• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Jim Banks Calls for Passage of SAVE America Act to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
46,041
48,833
Los Angeles Area
✟1,087,546.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
When you register to vote, the very first time, you show that you are an American citizen.
You click a radio button in my state.

1770564857378.png


And then "New voters may have to show a form of identification or proof of residency the first time they vote"
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
43,198
20,827
Finger Lakes
✟351,762.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is a constitutional and commonsense security measure. Over 80% of Americans agree with Voter-ID laws. If you have to show ID in order to buy alcohol or rent a car, you should have to show ID in order to vote.

People also have to show ID to get on an airplane or to receive government benefits. It is time.
Elections are run by the states, not by the President. This is more federal overreach.

Odd as it may seem to some, that the states are not uniform makes it more difficult for foreign states and bad actors to hack the system as a whole. Standardization can be as dangerous as mono-agriculture for much the same reason.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,818
2,142
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟346,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You asked about traveling, not entering another country. Traveling in the US doesn't require me entering the US. I started out here.
But what makes you so sure that my asking did not include travelling into another country. Its the most obvious if we are talking about ID. Your playing semantics.

So let me make it clear. Amny travel that needs ID like a visa and passport.
They didn't.
Are you kidding. Its the biggest fraud in US history.
Tell yourself that if you like. I don't care. This thread isn't about voting methods.
Yes it is. Voter ID is a voting method.
You asked about traveling, not entering another country. Traveling in the US doesn't require me entering the US. I started out here.
But you assuned it only meant travelling within the US. If I am talking about ID its obvious I am talking about travel that requires ID. Which is travelling outside the US. How can you not work this out.
They didn't.
What are you living on another planet. They have arrested nearly 100 people. I am talking about the money fraud. We were talking about ID for welfare.
Tell yourself that if you like. I don't care. This thread isn't about voting methods.
What is wrong with you. It was about voting methods.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,420
17,952
56
USA
✟462,971.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
But what makes you so sure that my asking did not include travelling into another country. Its the most obvious if we are talking about ID. Your playing semantics.
No, you talked about traveling, not...
So let me make it clear. Amny travel that needs ID like a visa and passport.
... entering a different country, which is not the same thing as traveling (and something I've done without showing ID).
Are you kidding. Its the biggest fraud in US history.
It wasn't, and it is off topic. Quit deflecting to some other nonsense.
Yes it is. Voter ID is a voting method.
No "Voter ID" is not a voting method. "pencil marks on paper" (a functional method) or "first past the post" (more of a counting method) are voting methods.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,818
2,142
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟346,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, you talked about traveling, not...
Yes in the context of ID. The only travel in the context of ID is traveling outside the US. Surely you understand this simple and obvious logic.
... entering a different country, which is not the same thing as traveling (and something I've done without showing ID).
Stop looking for exception. Traveling does not automatically mean domestic. We were talking about ID for traveling. The most obvious is going overseas. Now you admit this you want to then make exceptions to avoid acknowing the obvious and the rule rather than exception. .
It wasn't, and it is off topic. Quit deflecting to some other nonsense.
Its not off topic. I am use the idea of having ID to get welfare to stop fraud as a direct parallel to having ID to stop voter fraud. Its a good parallel.
No "Voter ID" is not a voting method. "pencil marks on paper" (a functional method) or "first past the post" (more of a counting method) are voting methods.
Voting method as in 'one method requires no ID and the other method requires ID.

By the way 83% of people support voter ID. Including 71% of Dems.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,420
17,952
56
USA
✟462,971.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes in the context of ID. The only travel in the context of ID is traveling outside the US. Surely you understand this simple and obvious logic.
It isn't. I've done plenty of traveling and little of it was outside the US. Your general lack of precision in your writing is causing you problems again.
Stop looking for exception. Traveling does not automatically mean domestic. We were talking about ID for traveling. The most obvious is going overseas. Now you admit this you want to then make exceptions to avoid acknowing the obvious and the rule rather than exception. .

Its not off topic. I am use the idea of having ID to get welfare to stop fraud as a direct parallel to having ID to stop voter fraud. Its a good parallel.

Voting method as in 'one method requires no ID and the other method requires ID.

