That’s how things played out in 2018, when Senate Democrats rushed to resolve an immigration-related shutdown fight they worried would hurt them politically.

Speaker Mike Johnson, facing familiar demands from his right flank for a spending confrontation with Democrats, is hoping for a similar outcome this time. On Friday evening, Republicans released a bill he plans to bring up next week that extends spending for six months and includes legislation requiring people to prove their U.S. citizenship when they register to vote.

It is already against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and there is no evidence of widespread illegal voting by noncitizens. Still, Johnson thinks the voting registration legislation, known as the SAVE Act, short for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, is a political winner.

“Should Americans and Americans alone determine the outcome of American elections?” the speaker asked this year. “Or should we allow foreigners and illegal aliens to decide who sits in the White House and in the people’s House and in the Senate?”
‘A solution looking for a problem’

Forcing the government into a shutdown or bringing it to the brink of one just weeks before an election might not seem like the wisest political strategy, given the chaos House Republicans have fomented the past two years. And Republicans in battleground districts want to avoid any hint of a shutdown.

But it could come to that if top Republicans think they can profit enough politically from the false idea that noncitizens’ voting in elections is a real problem.

Democrats wasted no time on Friday before rejecting the Republican spending proposal. They have said that noncitizen voting is a phony issue that the G.O.P. is bringing up as part of a cynical strategy to stoke anti-immigrant resentment and xenophobia among voters, while deterring potential Democratic supporters who are legally eligible to vote from registering.

“This is a solution looking for a problem,” Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, told reporters at the Capitol this week. “There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants vote. It is hard enough to get citizens to vote.”

He and other Democrats say the new proposal would only erect new obstacles by imposing requirements that are complicated and unnecessary.

But Republicans like the idea of forcing Democrats to explain why they would resist the measure, the complexities of which few voters understand. They would no doubt try to use any vote to oppose it against Democrats in tough races, such as Senators Jon Tester in Montana and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, accusing them of wanting to cheat in the election by allowing illegal voting.

“We have to make sure noncitizens don’t vote,” Senator Rick Scott, a Florida Republican who is on the ballot in November and is also running for Senate Republican leader, said in an interview on Fox Business.

He said if the government were to shut down over the dispute, the blame should fall on the opposing party, led by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader. “If Chuck Schumer decides he doesn’t want to bring it,” Scott said of the spending package, “then Chuck Schumer will be deciding that he wants to shut down the government. It’s not us.”

A tricky path for Republicans

Schumer is not likely to be intimidated by such threats, even though he backed down after the three-day shutdown in 2018, worried that Democrats would be blamed. So far in more recent fiscal showdowns among the House, the Senate and the White House, Schumer has insisted on bipartisan solutions without poison pills. And he has prevailed in the past.

“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path, the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans’ hands,” Schumer said Friday evening in a joint statement with Senator Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat who chairs the Appropriations Committee.

Before any spending bill is able to put pressure on the Senate, it has to pass the House, and there is no certainty that the Republican spending legislation can. Some right-wing Republicans will resist voting for the spending bill even with the voting legislation attached, since they are opposed to the funding itself and reflexively reject spending bills. And six months represents a significant stretch of spending at current levels.

Democrats are expected to be almost uniformly opposed, leaving Republicans little room for defections.

With more than three weeks until the funding deadline, the parties have some time for a little back and forth to try to score their political points. At the moment, Democrats aren’t too concerned that Republicans can pin the blame for any shutdown on them over an unrelated issue, and aren’t in the mood to give much ground. They want a clean interim spending bill.

And so far in these tests of wills, Johnson has shown a willingness to relent at the crucial moment and make a deal.

Donald J Trump

why is it so hard for the dems just to add voter ID and ban the dead and illegals from voting? most other countries have voter ID and multiple states have voter ID

>>1339648
>“This is a solution looking for a problem,” Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, told reporters at the Capitol this week. “There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants vote. It is hard enough to get citizens to vote.”

>>1339648
>why is it so hard for the dems just to add voter ID and ban the dead and illegals from voting?
Our entire cultural and political apparatus right now has been built to cater to Republican delusion. For some reason they get to repeat lies, get convicted of multiple felonies, run a presidential candidate who tried to overturn an election with fake electors and get caught being paid by Russians to spread propaganda and their electorate gives them a pass on everything. Democrats are the only people expected to act like adults in the room. I completely support Democrats in their refusal to bend the knee to far-right schizo politics anymore. We're not passing any laws to fix a problem that only exists in your head. I think we've had quite enough.

>>1339658
it's the tolerance paradox rearing its ugly head

Most voters are old enough to remember the last time Trump was in the White House, when his party controlled both houses of Congress and still managed to cause the longest government shutdown in US history, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on literally nothing.
I hope they play this stupid game again before the election. The American people will know who is to blame, and vote accordingly.

>>1339648
Because they like winning.

ITT non-American shills still pretend that its not illegal for non-citizens to vote, despite the fact that its always been illegal.

>>1339669
Oh, well then there's no harm in checking IDs at the polling station like they do in every other country on the planet.

>>1339672
That would be all fine and well if Republicans didn't have a history of trying to ban the specific kinds of IDs that people who don't vote for them use. After watching you people support, defend and enable a candidate who tried to overturn an election you are afforded absolutely zero good faith that you have any genuine interest in voter security. As of right now you've lost your privilege to be taken seriously until you can pull your head out of your collective asses and fix the unhinged treasonous schizo problem with your party.

>>1339677
>pull your head out of your asses
Why are liberals so fixated on things in their asses. We already know you’re the party of degenerates and there’s no need to announce it.

When Trump gets elected, purge day will be implemented and “your kind” will be dealt with.

>>1339677
That has literally never happened.

>>1339682
you're a faggot and also not american

>>1339683
Should you be using faggot as an insult, comrade? Regardless, that has no bearing on the reality of your fantasies.

>>1339686
yes, as long as it gets under your skin faggot

>>1339687
Why would it get under my skin? I'm not a homosexual.

>>1339688
of course you're not. you're a faggot shilling for gay rapists in denial

>>1339689
Do you think acting like a child is advancing your political goals?

>>1339694
ponder on your own faggot

>>1339648
>Why keep humoring Republican lies?

>>1339682
>That has literally never happened.

>https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-25c1633fd815ae57ca6c703a45c9d636

> Two of the three trial judges declared the December 2018 law is unconstitutional, even though it was designed to implement a photo voter ID mandate added to the North Carolina Constitution in a referendum just weeks earlier. They said the law was rushed and intentionally discriminates against Black voters, violating their equal protections.

