OT: Voter ID

[Sporty]

Cases where the judges refuse to even proceed with further litigation should be a hint that there's no merit in the claims.

• Evidentiary hearings: In a subset of the more than 60 post-election lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies, state trial courts held hearings where local witnesses, poll watchers, and expert computer or statistical analysts gave oral testimony or submitted signed affidavits. [1]

• Lack of proof: Judges routinely noted that while some witnesses testified about perceived irregularities or operational mistakes, the actual testimony and evidence failed to establish systemic fraud or a sufficient number of illegal votes to change the outcome of the election. [1, 2]

• Dismissals: The vast majority of these substantive cases were rejected because the sworn testimony or supporting evidence did not legally substantiate the claims being made. [1]

 

[4.6.3]

They'll say there hasn't been rampant fraud.

Apparently some fraud is not worth trying to stop. It must be rampant first.

“Even if it is rampant, why do you care”???
“Can you prove it changed results”?

 

[4.6.3]

Just curious what these retarded Demonrats and “educators” think about the tax on ammunition, firearms, and even the background check and permit fees to exercise that right…. Oh yeah they don’t care, and must keep up the grift the higher ranked retards in their Union have ordered them to parrot.

 

[4.6.3]

That fat retard will not leave. He lives for being a contrarian douchebag. You all know the type. The high school loser who always spoke the loudest, even though everyone knows he’s lying… and they have zero friends. The pathetic retard actually has a few fellow retards (with room temp iqs) who think he’s super cool. Just remember he is incapable of having a relationship with a woman. It upsets him, and he has made this whole pathetic persona to try and cover his feelings. He NEEDS this place. It’s the only thing in his life where he feels like anyone even realizes he exists.

 

[Anon1751408132]

Not at all. what other components of the bill would you like to discuss?

1st - The bill would require a person to provide proof they are a citizen of the US before they are registered to vote. (NJ stuff shows that simply isn't enough) Opponent claim this would eliminate most current online and mail registration methods. Damn - yes, proving you are who you are through online or mail can be easily done by any fraudster. Oh my gosh, providing a passport or a birth certificate when you register to vote.....what an inconvenience.

But wait, opponents claim it is already a law that illegal aliens cannot vote in elections. There are also laws that prohibit minors purchasing alcohol, driving a vehicle, boarding an airplane without an id. Yet minors purchase alcohol daily, people drive without a license and insurance daily, and even I have went through security at an airport with no id.

Oh wait there is more, people would have to prove their citizenship everytime they vote. You know who is against this? People who can't prove they are eligible to vote. Oh my gosh, you mean I may have to bring my birth certificate and my driver's license to the polling station? That is unfair, why can't I just send a picture from my home computer? Surely everyone is honest with who they are.

The entire argument against the SAVE act is either it being an inconvenience or people not having the proper documentation to prove citizenship.

You realize you just proved my point

Btw did I say I was against voter ID, nope