“We’ve gone from a time when the Tea Party stood for conservative principles, for constitutional principles, to a time where the [populists] have taken over the Republican Party and are really advocating things that I believe are very dangerous,” Buck told Stirewalt.
Like…?
Prioritizing the SAVE Act puts focus on a major Republican messaging point about voting integrity in advance of the November election, and the bill has been supported by former President Trump, who in July urged Republicans to pass the bill “or go home and cry yourself to sleep.” The House passed the legislation as a stand-alone bill in July with the support of a handful of Democrats.
While it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote, SAVE Act advocates argue that there are not enough safeguards in place to ensure only those eligible are casting ballots.
But it is highly unlikely that Democrats and President Biden would accept such a bill.
Why is that again?
1 - you don’t actually need an id to do many of those things. Check your memes.
2 - how many of those are rights recognized by the Constitution, and how many other constitutional rights do you think should essentially be licensed at the federal level?
So are for this kind of thing or not? I am. And save “drive a car” in NY you need ID for the rest.
I’m for it. We all have ID. It makes zero sense to not check them when voting.
You generally don’t need id to adopt a pet, rent a hotel room, or fly on a plane; it makes it easier, but those things are all doable without id. Unless you look young, you also don’t need it to buy alcohol or gamble at a casino. In many states you don’t need id to buy a gun either (personal sale). With the SAVE act you link to, you might still not need ID (see below). 
You want me to answer your question when you didn’t answer mine? ;D
Regardless, I have no problem with voter id in theory, but the devil is always in the details of how it’s implemented. Too often voter id rules are an attempt to suppress the vote of legitimately qualified voters. That’s just what’s admitted to, never mind just the fishy looking stuff.
Right. We all have id. The rub with these laws is it’s, at times, made to make it purposely harder to vote for those who don’t - demographically that would be more minorities and the poor.
And the SAVE act you link to includes an alternative process which citizens who cannot provide documentary proof may submit other documentation and sign an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and eligible to vote in elections for federal office. Sooooooo… still don’t need proof of citizenship, but more bureaucratic or something? What’s the point? Oh yeah, the point is to make it more difficult. 
I wouldn’t want to prevent the millions of illegal aliens in the country from voting either by requiring them to provide ID if I were a Democrat. They’re almost certain to vote for the party of open borders that let them flood into the country in the first place.
To have secure elections. Get with the program and get an ID.
We’ve been through this (and I’ve supported it, multiple times) - no, that’s not generally the point of these laws that are being sold as for security.
It’s just a basic security measure. It’s not surprising you’ll have to keep explaining how you could be against it.
How many legit voters are you willing to disenfranchise to address a problem that is generally acknowledged as not a issue that makes much difference, and is documented in some cases as being explicitly a partisan play to be more competitive in elections?
It’s an obvious security risk, and a simple measure to correct it. If you can go out to vote, you can go get an ID.
Democrats are Democrats because of their wiggy “logic.”
For example, this official pronouncement:
- Preventing fraudulent voting: We’ve never seen widespread fraud on a scale that would impact the results of an election in Oregon. Elections officials take many steps to protect the integrity of our elections. Signature verification, unique barcodes, and paper material that cannot be replicated, and other security procedures are in place across the state.
In other words, “because we haven’t seen widespread election fraud that means it doesn’t exist.”
It’s bizarre that there’s nothing stopping non-citizens from voting in US presidential elections.
Right, when you see a risk you’re not obligated to wait for a disaster to occur before you take steps to address it.
And it’s fairly popular. It’s a bone to throw to people who want a sense of common sense in their lives, especially in times of very loose border security and migrant influx.
Seems reasonable, right? You’d think it would already be on the books, but hey, you guys have been busy with all the fascism and democracy saving.