>The law “was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters,” Superior Court Judges Michael O’Foghludha and Vince Rozier wrote in their 102-page order.

>In July 2016, a federal appeals court struck down several portions of a 2013 North Carolina law that included a voter ID mandate, saying GOP lawmakers had written them with “almost surgical precision” to discourage voting by Black residents, who tend to support Democrats.

You were saying?

>>1339681
You need medication

>>1339698
Black people don't have photo ids?

>>1339699
Read the judge's decisions. "Photo ID" is not a specific ID, anon. There's driver's licenses, passport cards, VA benefit cards, federal ID cards, military IDs, public assistance cards etc., The GOP voter ID law was struck down as unconstitutional because Republicans looked up specifically what kinds of IDs black people used the most and attempted to ban those forms of IDs from being used to vote. The judge said that GOP lawmakers targeted black voters with "almost surgical precision" to discourage them from voting. Cope.

>>1339701
Right... You're giving all of these illegals photo ids. Maybe you should help these retarded black people get them too. How do they collect welfare without any ID? You're really leaving these poor souls in the dust.

>>1339703
>Right... You're giving all of these illegals photo ids
Wonderful pivot. Republicans try to ban people they don't like from voting. Cope.

>Maybe you should help these retarded black people get them too. How do they collect welfare without any ID? You're really leaving these poor souls in the dust.
So, to review, you have absolutely no argument against the story I posted. Black people do have IDs and when they try to use those IDs to vote Republicans try to pass unconstitutional laws to block them from voting. The judge wrote in their decision that Republicans targeted black people with "surgical precision" to discourage them from voting. Cope.

>>1339705
Your story is nonsense and the judge is a mentally ill libtard.

At least put some effort into your retarded fantasies.

I don't know how frequent this happens or how prevalent it really is, but I know for a fact that it DOES happen. I live in arguably the most important swing state and there were busses of people brought in to vote in my district who could not speak English at all, or spoke it very poorly. I legitimately have no idea why voter ID isn't a thing.

>>1339708
>there were busses of people brought in to vote in my district who could not speak English at all, or spoke it very poorly
What an obvious fucking lie
Alternatively, maybe if you weren't such a retard that you took video of that with your cellphone, maybe people would believe you
Its literally unbelievable that busses of illegals would get carted in to vote and no one takes a picture or video.

>>1339709
I'm sure there were videos of it. This was in 2016

>>1339707
>Desperate, hysterical coping because reality debunks your far-right delusions
You love to see it

>>1339715
Well, we've been waiting for a really long time for conservatives to provide any evidence whatsoever that illegals are voting in elections and they can't - even after dozens of inquiries, investigations, audits and senate committees. Maybe its time to admit you believe in something that isn't real.

>>1339715
i'm sure you're a faggot who lies all the time

>>1339717
I don't know what to tell you buddy. I'm sure it doesn't happen to the degree that Republicans claim, but if it happens even once, that's a problem. For the record I am not a Republican or trump supporter, I'm a left leaning moderate and I support something like voter id 100%

>>1339719
get in the chinese golf cart

>>1339719
Well, most people that aren't lying retards on the internet prefer actual proof to farcical claims, so I'll continue believing that 'busses of immigrants brought in to vote' are Republicunt lies until we can get actual proof.

>>1339719
>I don't know what to tell you buddy.
Proof. Proof that the thing you're talking about exists.

>I'm sure it doesn't happen to the degree that Republicans claim, but if it happens even once, that's a problem.
That's fucking retarded. There is no such thing as a system with 100% infallibility. If your argument is that we should build legislation and massive safeguards for a thing that happens 0.000003% of the time then the answer is no. That's a stupid waste of time and money.

>For the record I am not a Republican or trump supporter, I'm a left leaning moderate and I support something like voter id 100%
No you're not. You're a conservative dipshit LARPing as a centrist so you can uncritically parrot right-wing talking points while pretending like you have some genuine interest in political fairness.

>>1339716
You've been playing this black people are too stupid to get id game for decades. No one believes it. No one.

>>1339732
you should probably shill somewhere more noteworthy faggot. do they not let you?

Given Trump is a traitor and will do anything to win. He's going to force the Republicans to shut down the government, and then the conservative biased media will blame Harris.

>>1339733
Not an argument, chud.

>>1339742
you're not american faggot

>>1339648
Because dead and illegal people aren't voting. You're just making it harder to vote.

What would convince you that this is the case?

>>1339677
Based DGGer

>>1339743
I am an American cis heterosexual.

>>1339754
you are a lying faggot who nobody likes, quit your job shilling

>>1339746
Showing id doesn't make it harder to vote.

>>1339755
Not an argument.

>>1339757
not procreating (because nobody likes faggot shills)

>>1339756
What do you mean? It makes it objectively harder.

>>1339633
>Illegals don't vote
>No I won't allow the SAVE Act to pass
???

People already prove their citizenship when they register to vote.
Proving it again at the voting booth isn't needed.
Why should voting require more than the voter ID you get when registering?

If immigrants can't vote, why are dems so vehemently opposed to any form of identification at voting booths?

>>1339763
why do you lie 100% of the time

>>1339761
To vote in Canada, you need to provide a personal ID with a picture and a proof of residency. It's the same everywhere else on the planet. Only in the US do the democrats do everything in their power to prevent it.

>>1339765
you need an id to vote in america shill faggot. sorry, you've been caught lying

>>1339766
>always accuse others of what you're doing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws_in_the_United_States

>>1339769
if you were american you'd know the voter registration process

>>1339766
Straight up lying now.

>>1339771
LOL. why lie about me lying faggot. just stop

>>1339772
In the other thread, you retards are claiming black people are too stupid to get IDs, which is why we can't have voter ID. And here you are claiming we already have it.

I am so tired of leftists.

Its just straight up cope that Republicunts aren't popular
They can't visualize people not voting for them because they're dumb, so they assume the only reason they're losing is because of a large, invisible group of shadow voters who aren't registered but continue to vote in every election.

>>1339773
nerd

>>1339732
>You've been playing this black people are too stupid to get id game for decades
You're either 60 IQ or you're physically incapable of being good faith. Black people did have IDs. They used those IDs to vote. Republicans looked up voter data on which kinds of IDs black people used the most then tried to ban them. The judge who struck down their voter laws as unconstitutional said they targeted black voters with "surgical precision". Cope.

>No one believes it. No one.
Watching you desperately cope and reject reality because it hurts your feelings will never get old to me.

>>1339773
>In the other thread, you retards are claiming black people are too stupid to get IDs
No one ever said this. This the strawman you desperately cling to because you have to argument for why its okay for Republicans to ban the IDs that black people use in order to cheat in elections.

