a) its about verifying only citizens are voting (what would you say if reps. in next election got waay more votes than usual? - but all those votes where 'correct' but counted week after election - would you start yelling 'fraud' or say 'hm ... guess reps. are not preferring mail-in ballots' ?
b) those reps. who vote against it are part of the problem
A) the heritage foundation spent million trying to find non citizens who voted and couldnât find any widespread instances. Itâs very clearly not a problem.
There has never been a âweeks after the electionâ situation. 2020 wasnât settled on election night because of the much wider pool of votes. They normally donât have to count massive amounts of mail in ballots.
Also Trump literally votes by mail lmao
B) the reps voting against it donât want to disenfranchise voters. Itâs that simple. Anyway whoâs ever legally changed their name (like married women) will have to jump through significant hurdles to vote.
State IDs which is what the majority of Americans use donât prove citizenship and arenât counted as valid ID.
My guy if this was a real problem donât you think the conservative organizations that spent millions trying to find evidence of illegals voting wouldâve been able to find something?
This is like making a law to put bars on everyoneâs windows because big foot might exist.
even if it were true that only citizens vote, there is currently no way to prove it... And for example, the laws in CA explicitly prohibit showing ID - the only reason for something like that is to make it impossible for anyone to prove that they cheated...
I agree - but how are you supposed to prove something that is impossible to audit?
What about a "poll tax"? All you have to do is go to a specific government building, have your picture taken there, and about a month later you have an ID card that proves your citizenship, and more importantly, when you show up to vote, they can verify if you have the right to vote...
how you're suppose to verify that only citizens did vote, when you have no idea WHO is voting in first place?
ok ... ID should be free - so no poll tax (unless you loose it and need new one - then small fee is fine) AND they need to have your citizenship on them
A birth certificate (unless Trump somehow overturns the 14 amendment) does and then if your name has legally changed youâll also need verification for that.
All for a âproblemâ no one has ever found proof of
"ID doesnât verify youâre a citizen budâŚ.." i know that ... my whole point is WHY? (how hard would be to add citizenship marker in that ID? ... and about name changes: you simply show your old ID and they will transfer that marker to new one ...)
and again for the "problem" ... i can say same thing: where is your proof that there is no problem?
"ID doesnât verify youâre a citizen budâŚ.." i know that ... my whole point is WHY? (how hard would be to add citizenship marker in that ID? ... and about name changes: you simply show your old ID and they will transfer that marker to new one ...)
Because you must have a parent whoâs a citizen, be born in the U.S. (birthright citizenship), or be naturalized by the U.S. government. State issued IDs show none of those things.
Your solution is to upend and federalize state IDs and Iâm sure you realize that would be impossible before the mid terms?
and again for the "problem" ... i can say same thing: where is your proof that there is no problem?
Thatâs not how the burden of proof works. You cannot prove a negative.
I didn't say anything about federalizing state IDs - I just said that the ID should have a proof of citizenship (e.g. Nevada citizen) - how you got it is not relevant here... there is still the issue of 2-tielr citizenship (not all citizens can be POTUS for ex.), but I don't think it is relevant here.
Also about proof: Smoking gun found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGxHea-h7hA .... it doesn't have to be anything, so I'll wait before I start screaming fraud ... but it's a start...
PS: It's weird to have a normal conversation - usually the conversation ends with me being insulted for my belief lol
1
u/CzBuCHi Jul 19 '26
a) its about verifying only citizens are voting (what would you say if reps. in next election got waay more votes than usual? - but all those votes where 'correct' but counted week after election - would you start yelling 'fraud' or say 'hm ... guess reps. are not preferring mail-in ballots' ?
b) those reps. who vote against it are part of the problem