and it can't be used to override law, because a judge can't do that, it can only be used to guide an opinion on how to interpret law.

Is this difficult for you?

>>1312713
>Well there's plenty of election fraud committed by people who couldn't have done it in the first place without the victims birth certificate.
If they have the victim's birth certificate
1. They're already violating a bunch of criminal laws.
and
2. You can't fucking catch them by asking for their birth certificate before they register to vote.

So this law would do fuck all to address that issue. You want to throw more money at law enforcement agencies running down identity theft, feel free. That'd stand a much better shot at catching illegal voters than this nonsense.

You sound like you haven't even read this bill.

>>1312711
Our elected representatives obviously thought this was enough of a problem that they passed a law with bipartisan approval. Both parties agreed on it - the Republicans don't have a majority to make a ruling on their own, some reps crossed the aisle to vote for it, as outlined in OP's post.

>Civil protections extend to 100% of the people living in the US without exception
Then we need to start shipping people who don't belong out of the country so that civil protections no longer apply to them. Hopefully, keeping them from voting will help to solidify a defense against the issue, but I doubt it. This problem will continue to ramp up until it becomes a violent one.

>>1312712
The law was drafted, it doesn't matter whether its a real issue or not. It is now a matter of federal law, so it happened and its done. There's no need to discuss whether its 'needed' or 'justified' or 'proven', it simply is, and that law is now the law of the land. Your opinion on the matter... doesn't matter.

>>1312719
>Its a legal principle based in the constitution
Its not written in law or any of the Amendments, and I don't see anyone standing up to try to enforce it here, probably because they know they'd lose.

>>1312721
>I'm not even the one you're arguing with, but rational basis is not a law its a judicial review test, and it can't be used to override law, because a judge can't do that, it can only be used to guide an opinion on how to interpret law.
This is just all sorts of wrong. Rational basis review is a guarantee of due process and equal protection of the law within the Constitution and plenty of laws have been struck down for violating rational basis review.

As an example
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/517/620

I don't know how you could be this confidently wrong.

>>1312724
>The law was drafted
Someone needs to rewatch Schoolhouse Rock.

>Its not written in law or any of the Amendments
Due process and equal protection do in fact appear in amendments.
>I don't see anyone standing up to try to enforce it here
Neither do I but for a very different reason.

>>1312724
>Our elected representatives obviously thought this was enough of a problem that they passed a law
I have no clue how you think you can demonstrate the mind state of legislators, anon. You have no clue why they passed this. You're just guessing.

>with bipartisan approval.
You don't know what bipartisan approval means, anon. Bipartisan approval isn't strictly along party lines with a small handful of dissents.

>Then we need to start shipping people who don't belong out of the country so that civil protections no longer apply to them.
That's not how the constitution works.

>Hopefully, keeping them from voting will help to solidify a defense against the issue, but I doubt it.
They already don't vote.

>This problem will continue to ramp up until it becomes a violent one.
You have no evidence that a problem exists. If it does become violent it will have absolutely nothing to do with illegals voting.

>The law was drafted, it doesn't matter whether its a real issue or not.
That's literally what I've been saying this whole time.

>There's no need to discuss whether its 'needed' or 'justified' or 'proven', it simply is, and that law is now the law of the land.
It is not the law of the land. Do you know where bills go after the house, anon?

>>1312719
>I feel like you're splitting hairs
Its not splitting hairs. Give me a single piece of case law or constitutional interpretation that would block lawmakers from instituting election law preventing illegals from voting because they haven't provided evidence that illegals vote. I'll give you a hint - there isn't one.

>>1312716
Why are thinktank shills promoting a useless bill like this one which won't be voted on in the Senate and will never become a law?

>>1312650
Your rage is embarrassingly impotent. Which is only the second-most embarrassingly impotent thing about you. You don't, ahem, "rise to the occasion".

>>1312749
>won't be voted on in the Senate
[X] DOUBT

>>1312805
Using the Dark Force, Chuck Schumer just sensed the satirical qualities of your post and lol'd in public for no apparent reason.

>>1312806
The only satire here is your life

>>1312818
Nope that's exactly what happened
https://afn.net/politics-govt/2024/07/12/passage-of-save-act-in-house-probably-climax-of-bill-schumer-laughed-at/

>>1312180
They aren't even pretending to have proof and rightards still eat this shit up.