Notice how not a single conservative answered my question:

What would convince you that Voter IDs aren't needed?

>>1339759
Only if you aren't eligible to vote. But then thats the whole point.

>>1339774
It's mostly fake ballots and the people counting them, now. We've moved on from busing people to different polling stations with a list of registered voters.

>>1339783
Going down to the DMV and paying $60 for an ID is objectively a barrier to voting. You can argue that its not a large barrier but claiming that its the same exact level of effort as voting without an ID makes no logical sense.

>>1339784
>Here's a list of my feelings about voter fraud that I have zero evidence of

>>1339777
>>1339778
Black people get the same ids as everyone else, schizo.

>>1339782
Having voter id would be a good start.

>>1339785
Then make the ids free. Oh. You don't want that either, for some reason.

>>1339786
The fact that you fight so hard against securing elections is all the evidence anyone needs.

>>1339787
There's several different kinds of photo IDs. There's several kinds of federal IDs, state IDs, public assisstance IDs, military IDs, college IDs. You're pretending like there isn't because you're either retarded or you're such a confident partisan hack that you're willing to make shit up and pretend like its true so long as it agrees with your politics. The Judges in North Carolina found that GOP lawmakers looked up which kinds of IDs black people used the most and tried to ban those with "surgical precision". Republicans got caught trying to ban black people from voting so they could cheat in elections. Cope.

>>1339789
>Then make the ids free.
Its a great idea. Republicans have not once during this administration or the last ever put fourth legislation ear marking any money for a voter ID program, despite whining for the better part of 5 years about how its desperately needed. This is why nobody takes you seriously - none of your concern trolling is done in good faith. Conservatives give no fucks about election security they just hate losing elections. If any Republican politicians gave a shit they'd put fourth a bill providing free IDs. They don't. Why? Because they're smart enough to know that providing free IDs would make it easier for poor people to vote and they overwhelmingly vote Democrats.

>>1339790
This issue is we're just all tired of entertaining your delusions. Putting any effort into fixing a problem that only exists in your head and you have no evidence of is a waste of everybody's time. Even if we did put any effort into "securing elections", the reality is you don't give a fuck about secure elections. You support a man for president that tried to steal one through fake electors. Honest elections aren't and never have been your goal.

>>1339792
You are the only people fighting against secure elections, comrade.

>>1339793
Every democracy on the planet has voter ID, except for the US. Ensuring that people voting are eligible to do so is literally the first step in securing an election.

>>1339794
Your election fraud conspiracies only exist in your head. Nobody is obligated to waste real life time or resources entertaining your delusions.

>>1339796
People wouldn't think you were stealing elections if you didn't fight so hard against preventing you from stealing elections.

>>1339795
>Ensuring that people voting are eligible to do so is literally the first step in securing an election.
Republicans disagree. They've never put fourth any legislation offering free voter IDs and their candidate for president is a convicted felon who tried to steal the election with fake electors and a riot. You don't care about secure elections. If you did you wouldn't be a conservative.

I'm a flaming democrat but I still don't get what's the problem with showing your ID to vote.

>>1339797
None of this is true. People think Democrats are stealing elections because they're braindead conservative retards who invent delusions to justify their anti-american, anti-electoral, treasonous behavior. The only person who tried to steal an election is the presidential candidate you are currently shilling for.

>>1339799
Because Republicans have a history of trying to pass unconstitutional voter laws after looking up the kinds of IDs that people who don't vote for them use and trying to ban them. Additionally, they have zero evidence whatsoever that voter fraud is happening or that showing an ID at the polls is addressing or fixing any real life problem. This is why Republicans have never supported an programs which provide free IDs to people - because when they tell you they care about election security they're lying to you.

>>1339798
Lovely misdirection, from the guy fighting against securing elections.

>>1339799
How is your party going to steal elections if they can't dump thousands of ballots tied to no one into every drop box in town.

>>1339788
What do you mean?

>>1339784
>It's mostly fake ballots and the people counting them
Its weird that these fake ballots don't show up in any audit, and we don't have ballots counted that come from people without a proper voter registration.
Its almost like they only exist as schizo fragments in retards heads, only for the purpose of riling up low-IQ morons.
Elections are secure, so unless you have proof they aren't there is no reason to waste money entertaining your schizo delusions because your orange convict can't stand losing

>>1339816
It doesn't cost money to check IDs at the polls.

>>1339802
Your own party disagrees with you. Cope.

>>1339820
Sure it does
>print reference material for poll workers
>training
>extra time
This wasn't a problem before 2020.
Trump lost over 80 cases where he failed to prove fraud.
We don't have a problem that ID checking would solve.
Show some proof otherwise.

>illegals dont vote! fake news! fake narrative!
>Okay, pass this law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
>THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
Explain this to me.

>>1339826
>Trump lost over 80 cases where he failed to prove fraud.
He didn't "lose" 80 cases. Most were thrown out over either issues of standing (locus standi) or because courts wont take cases that they consider to be a "political question".

Get it right.

>>1339830
>He didn't "lose" 80 cases
Wrong. He lost them. The majority were thrown out on evidentiary grounds. The other ones were thrown out because, firstly, they couldn't establish any grounds as an injured party (i.e. if you steal from your neighbor I can't sue you because I can't show any damages your behavior had on me) and, secondly, because the resolutions they were seeking were fucking retarded (i.e. we got some affidavits saying this county counted some ballots with bad signatures therefore we want you to throw out 258,000 votes). You haven't read over the details of a single case. You're just repeating things you heard on Rumble. Trump's cases lost because they were bullshit. As Giuliani said, none of the cases even alleged fraud.

>>1339831
Get a load of the amateur attorney over here.

>>1339831
>The majority were thrown out on evidentiary grounds.
No they weren't. Literally only one case ever actually entertained the evidence, and that was in Arizona.
> The other ones were thrown out because, firstly, they couldn't establish any grounds as an injured party
It's called standing. They were dismissed on standing; procedural technicalities.
It would be like suing your neighbor because someone kicked your dog, and then the court refused to hear your evidence because you filed suit with a ballpoint pen instead of a number two pencil.

>>1339831
>As Giuliani said, none of the cases even alleged fraud.
He had to say that because fraud is criminal. The cases were civil.
Also, literally every single one of Trump's lawyers has been disbarred or put in jail shortly after questioning the election. So that's something to keep in mind.

>>1339837
>I've had dinner with some of them.
Post proof

>>1339835
>>1339836
>the Trump cult has turned the fraud conspiracy theories into yet another persecution fantasy
You love to see it.

