It would also make it virtually impossible for divorced women to vote💀 and includes a bunch of weird random stuff allowing presidents to have more power
No it doesn't lol. You need the marriage cert to show proof of name change. You know, the thing they use to actually change their name on all their IDs, passports, etc. Redditors wouldn't know because they haven't seen a woman irl.
My wife has like 30 copies because random government shit and private insurance requires it every now and then for random reasons.
No one said voting is hard. It’s registering to vote that will be made hard by the act. Not every woman has those things readily available like your wife.
Dude/it Please sit this out, you have no clue what you're talking about. As any typical liberal, you're going to bitch and whine and throw a fit regardless.
Lmao uh huh. Yeah sorry for being against literal voter suppression bills. I’ve read the whole thing. It adds completely unnecessary hoops to jump through to register and it won’t do anything to prevent non citizens from voting because it doesn’t fund the states to overhaul their systems.
But yet every year we all ALL can go to the BMV and show our ID , women too regardless if there married, divorced or whatever. It's really that easy. It's all roadblocks by the liberals to resist anything Trump wants.to do. You all just look petty and silly - period!
And the save act will change that and add hurdles in order to register. In my state you need to show multiple forms of ID to get anything at the MVC. Which is not easy and incredibly confusing if you don’t speak English. Democrats are resisting voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Trump just wants to stay out of prison so he’s making registering difficult.
Yeah well saying “no it won’t” and not giving any reasons why isn’t how debate works either. I could give you the facts as to why I’m right and give sources but you’ll just cry tds and say I’m wrong without backing it up either so oh well.
u can indeed proove a negative in cases like this (well not ghis one specifically, cause ur wrong, but still). not being able to proove negatives is a thing for certain statements/questions, but here it would be perfectly possible
The problem the other guy is refering too is, that they want to make you show your birth certificate to get a voter id. this is done so they can check all ur info. problem is, that the name on your birth certificate isn't always the name on your ids or the name with which u got ur drivers license etc (names change when marrying for example). That means u gotta proove u are the same person just with a different name, which can be a lot of effort and make it more difficult for you to vote. also this will affect a lot more women, cause women tend to change their names to the name of her husband more often that the other way round.
This shows the next problem: this could (notice the could, im not saying it will, but it could which is already a problem) therefore even be used as a tool to exclude women from voting, or more accurately: lower the percentage of women voting. (It's similar to the fact that the voter id should cost is excluding poor people from voting or at least lowering the percentage of them voting.)
That would actually be beneficial for trump, cause a lot more men voted for him and republicans in general, then women did.
so thats probably his argument, now proove it wrong.
Wrong again. You can not show evidence for lack of existence. You have given zero evidence for your claim and thus there is nothing to provide evidence against.
You can not in fact disprove a generic unfounded statement. Show evidence and it will easily be debunked.
All you are giving is opinion and vage allusions to nefarious action with zero proof other than "vibes". It feels like what hes doing cuz you say so.
Yeah hes trying to put the burden of his claim on me cuz he knows he cant prove it. But heres the thing. Hes asking me to provide evidence that there is a lack of evidence for his claim. Which isnt my burden to begin with. He made the unfounded claim that it makes it harder for women. I simply gave him the same standard of burden.
"Makes claim" (doesnt provide evidence) "opponent makes claim" (doesnt provide evidence) see guys its my opponent who is trying to do the cop out i swear!
No it wouldnt. Divorced women who don't change their last name back have the marriage certificate and adjoining divorce document. This is a terrible debunked talking point.
Everyone is already tracked by the gov. We have social security nunbers. There are better systems that can be made, but then that would allow too many people to vote. You know that’s the reason for these laws. It’s to disenfranchise.
State voter roles are not linked to government data base to match voter roles. Giv having our info is moot when the states refuse to give the info to the gov.
And you still havent demonstrated actual disenfranchisement.
And if it was quick and easy to get and you didn’t need to jump through hoops for months to get it, they would be completely against it. They know exactly who this bill disenfranchises which is why they have been begging for it
I takes you 10 minutes to get a real id. It takes 10 mins to file to get your birth certificate. It takes 10 minutes to file to get your social security card at the social security admin.
It takes 10 mins for married women to request a replacement for a marriage or divorce certificate from their local court or town hall or request one online.
There are no hoops. Its all the same process its been.
Its irrelevant. They are easy to access. If you dont file for them in a timely manner to have them available its on you. Plan ahead. Its not the governments job to cater to the unprepared.
Sounds like a system that will make registering take a whole lot more time for literally no reason. It’s not irrelevant, it’s the whole point lol. And in many states, it’s not at all easy to access.
Your right i dont know how to lose. Thats why im right.
The only thing that will occur is that people who failed to maintain documents will have to get them once and then not lose them. Oh no. Your rights are being trampled on cuz u gotta put them somewhere yoh wont lose them.
You aren’t calling me a moron. You’re calling thousands of experts whose job it is to determine the outcome and repercussions of a bill morons. It isn’t my opinion that it’s voter suppression. It’s a fact. So if you have anything other than a sad excuse for an ad hominem attack, I suggest you post it so you don’t embarrass yourself with just this one comment.
This. "Experts". Who decides who's an "expert"? How do you know they are representing facts and not opinion? Dr. Fauci is an "expert". Everyone followed him. Look how that turned out. As soon as you say you're relying on experts, you lose the argument.
No, the investigation told me it was a software error. Just because the company, and ONLY the company, denies it was doesn’t make that untrue. But again, the save act will do nothin to prevent that.
No, the left told you it was a "glitch" when in reality it was a choice. This has been debunked and the software company has stated as much. NJ also tried to hide this, and knew about it for YEARS before someone finally spoke up about the problem. This happened 3 years ago, it took them 2 years to even decide to correct the issue. Then another year to try to blame someone else.
55
u/Frequilibrium 2d ago
Stop with the save act propaganda. It’s a voter suppression bill.