By the way 83% of people support voter ID. Including 71% of Dems.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
23,779
14,595
Earth
✟279,295.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
It isn't. I've done plenty of traveling and little of it was outside the US. Your general lack of precision in your writing is causing you problems again.
Hey, this brings up an interesting scenario: what’s to stop a state from “securing it’s borders“ and have all out-of-state people have to show ID, (or pay to “bypass” this on EZPass?)?

The untapped travelers’-tax might be the next “gambling” for revenue?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,420
17,952
56
USA
✟462,971.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Hey, this brings up an interesting scenario: what’s to stop a state from “securing it’s borders“ and have all out-of-state people have to show ID, (or pay to “bypass” this on EZPass?)?

The untapped travelers’-tax might be the next “gambling” for revenue?
The Constitution has that covered:

 
  • Informative
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,978
17,828
Here
✟1,580,147.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So they have ID for driving, drinking, tax, welfare, travelling and many other things. Why not voting which is one of the most important things.
In the US:

The "ID for driving" is a license to show that you have been appropriately trained and retain permission to drive. It contains a picture so that it can be verified by an officer (if needed) that the driver is the person on the license.

The "ID for drinking" is just a verification that the potential drinker is above the legal age (21). Any "reliable" document that demonstrates the person is at least 21 will do.

The "ID for tax" is just a number that ties taxable and tax-credit worthy transactions to a tax payer. The only place where that number is stored on my person is in my brain.

I would say perhaps a more apropos example would be needing a photo ID for flying when you go through TSA.

...and why I can't just show up at the airport with my voter registration card and say "See, I'm Rob, it's written right there on the card"

The point of a photo ID card, and it being a card that was issued by the state/federal government (and not just something a person filled out) is so that a person in charge of screening (for whatever purpose) can look at it, and have some assurances that the person handing them the card is actually the person referenced on the card.

Otherwise, there is literally nothing that would stop me from voting on behalf of a family member who was roughly the same age, who I knew wasn't planning on voting.

And it's not even a controversial practice, a large plurality of voters, across nearly every demographic category, is highly in favor of it.


How some states can have ID-free voting in conjunction with universal mail-in ballots, and still try to assert "our elections are completely secure and there's no evidence there's anything to be concerned about" is counterintuitive.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
16,318
9,955
53
✟424,869.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
  • Wow
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
26,371
22,237
✟1,845,918.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How some states can have ID-free voting in conjunction with universal mail-in ballots, and still try to assert "our elections are completely secure and there's no evidence there's anything to be concerned about" is counterintuitive.

There is no evidence that voter fraud (by citizens or non-citizens) occurs at a rate that impacted an election.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,420
17,952
56
USA
✟462,971.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I would say perhaps a more apropos example would be needing a photo ID for flying when you go through TSA.

...and why I can't just show up at the airport with my voter registration card and say "See, I'm Rob, it's written right there on the card"

The point of a photo ID card, and it being a card that was issued by the state/federal government (and not just something a person filled out) is so that a person in charge of screening (for whatever purpose) can look at it, and have some assurances that the person handing them the card is actually the person referenced on the card.

Otherwise, there is literally nothing that would stop me from voting on behalf of a family member who was roughly the same age, who I knew wasn't planning on voting.

And it's not even a controversial practice, a large plurality of voters, across nearly every demographic category, is highly in favor of it.


How some states can have ID-free voting in conjunction with universal mail-in ballots, and still try to assert "our elections are completely secure and there's no evidence there's anything to be concerned about" is counterintuitive.
It's not a "Voter ID" bill, it is a "prove your citizenship or stop voting" bill.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
26,371
22,237
✟1,845,918.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many citizens don't have access to documentary proof of citzenship.

"Kansas offers a case study of how a documentary proof requirement would likely play out in practice. Before the law took effect, noncitizen registration in Kansas was exceedingly rare, accounting for about 0.002% of registered voters. After adoption, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement prevented roughly 31,000 eligible citizens, or 12% of all applicants, from registering to vote. In short, the law prevented far more citizens from registering to vote than noncitizens."

 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,978
17,828
Here
✟1,580,147.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is no evidence that voter fraud (by citizens or non-citizens) occurs at a rate that impacted an election.

Well sure...

When a system is constructed to prevent evidence from ever emerging in the first place, that outcome isn't surprising.