>>1339840
>Trump is shot
>"it's just a conspiracy bro"
Democrats are faggots

>>1339842
But he was shot by a republicunt.

>>1339842
If you want to win an election sometime in the next 10 years try not basing your entire ideology on grievances.

>>1339842
>republicans condition the country to ignore shootings by white conservative chuds
>trump gets shot (almost) by a by white conservative chud
>no one cares
don't know what else they expected

>>1339829
>Explain this to me.
It's already the law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in every state in the country. Wasting government time and money on stupid bullshit is an outrage. Simple as.

Nobody's fighting for the repeal of those state laws. Shut the fuck up.

>>1339792
>>1339788
Not only make Voter ID free, but vastly increase where you can get them.
Republicans always seem to shut down those locations after their force through their voter ID laws.

>>1339826
>This wasn't a problem before 2020.
It's been a problem for decades.

>>1339878
>>“This is a solution looking for a problem,” Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, told reporters at the Capitol this week. “There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants vote. It is hard enough to get citizens to vote.”

Voting is an absolute right.

>>1339879
Wow, the self serving democrat doesn't want secure elections? This is shocking.

>>1339880
No it isn't. It is, at best, a civil right, subject to any number of restrictions the government and the people have placed upon it.

It's telling that the people who want to restrict actual unalienable rights are extremely eager to allow anyone and everyone to vote, with no restrictions at all.

>>1339847
>It's already the law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in every state in the country.
Huge if true! Link?

Because 14 states don't require ID to actually vote. So I'm calling bullshit.

If fraud was at all a possibility in US elections, foreign governments and political orgs wouldn't be trying to pull all these cockamamie influence and disnformation schemes. They'd just send pallets of votes for their guy by express post.
That we have Iran hacking E-Mails, and China and Russia fielding Twitter bot farms, shows that our system is so secure, the people casting votes are the weakest link. Why are we even entertaining such a law so close to an election when it'll do noting at best and cause chaos at the polls at worst?

>>1339894
Because this kind of cheating is about Republicans or Democrats cheating.

>>1339895
Cheating is not in the best interests of either party. It'd not only invite their rival to do the same, but even the POSSIBILITY that they won in an illegitimate fashion would create massive resistance to their authority, wiping out any advantage to their increased chances of taking power. Bush the Younger before 9/11 springs to mind, followed to a lesser extent by Trump and Biden. Thus, it is the rational decision to not cheat, even in the absence of verification laws - they need the legitimacy more than they need the certainty.

>>1339886
The elections are already secure. Fraud isn't the reason you people keep losing election

>>1339915
Why is it so hard for you to understand the difference between election meddling and election fraud?
>Russia if you're listening

>>1339908
Leftists aren't rational.

>>1339913
No one believes you.

>>1339918
You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

>>1339917
They are rational enough.

>>1339920
You do if you want people to think your elections are legitimate.

>>1339946
How many independent audits is too many?

>>1339946
>your elections
at least you admit you're a foreign shill

>>1339946
>You do if you want people to think your elections are legitimate.
Redhats aren't people and even if they were I don't want them to think our elections are legitimate.

>>1339954
Could you just stop being a fucking retard for a day?

>>1339953
One would be good.

>>1339955
That's why your kind shouldn't have a say in society.

>>1339892
>Huge if true! Link?
https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-rules/

>Because 14 states don't require ID to actually vote.
Don't be ridiculous. You need to be registered to vote to vote in every state. And registering to vote requires you prove your identity.

What dumb bullshit are you talking about? Poll workers checking id or something? You realize every state has vote by mail?

>>1339958
What the fuck do you know about society? Your average redhat lives in a pitstop miles away from civilization and even the ones that don't burned all the bridges with their friends and family over the past several years.

I live in society. You live in misery.

>>1339961
How do you know someone who walks into a polling station is registered to vote?

>>1339962
Your family hasn't talked to you since you got retarded during covid.

>>1339961
I'm still failing to see what the problem is here.
>we already do a thing
>okay, here is a law making you do the thing you say you do
>NO HOW DARE YOU

Texas just removed 6000 non-citizens from their voter-rolls and they are very strict about registration. So, "we already do it" is not an argument because non-citizens are getting on the rolls and in an era where Presidential elections are decided by <50 000 votes it matters.

>>1339962
>people I disagree with are a caricature I created that makes them look bad and makes me look good.
Republicans on average are better educated and earn more than Democrats so idk wtf you're talking about.

>>1339966
>they are very strict about registration
Texas also removed more dead voters from their roles in one year than the number of dead Texans.
They're a joke, and you're retarded for claiming they're strict.

>>1339916
They got to push that false equivalency at all cost.

>>1339969
>Texas also removed more dead voters from their roles in one year than the number of dead Texans.
Yeah, because they dont audit the rolls every year.

Also, you're not dealing with the core argument
>Non-citizens cant register to vote!
>Texas just found ~6000 on their rolls

>>1339964
>How do you know someone who walks into a polling station is registered to vote?
You have a list of registered voters for that polling place. Are you a fucking idiot?

They also have to sign for their ballot, which would obviously make shit very awkward if someone already has. Then you have a criminal investigation and some dipshit goes to jail.

It's more due diligence than voting by mail. What are you bitching about?

>>1339965
Yes, that is what I was thinking about you.

>>1339971
>You're not dealing with Texas Republicans being shitty at controlling their own voting records
lmao, your defense is the people screeching loudest about non-citizens being registered to vote being too incompetent to keep them off their own voting rolls.
Did any of them vote? You just admitted that Texas doesn't audit their voter list every year, so it sounds like normal checks and balances caught it.
Another law isn't going to stop anyone from printing a form off Texas' website and submitting it.

>>1339966
>okay, here is a law making you do the thing you say you do
We already have that law. Waste of time and money to do a second law on top of the first.

>Texas just removed 6000 non-citizens from their voter-rolls
No. They didn't.
>https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/27/texas-secretary-state-david-whitley-forced-leave-office/
You don't get to do literally the exact fucking same stupid, corrupt bullshit twice in a row and pretend nobody remembers the first time you got caught. At least change the fucking state or wait a decade.

>>1339975
Not him but when you dig into the story you find out it's bullshit
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/noncitizen-voting-is-extremely-rare-yet-republicans-are-making-it-a-major-election-concern

>>1339973
But how do you know that person is who they say they are?

>>1339979
>But how do you know that person is who they say they are?
They have the personal information of who they say they are, are willing to sign that they are who they say they are, and they are where the person who is who they say they are said they would be when they said they would be.

