Today's Environmentalists Are Really Luddites

[AccessBlaster]

It's the timing Doc. The the majority of the sum of election fixing in the last 250 years happen under Trumps instructions, everyone in the country, except conservative talking heads) knows the facts.
So Trump lies and hypocrisy run amok.
I keep wondering what it will take for the Cult to dissolve.

That’s impressive, quite the work ethic.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

everyone in the country, except conservative talking heads) knows the facts.

In this point regarding voting irregularities, I must respectfully but emphatically disagree.

 

[Isaac]

The numbers don't support that. This is a Heritage Foundation Report. I circled the part in Red that you might find interesting.

Heritage Foundation-Election Fraud

View attachment 123432

If someone were voting who shouldn't be voting, how would we know? How would it come under the purview of a "report" or statistics?
Isn't the whole point of voting by people who shouldn't that you wouldn't know they were?

I say require basic ID - it's not that big of a deal, except for people who struggle to get ANY form of ID, who extremely unlikely were voting in the first place or probably shouldn't vote.

I have to show my ID when I do something as trivial as buying nicotine pouches, or returning a $10 item at Walmart without a receipt. Something as important as voting should absolutely require ID.

 

[Isaac]

I'm on the fence about gerrymandering because it seems like an impossible problem to solve completely, so it seems like the only realistic course of action is to let everyone gerrymander. A lazy response, I know

 

[RogerCooper]

I'm on the fence about gerrymandering because it seems like an impossible problem to solve completely, so it seems like the only realistic course of action is to let everyone gerrymander. A lazy response, I know

You don't need to solve it completely. Many states have adopted some form non-partisan redistricting. The congress or the courts could require some plan with a default (like proportional representation) if they adopt a plan.

Note the SAVE act prohibits Ranked Choice Voting. That makes it pretty clear that purposes of the SAVE act is to prevent majorities from choosing elected officials.

 

[Isaac]

Note the SAVE act prohibits Ranked Choice Voting. That makes it pretty clear that purposes of the SAVE act is to prevent majorities from choosing elected officials.

I'm going to have to study this, maybe I'll ask chatgpt to summarize it for me. I didn't know this.

 

[Isaac]

Short answer: No — the SAVE Act itself does not prohibit Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
But there are other related election bills being discussed that would ban ranked choice voting, and people sometimes confuse those with the SAVE Act. Let me break it down clearly.

---

1. What the SAVE Act actually does​

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act focuses on voter eligibility and registration rules, not the voting method.


The core requirement is:

• People must provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
  Examples include a passport, birth certificate, or other citizenship documents.

It would amend the National Voter Registration Act (1993) to require election officials to verify citizenship before registering voters.


Other related proposals based on it include:

• requiring photo ID when voting
• tightening voter roll verification
• giving federal authorities more access to voter registration data

Supporters say this prevents non-citizens from voting; critics say it creates barriers for eligible voters.

---

2. Does it ban Ranked Choice Voting?​

No.


The SAVE Act does not contain any language banning ranked choice voting or other voting methods. It strictly deals with who is allowed to register and vote, not how votes are counted or ballots are structured.


So the claim that “the SAVE Act bans ranked choice voting” is incorrect.

---

3. Why people think it bans RCV​

Confusion happens because other election bills introduced around the same time do include RCV bans.


For example:

• Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act
  
  • includes provisions that ban ranked-choice voting in federal elections
• Some lawmakers have proposed separate bills to prohibit ranked-choice voting nationally.

Since these bills are often discussed together with the SAVE Act, people sometimes mistakenly say the SAVE Act itself bans RCV.

---

4. Who the SAVE Act would affect​

If enacted, it would mainly affect voter registration procedures nationwide.

Groups most directly affected​

1. New voters registering
   
   • Must provide proof of citizenship.
2. People without easy access to documents
   
   • Millions of Americans do not have passports or easy access to birth certificates.
3. Married women who changed their name
   
   • If the name on their documents doesn’t match registration records.
4. Election administrators
   
   • Would need new verification systems and documentation checks

 

[Isaac]

The video was a small percentage of the evidence. Claiming the election was rigged by the Dems, when in fact, it was attempted to be rigged by him and his Lieutenants .

Those cool aid drinking Jan 6th worshipers were absolutely inspired by his words.