...Can't build a system around intentionally creating an unknown, and then cite lack of evidence to substantiate a claim that "it doesn't really happen that much"


For the record, stated earlier that my gut instinct was that it's nowhere near the level of reaching 6 million occurrences (which is what have taken to flip the outcome of 2020). But the single and double-digit numbers people toss out to support the "it was the most accurate and secure and well-run election ever" talking point is borderline laughable.

Universal mail-in ballots with no ID requirement is tantamount to taking away any/all radar and speed detection devices from the cops, and then saying "Our roads are incredibly safe...look!, there's no evidence of anyone speeding"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,978
17,828
Here
✟1,580,147.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's not a "Voter ID" bill, it is a "prove your citizenship or stop voting" bill.
Still doesn't sound terribly unreasonable...

If I were going to another country, they'd want to verify my place of citizenship and where I'm from to merely be present in the country to take a vacation and do sight-seeing, having people clear the same bar to actually vote in an election doesn't sound all that wacky. (especially considering that some states are trying to allow for ID-free, mail-in voting)

Canada requires a photo ID coast to coast, and their IDs are linked to the data showing immigration status which is regularly being matched up against the voter rolls. (even during Covid, they built out a system that still required a photo-ID proof when requesting a mail-in ballot)


Would calling this law the LUDILC (Let Us Do It Like Canada) act have made it an easier pill to swallow for people?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
13,642
6,622
Minnesota
✟365,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Many citizens don't have access to documentary proof of citzenship.

"Kansas offers a case study of how a documentary proof requirement would likely play out in practice. Before the law took effect, noncitizen registration in Kansas was exceedingly rare, accounting for about 0.002% of registered voters. After adoption, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement prevented roughly 31,000 eligible citizens, or 12% of all applicants, from registering to vote. In short, the law prevented far more citizens from registering to vote than noncitizens."

Germany has a great system. They keep a national registry of citizens and put them on the voter roles when they turn 18. If a citizen moves it is the responsibility of the citizen to provide a new address. Weeks before elections they notify everyone of their valid registration. Many election problems in the U.S. stem from states having their own systems. North Dakota, for example, doesn't even require voters to register.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,420
17,952
56
USA
✟462,971.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Still doesn't sound terribly unreasonable...
Let's see if you understood the bill...
If I were going to another country, they'd want to verify my place of citizenship and where I'm from to merely be present in the country to take a vacation and do sight-seeing, having people clear the same bar to actually vote in an election doesn't sound all that wacky. (especially considering that some states are trying to allow for ID-free, mail-in voting)

Canada requires a photo ID coast to coast, and their IDs are linked to the data showing immigration status which is regularly being matched up against the voter rolls. (even during Covid, they built out a system that still required a photo-ID proof when requesting a mail-in ballot)


Would calling this law the LUDILC (Let Us Do It Like Canada) act have made it an easier pill to swallow for people?
Nope. Still talking about "voter ID".
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,818
2,142
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟346,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I would say perhaps a more apropos example would be needing a photo ID for flying when you go through TSA.

...and why I can't just show up at the airport with my voter registration card and say "See, I'm Rob, it's written right there on the card"

The point of a photo ID card, and it being a card that was issued by the state/federal government (and not just something a person filled out) is so that a person in charge of screening (for whatever purpose) can look at it, and have some assurances that the person handing them the card is actually the person referenced on the card.

Otherwise, there is literally nothing that would stop me from voting on behalf of a family member who was roughly the same age, who I knew wasn't planning on voting.

And it's not even a controversial practice, a large plurality of voters, across nearly every demographic category, is highly in favor of it.


How some states can have ID-free voting in conjunction with universal mail-in ballots, and still try to assert "our elections are completely secure and there's no evidence there's anything to be concerned about" is counterintuitive.
Thats the idea. To make it that its hard to tell.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
29,978
17,828
Here
✟1,580,147.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nope. Still talking about "voter ID".
Great, so let's do Voter ID like Canada. Canada is the cool progressive neighbor to the north that doesn't like guns, is cool with LGBTQ stuff, and is hyper-aware of racial issues.

So can we do elections and voter ID like Canada?...... or is the answer to that question "no" for "reasons"??
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0