Seriously, do you have brain damage? You're asking some really dumb questions. Have you ever made a reservation anywhere for anything? This is standard societal shit.

>>1339981
So you're telling us a person can walk into a polling place, give a name, and be handed a ballot, no other verification necessary?

>>1339979
>But how do you know that person is who they say they are?
Whats funny is every election season, some MAGAfag thinks this is a loophole that they can exploit and prove that elections are insecure.
At least thats what they blubber to the judge after they get caught and before they go to jail.

>>1339975
>Another law isn't going to stop anyone from printing a form off Texas' website and submitting it.
This is specifically tailored to prevent that.

>lmao, your defense is the people screeching loudest about non-citizens being registered to vote being too incompetent to keep them off their own voting rolls.
So then, if everyone is doing what the law wants them to do, what is the problem?

>>1339983
Thank you for your remarkably insightful answer.

>>1339982
No. The name has to be registered to vote at that polling place and they have to sign for the ballot. You aren't listening.

You're acting like any rando that asks gets a ballot.

>>1339976
>We already have that law. Waste of time and money to do a second law on top of the first.
If you already do the things the law wants you to do, then you're not wasting more time or money because you already do those thing.
>No. They didn't.
Yes, they did.

>>1339987
I've never signed for a ballot. Do they have handwriting experts verifying all of these signatures?

>>1339987
So whats the problem then?

If all the things the law/Republicans want you to do are already done... then the law adds no further burden.

Its really weird how resistant you guys are to the implementation of very basic procedures.

>>1339984
What is it going to do that it doesn't already do?
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/vr-with-receipt.pdf
>Qualifications
>You must register to vote in the county in which you reside.
> You must be a citizen of the United States.
> You must be at least 17 years and 10 months old to register, and you must be 18 years of age by Election Day.
>You must not be finally convicted of a felony, or if you are a felon, you must have completed all of your punishment, including any term of incarceration,
parole, supervision, period of probation, or you must have received a pardon.
> You must not have been determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.

Is Texas a retarded shithole that doesn't actually vet the registrations that come in?

>>1339989
They do for mail-in ballots but the standards they apply for signature verification are hilariously low. Its done by scanners.

>>1339990
>>If all the things the law/Republicans want you to do are already done... then the law adds no further burden.
If the law adds no further burden, then everything it aims to do is already being done.
Are you really that dumb?

>>1339990
This from the so called party of smaller government

>>1339988
>then you're not wasting more time or money because you already do those thing.
No, the government's time and money. I regret to inform you that passing laws is not actually free or instant.

>Yes, they did
No, they didn't.

>>1339989
>Do they have handwriting experts verifying all of these signatures?
Yes if there's an issue, ie two people try to cast the same ballot.

>I've never signed for a ballot.
Damn, you should vote by mail, it's way easier than faffing about at a polling place and that also requires signing.

>>1339990
>then the law adds no further burden.
I didn't say it adds further burden. I said it's a waste of time and money.

>>1339991
>Is Texas a retarded shithole that doesn't actually vet the registrations that come in?
They do, and despite doing that over 1 million people had to be removed from the rolls. We can only imagine how bad the rolls in places like California or NY are.

Your argument is
>well, you audit your rolls and remove names
>thus you are bad
>other states do not audit rolls or remove names
>thus they are good

>>1339996
>he takes The State of Texas's word for it
And when it's found out that people were wrongly removed (again) ?

>other states do not audit rolls or remove names
This is where your schizo brain starts inventing strawmen to avoid having to admit its wrong.

>>1339996
>They do, and despite doing that over 1 million people had to be removed from the rolls.
You are one credulous motherfucker. Texas pulled this same bullshit a few years ago. God damn I wish you motherfuckers had an ounce of sense or shame.

>>1339993
>then everything it aims to do is already being done.
Cool.

So then passing it is merely a symbolic act and there is no need for your vehement resistance.

Thus, the question is, why so much resistance?

>>1339994
Its always funny how you guys dont understand what "smaller government" means.

>>1340001
>Cool, so passing it is a symbolic act that just wastes taxpayer money doing nothing.
>Why are you against wasting taxpayer money?
:(

>>1339995
Show me one state that has handwriting experts on hand at polling locations to verify signatures.

>>1340001
>Thus, the question is, why so much resistance?
It's a waste of time and money. You seem to keep glossing over this.

If you want to waste time and money, at least do something mildly fun like rename post offices.

>>1339995
>No, the government's time and money. I regret to inform you that passing laws is not actually free or instant.
You argue that they do the things the law wants them to do.

Thus passing the law adds no further burden.

If you want to argue that the law adds a burden, then you must concede that they do not currently do what the law wants them to.

Its an either/or.

>No, they didn't.
ITs a point in fact that cannot be disputed. Over a million names were removed, of which 6000 were of foreign nationals.

>>1340005
>You argue that they do the things the law wants them to do.
No he isn't, I am
Keep up, shill

>>1340000
>Texas pulled this same bullshit a few years ago.
Yes, the Great State of Texas, keeps tidy rolls. Many states do not.

What is the argument here?

>>1340002
How, specifically, does it waste time or money?

You argue they do the things the law wants them to do. So there is no burden.

If they do not do the things, then there is an added burden.

>>1340005
>ITs a point in fact that cannot be disputed.
It's highly disputed and in fact Texas has been wrong about who belongs on the illegal voters list on multiple occasions.

>>1340003
>Show me one state that has handwriting experts on hand at polling locations to verify signatures.
Show me one place where I said that's a thing? A handwriting expert would only be called in for a criminal investigation triggered by 2 people trying to cast the same vote.

>>1340004
>It's a waste of time and money.
You said that they do these things already?

>>1340007
>Many states do not.
You keep repeating this lie.

>>1340008
>It's highly disputed and in fact
Were over a million people removed from the rolls?

Yes or No.

>>1340009
You're making this very convoluted.

You know what would be easier? Checking a person's ID when they get their ballot at the polling station.

>>1340005
>Thus passing the law adds no further burden.
I didn't say it does. I said it's a waste of time and money. The fuck is wrong with you?

Do you have any reason or need for this law? No? Shut the fuck up.

>ITs a point in fact that cannot be disputed. Over a million names were removed, of which 6000 were of foreign nationals.
I'm literally disputing it right now. No, they weren't. It's the exact same fake bullshit as last time.

>Over a million names were removed, of which 6000 were of foreign nationals.
Less than half a percent.

>>1340007
>keeps tidy rolls
A roll of legally registered voters that arbitrarily excludes legally registered voters is not tidy.