I think it's fairly significant, though. His words about 'fight' were quite separated from, and unrelated to, the 'see you on january 6th stuff'.
whether or not crazy people were inspired by his words, well, I don't doubt that - crazy people are inspired from all kinds of words.

but do you really think Trump believed that a few hundred people mostly unarmed would successfully upend the entire US military and overthrow the government? do you believe that?

 

[AccessBlaster]

1. Married women who changed their name
   • If the name on their documents doesn’t match registration records.

Sounds familiar

In the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Illinois.
Obama’s campaign lawyers filed objections to several rival candidates’ petitions, arguing that many signatures were invalid because:

• The signer was not a registered voter
• The address didn’t match registration records
• The name didn’t match the voter roll
• The signature was duplicated or illegible

 

[Isaac]

#2 and #4 would concern me, as objections go - I mean concerning that it's even an objection.
Keeping addresses up to date is tough; the average joe's driver license doesn't match where they currently live I don't think, if they're your average young person moving around every 1-3 years. And signature duplicated or illegible? That's ridiculous - your signature isn't supposed to be legible, it's supposed to be your personal mark - not match any particular writing.

I'm old fashioned, I think it's nice to take your husband's name when you get married. The refusal to do so seems to be a little rebellious twinge.
But to each their own.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It wasn't about voter integrity, it's about sabotaging your democrat opponents in the primary.

 

[Isaac]

It wasn't about voter integrity, it's about sabotaging your democrat opponents in the primary.

Sounds exactly like what some say about the SAVE act now

 

[Isaac]

Five Things to Know About the SAVE America Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship at the time of registration and a photo ID at the time of voting.

bipartisanpolicy.org

This article expresses a pretty carefully articulated set of reasons against the ACT. It's effective on the date of its enactment which gives States no time to adjust or prepare or change their processes. It's too aggressive on the criminal penalties for people who make a mistake in registering and allowing private citizens to sue them is just I think a little bit silly and unnecessary. But in general I'm in favor of it but those are the downsides in my opinion

 

[AccessBlaster]

I've had an ID since I was fifteen and a half. Someone needs to explain why getting one is supposedly so difficult. It seems purely political, and I’d take offense at the idea that I couldn’t obtain one.

 

[Thales750]

#2 and #4 would concern me, as objections go - I mean concerning that it's even an objection.
Keeping addresses up to date is tough; the average joe's driver license doesn't match where they currently live I don't think, if they're your average young person moving around every 1-3 years. And signature duplicated or illegible? That's ridiculous - your signature isn't supposed to be legible, it's supposed to be your personal mark - not match any particular writing.

I'm old fashioned, I think it's nice to take your husband's name when you get married. The refusal to do so seems to be a little rebellious twinge.
But to each their own.

It may simply be to honor her family name. In our world, the marriage bond is no where nearly as strong as it was in the past. Many women don't really need men anymore, and as cloning takes over reproduction, even less.

 

[RogerCooper]

Sounds familiar

In the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Illinois.
Obama’s campaign lawyers filed objections to several rival candidates’ petitions, arguing that many signatures were invalid because:

• The signer was not a registered voter
• The address didn’t match registration records
• The name didn’t match the voter roll
• The signature was duplicated or illegible

As someone who is actually been involved candidate petition drives, I can tell you that fraud is rampant and that specious objections to legitimate signatures are common.

Many of the rules are there to prevent independent candidates from getting on the ballot in the general election or primary.

 

[AccessBlaster]

What I find interesting is that the same people who supposedly cannot obtain an ID can still manage the complexities of voting. That’s confusing to a lot of people.

 

[Isaac]

Many women don't really need men anymore, and as cloning takes over reproduction, even less.

Or at least, they think they don't. The way we are designed, we do indeed need each other.

 

[Isaac]

I've had an ID since I was fifteen and a half. Someone needs to explain why getting one is supposedly so difficult. It seems purely political, and I’d take offense at the idea that I couldn’t obtain one.

And nowadays there are a lot of services laying around that help people get basic state IDs - it's a whole 'thing'.
To make it even easier for the indigent or indigent-adjacent, so to speak

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And nowadays there are a lot of services laying around that help people get basic state IDs - it's a whole 'thing'.
To make it even easier for the indigent or indigent-adjacent, so to speak

Absolutely true. Some years ago my mother-in-law stopped driving and so her license expired. She needed a new state non-driving ID and it took us only a day or two from start to finish to gather all required paperwork and apply (at the local driver's license office), and about an hour to wait while their printer got fixed so they could print it on the spot.