>>1340013
You know what would be even easier? 100% voting by mail, tied to tax records for verification.

>>1340016
So illegals do get on the rolls?

>>1340017
Are you saying 1 million people were arbitrarily excluded?

>>1340014
>I didn't say it does. I said it's a waste of time and money
For it to waste time and money it must make you do more than you currently doing.

If you currently do what the law requires you to do, there is no increase in time or money in complying with the law.

You can only complain about increased expenses if they are not currently in compliance with the law.

>I'm literally disputing it right now. No, they weren't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/us/texas-voter-rolls-abbott.html
NYT confirms.

>>1340019
>tied to tax records for verification.
>Nearly 40 million Social Security numbers have been stolen and used by illegal immigrants and others to get work, according to agency records obtained by an immigration reform group.

>>1340007
>How, specifically, does it waste time or money?
Legislative aides have to craft, print, distribute, and process legislative changes. Legislators have to debate and vote on them.

Manhours and material go into every fucking law that gets passed, you ignorant dipshit. God damn you weren't shaken enough as a baby. Have you ever had a fucking real job? Do you think paperwork is free? Even a simple state law can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Federal laws cost even more.

I'm not talking to implement. I'm talking purely administrative costs.

>>1340021
>So illegals do get on the rolls?
You keep making this argument, despite proving that any non-citizens are getting removed before they have a chance to vote.
Maybe you should ask the Texas Republicunts who let non-citizens on their voter rolls why they did if its so important.

>>1340010
Yes, which is why making a duplicate law would be a waste of time and money.

Seriously, do you have fucking brain damage?

>>1340013
You know what would be even easier? Universal vote by mail.

>>1340023
>he's complaining about the relatively tiny amount of money spent on drafting and preparation of the law
You cant be serious.

>>1340027
>I claimed that it had no burden, and he's pointing out that there's a burden
Keep digging, stupid

>>1340026
>Seriously, do you have fucking brain damage?
You do since you're complaining about the cost of drafting the law when congress has drafted a litany of retarded laws over the past 12 months.

Holy shit, you're a fucking meme.

>You know what would be even easier? Universal vote by mail.
yeah, we know you want even less safeguards.

>>1340026
>Seriously, do you have fucking brain damage?
Yes, you're arguing with a compulsive liar who will never admit they're wrong, and will continue to make retarded arguments in circles until you give up.

>>1340028
>there is this tiny, absolute miniscule burden, of some aids writing a FOUR (4) page law
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

A complete non-argument. You got fucking nothing. I assumed you meant the burden of compliance, because I assumed you were trying to make an actual argument. Holy shit, what an embarrassing attempt at an argument.

I like how the retard in this thread is trying desperately to project Texan incompetence on the rest of the nation

>>1340021
>Are you saying 1 million people were arbitrarily excluded?
Yes. Yes I am. The last time they pulled this shit the errors were so overwhelming that they just stopped counting once they found over 25% of the voters had been purged in error and just undid the entire voter purge and that was a fraction of this purge. If Texas faked a much smaller number of ineligible voters last time, why the fuck should anyone believe the numbers this time are real?

I'm seriously asking. Why the fuck should anyone trust Texas here?

>>1340034
>Texas is incompetent because it *checks notes* audits its voter rolls

>>1340021
>For it to waste time and money it must make you do more than you currently doing.
Oh god, you have brain damage or genuinely do not know how government works.

>>1340026
>>1340019
How are you verifying those ballots are being used by the people they're addressed to?

>>1340035
HUGE if true.

Link?

>>1340038
not an argument.

Really, REALLY, weird how resistant you are to the passing of this law. "homg! Someone spent their lunchbreak writing four pages! Think of the expense!". Nothing, you've got nothing.

>>1340009
What happens to the ballot cast by the person who voted before me using my name?

>>1340027
>You cant be serious.
Unless you can come up with a reason to implement the law. I'm deadly serious.

I see zero fucking reason to let the government have a money fire just because it'd "only" be a few hundred thousand dollars.

And frankly the manhours are as big an issue. Clogging the system with useless bullshit needs to fucking stop.

Seriously, do you have a reason to copy laws already on the books? No? Shut the fuck up.

>>1340045
>I see zero fucking reason to let the government have a money fire just because it'd "only" be a few hundred thousand dollars.
As a Democrat. You do not get to make this argument.

>>1340046
As a voter I do. Unlike you and obongo, I'm American.

>>1340029
>You do since you're complaining about the cost of drafting the law when congress has drafted a litany of retarded laws over the past 12 months.
You're the one supporting that bullshit? I never said this is the only dumb law I'm against.

You're the dipshit wanting to make an exception for this law because it makes your feel good or some dumb bullshit. You haven't actually given a reason why anyone should even be discussing this bullshit.

>>1340032
>and will continue to make retarded arguments in circles
I wasn't arguing in circles. I just made the same argument over and over again because you refused to engage with the issue (and still do).

>>1340048
Weird that you decide to take this position now, on this issue, and ignore the litany of other spurious nonsense that gets tabled daily in Congress.

You're making this argument because you have no actual argument. No sensible opposition to the law. Its a FOUR PAGE law.

>>1340033
You've been running your mouth for a long while and have yet to make an argument for burning money.

>>1340037
Texas is incompetent because it audits voter rolls incompetently.

>ITS ONLY FOUR PAGES
Four useless pages.
How long has Texas been complaining about having non-citzens on their voting rolls?
Despite having 100% exclusive control over their own elections, they can't seem to fix the problem.
Why should we listen to them for a prospective solution?

>>1340039
What reason would there be to assume those ballots which were delivered to the people they were addressed to and not reported stolen were stolen?

>>1340040
>Link?
>https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/27/texas-secretary-state-david-whitley-forced-leave-office/

>>1340042
>not an argument.
Actually "Don't burn money because burning money is bad." is an argument.

I'm open to hearing your argument for burning money though. This is like the third or fourth time I'm asking at least.

>>1340050
>You're the dipshit wanting to make an exception for this law because it makes your feel good or some dumb bullshit.
Or because I agree that these requirements should be codified into law?

> You haven't actually given a reason why anyone should even be discussing this bullshit.
Well, a minor law that makes states do stuff "they already do" has caused Democrats to threaten a government shutdown. So I think that, perchance, they don't "already do" what the law would make them do.

Like, you're here kicking up a shitstorm over something very minor. This suggests its not minor.

>>1340046
>As a Democrat. You do not get to make this argument.
The last Dem to increase the deficit over their administration was Carter. The last Republican to decrease it was Eisenhower. Shut the everloving fuck up you hypocritical ignorant dipshit.

Republicans do not and have never owned the fiscal responsibility card no matter how often you fuckwits try to play it. Fuck off and die.

>>1340053
Because the law makes it easier to remove people and makes changes to the Motor-Voter laws?

The bill was written by Chip Roy, a Texan.

>>1340056
Now people have to report the ballots stolen too? How are you going to determine which is my legitimate ballot after I mail it in?

>>1340051
>You're making this argument because you have no actual argument.
You haven't made an argument for the law. Shut the fuck up.

>>1340060
>The last Dem to increase the deficit over their administration was Carter.
????????????

Is this a typo?

>Republicans do not and have never owned the fiscal responsibility card no matter how often you fuckwits try to play it. Fuck off and die
I'm not playing that card.

>>1340060
Oh dear. He's reached the blatant lying stage of the argument.

>>1340063
>You haven't made an argument for the law.
This coming from the guy arguing that a FOUR PAGE law is a vast expense?

lol.

>>1340059
>Or because I agree that these requirements should be codified into law?
Why? That's not an argument. That's a fucking opinion.

>Well, a minor law that makes states do stuff "they already do" has caused Democrats to threaten a government shutdown. So I think that, perchance, they don't "already do" what the law would make them do.
And you're wrong. So, again, what is your argument?

>Like, you're here kicking up a shitstorm over something very minor.
Brother, you've been debating multiple people that think you're a fuckwit. You're kicking up a bigger shitstorm over something you claim as very minor.

What is the factual need for this "minor" law?

>>1340061
>The bill was written by Chip Roy, a Texan.
Again, why should we give a shit about a law designed by people who can't fix their own voter rolls, despite having 100% control over them?

>>1340068
>What is the factual need for this "minor" law?
>Amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which has governed
state voter registration since 1993, to require states to obtain documentary
proof of U.S. citizenship and identity – in person – when registering an
individual to vote in a Federal election.
Simple.

>>1340070
>A state takes active measures to fix its rolls
>So its bad and stupid!
>A state takes no measures to fix its rolls
>So its good and clever!

1340074
not an argument
just a lie that other states don't clean up their voter rolls
I'll accept your concession

>>1340068
>And you're wrong.
Dems are currently threatening a shutdown over the SAVE Act
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4850815-proof-of-citizenship-voting-bill-government-shutdown/

Weird, because, you said it adds nothing new to the law. Super weird.

>>1340062
>Now people have to report the ballots stolen too?
Yes? That's not even that weird. Hell, in some states failing to report a felony is itself a felony.

Also you don't get another fucking ballot if you don't report it stolen. And you presumably want a ballot what with the whole requesting a mail in ballot.

>How are you going to determine which is my legitimate ballot after I mail it in?
The security envelope, you human shitstain.

>>1340064
>Is this a typo?
No.

>>1340065
>Oh dear. He's reached the blatant lying stage of the argument.
Nah, but you've been there a while.

>>1340067
>This coming from the guy arguing that a FOUR PAGE law is a vast expense?
Yes. This coming from that guy.

Still no fucking argument from you. Just bitching that your goal isn't "that" stupid.

>>1340077
I hope you're not the same guy crying about costs up above.

>>1340078
>>Is this a typo?
>No.
Oh, okay, so you're a massive fucking retard.
>no this years annualized defecite increases dont count because the long term accounting, which uses a number of gimmicks, suggests that actually it will decrease the deficit over 10 years.
Every President since Clinton has increased the deficit. Painting it as a partisan issue is idiocy.

>>1340079
>Still no fucking argument from you.
I posted the specific provision of the law that I support.

Currently its a crime for non-citizens to vote. However, there is no means of detecting that. Modifying the motorvoter act to require proof of citizenship on registration closes that loophole.

Its really that simple.

>>1340072
>Simple
And yet you still have simply failed to provide an argument.

>>1340076
What the fuck was the point of this dumbass post? Super weird.

>>1340083
>And yet you still have simply failed to provide an argument.
The argument is in the post.

>What the fuck was the point of this dumbass post?
>you're wrong! they arent threatening a shutdown!
>[source: they are threatening a shutdown]

>>1340081
>Every President since Clinton has increased the deficit
I see the blatant lying continues. Clinton famously left office with a surplus even if you were too dumb to know Obama reduced it too.

>>1340082
>pretend there is a loophole
>suggest a change thats actually already in place so its not a change
>get confused when people accurately point out that you're retarded and your suggestions are useless
Its really that simple.

>>1340082
>I posted the specific provision of the law that I support.
Yes, which is not an argument.

Are you ESL?

>>1340086
>Clinton famously left office with a surplus
Yes hence
>>Every President since Clinton has increased the deficit
English is hard I guess.

>Obama reduced it too.
Obama amassed more debt than every preceding president combined. Him running up the deficit and then decreasing it to a level that is still higher than when he started is not a deficit decrease.

>>1340085
>The argument is in the post.
Oh, you are ESL.

I genuinely can't take any more stupidity from you. I've been begging for you to provide a single factual claim in support of why you would want this shit for a fat chunk of this thread and now you dipshits are even getting into historical revisionism.

I strongly suggest you stop drinking mercury. Goodbye.

>>1340088
>Yes, which is not an argument.
You're going to ignore how I explained the argument to you in the post you're responding to?

>>1340090
I accept your concession.

>>1340086
>Clinton famously left office with a surplus
Then why did the national debt increase every year he was in office?

>>1340093
It didn't.

>>1340098
lmao

Okay.

>>1340106
Yes.

>>1340109
How are we ever going to have a functional society if you creatures prefer your fantasies to reality?

>>1340110
faggot

>>1340110
Try not lying about every fact and then calling them "alternative facts" when you get proven wrong.

>>1340093
>>1340106
>>1340110
>Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000.

>>1340113
>The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP
And there it is. How to lie like a leftist. Sure the debt went up, but we'll use this metric instead and pretend we're fiscally responsible.

I don't even know how this is an argument. Clinton was president before any of you chuckle fucks were born. Your current president is adding a trillion dollars to the debt every three months.

>>1340114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration
I was just quoting Wikipedia. You should go spill your historical revisionism on the talk page instead of here.

>>1340115
Wikipedia is leftist trash.

>>1340116
You are a faggot who is once again exposed as a liar

>>1340114
>Your current president is adding a trillion dollars to the debt every three months.
It takes a lot of money and time to fix what Trump broke.

>>1340116
>far right extremist loser calls wikipedia leftist trash
That never happens.

>>1340118
>>1340117
You could balance the budget tomorrow by reverting spending to 2019 levels. You won't.

>>1340116
You only care about a balanced budget when a Democrat is president.

>>1340120
No. I want a balanced budget all the time.

>>1340121
Why?

>>1340122
balanced budget = tax cuts for the rich
Republicunts wanting tax cuts for the rich constantly is in character for them

>>1340122
Because I want a functional society that can survive long term.

>>1340123
Cutting taxes without cutting spending will increase the debt more, retard.

>>1340125
Dont blame him, he gets paid to lie and he has no real skills

>>1340125
literally nobody is cutting spending and most spending is social programs for boomers and illegals.

This thread is great. Leftoids got btfo so hard on election fraud they had to start pretending to be fiscally responsible.

>>1340128
I guess we'll have to elect someone willing to get rid of the illegals.

>>1340130
you don't have to samefag, faggot

>>1339785
Why do I have to have ID to buy a gun?

>>1340134
Seethe.

>>1340150
Yes you come here to seethe, for some reason.

"we want to implement a national ID system"
>THIS IS LITERALLY FASCISM, COMMUNISM, AUTHORITARIANISM, WE WILL NOT SUBMIT TO BIG BROTHER
"we want a national ID system to track gun purchases and ownership"
>COME AND TAKE IT, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, REEEEEEEEEEEEE
"we want a national ID system for voter registration"
>*lick lick* mmmmmm, this boot tastes delicious, yum yum

>>1340229
You can't have a functional democracy without secure elections.

>>1340229
Why are you retarded?

>>1340231
Do you have any evidence our elections aren't secure or that we don't have a functional democracy?

Seems an awful lot like you're crying wolf.

>>1340243
>Depends- do you have any evidence our elections aren't secure or that we don't have a functional democracy, because of Russia?
No?

Russia has never been accused of illegally altering a single ballot.

So I guess we have secure elections.

>>1340242
Yes. The evidence is that one of the major parties with a history of anti-democratic behavior fights tooth and nail against any and all measures to secure elections, and in fact supports measures to make our current elections even less secure.

>>1340245
>That was the entire DNC platform from 2016-2019.
[citation needed]

>Was the 2016 election legitimate then?
Yes
>Free from fraud
Yes
>and meddling?
No

I don't understand. Are you implying we don't have a functional democracy if we aren't secure from foreign meddling? That foreign meddling makes an election illegitimate? Cause in that case we never have had and never will have a functional democracy or legitimate election. The totalitarian dictatorship you'd need to get foreign meddling even near zero would be terrifying. I don't particularly want to vote on our wardens if we'd even be allowed elections for long in that situation.

>>1340247
Why even have in person voting at all? Why not just implement the tighter restrictions on mail in ballots you're talking about and just do those? Seems like having two separate systems is stupid and just increases risk of fraud.

>>1340247
The best is how Ivan keeps using the word "we".

>>1340254
Love how democrats have gone from "nooo socialism is a GOOD thing" to adopting full-blown McCarthyism.

>>1340257
It was inevitable once the neocohens went home.

>>1340254
Yes ranjeet, the russians want you to secure your elections.

>>1340257
>>1340258
>>1340259
Shitty coping mechanisms

>>1340275
No one is coping. We're laughing at you.

>>1340286
no you're definitely just mad

>>1340305
Okay dude. Thanks for letting me know.

>>1340257
>Love how democrats have gone from "nooo socialism is a GOOD thing"
The Democrats never supported socialism. You get all of your news about what Democrats support from OANN.

>to adopting full-blown McCarthyism.
The difference being that everything the Democrats are currently adopting is substantiated by mountains of evidence, credible indictments, criminal charges and guilty verdicts in a court of law.

>>1340337
>The Democrats never supported socialism.
lmao

History has shown that McCarthy was right about everything.

>>1340360
>lmao
You have no clue what socialism is. There is no socialist faction of the Democrat party.

>>1340360
>History has shown that McCarthy was right about everything.
Where do you people get this shit from?

>>1339633
>Republicans across the country have spent months pushing the unsubstantiated idea that a swarm of undocumented immigrants is poised to vote illegally and swing the upcoming election to Democrats.
>unsubstantiated
Kek, they're admitting it's true and are now on the "you don't have enough evidence" stage.

>>1340391
Who is "they're"?

>>1339633
>Fake Narrative

I know, right?! This is why we need totally corporate-government censorship, to protect us!...

>>1340408
To protect us from your lies yes, correct, otherwise people start dying from taking horse pills and drinking bleach.

>>1339648
most voter fraud is perpetrated by citizens who don't even know they aren't eligible for one reason or another, a few hundred a year give or take. a dramatically smaller subset of fraud, that which is done knowingly and with deliberate harmful intent, is a couple dozen. in a country of 330 million, it's an incredible testament to the existing security of our voting systems that the legitimate mistakes made are so few, and that they are caught through routine audits and recounts. these cases combined are nowhere close to overturning any election anywhere, nor worth spending many billions of dollars to overhaul our entire national election infrastructure chasing approximately 0.0001% of the population.
additionally, there have only been 24 cases of undocumented illegals casting votes in federal elections since 2003.
you're being driven to the height of unreasonable, wasteful action by extreme harmful exaggeration and fear of something you don't understand.
not because the info is being hidden and you can't understand it, but because you never tried to in the first place.

>>1340391
have you considered that there is no evidence of this situation because it doesn't fucking exist?

>>1340418

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

>>1340448
No one. The government is the only thing protecting you from the evils of the free market.

>>1340420
>most voter fraud is perpetrated by citizens who don't even know they aren't eligible for one reason or another, a few hundred a year give or take
False
Texas alone discovered something like 6000 illegals who voted illegally
But facts don't matter to you people

>>1340510
>Texas alone discovered something like 6000 illegals who voted illegally
Do you get paid every time you repeat this lie? The people they labeled illegal were lifelong citizens who voted democrat.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2024/08/31/texas-senate-democrats-request-doj-probe-voter-purge-raids-paxton/75019319007/
>This is not the first time state officials have been under scrutiny for their handling of voter registrations. In 2019, an attempt to clean up Texas' voter rolls faltered when the state began with an inaccurate list of 95,000 potential noncitizens, resulting in the secretary of state's resignation, a settlement agreement and a congressional probe.

>>1340549
>we enact voter ID laws for the next 50 years and see if dems ever win again
>universal national ID system
the only way this works is with ID granted upon birth and likely verified through biometrics. then in the same move you must also enact automatic voter registration, making election day a holiday, no excuse mail ballots, expand polling place access, and so on.
in my opinion voting should also be compulsory, like australia.

>>1339633
Deport all niggers, kikes, and spics.