John, I admire your optimism about the future of Iran, and once again, I am not shedding any tears for the mullahs or other leaders in Iran that have met their 72 virgins. However, if you look at our track record in the Middle East vis a vis regime chance: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan - we are basically 0-4. Our military is the best in the world, and can defeat any other military in the world in conventional combat situations, but "regime change" takes more than that. I just think it's overly naive to think this war won't drag on, in some form for at least 10 years. This looks like Iraq 2.0 to me.
I agree with you. If Trump plans to put troops on the ground to support a regime change that's a big mistake. Another concern is a study I read awhile back that 20 percent of Iranians support their religious leaders. If we cut that in half you have 9 million which I would call religious fanatics. Probably many are supportive simply for survival. But if there are even one million fanatics, transition won't be easy.
Exactly. Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq in 2003? Different country and culture in Iran of course, but principle is the same.
“Why is it easier to kill an evil, Hitler clone, Iranian Dictator, than it is to pass the Save Act, that 95% of all Republicans support, 70% of Democrats support, and 85% of all Americans support. — Rob O.”
Because there's less than 60 ignorant or unethical or spineless people in our Senate.
At best, the Save Act is a solution to a fantasy-driven problem. Study after study has shown that there's hardly any voter impersonation and voting by non-citizens. For example, the 2020 election votes were repeatedly scrutinized. In states where Biden narrowly won, i.e. by 10,000 votes or so, only a handful of votes were fraudulent. If memory serves, none of these votes were for Biden. Even former Atty General Bill Barr, a Trump loyalist, admitted that there was no substantial voter fraud in 2020.
At first glance, the bill is seductive. Even though there‘s hardly any voter impersonation or voting by non-citizens, what’s the harm of requiring a picture ID and proof of citizenship in order to exercise your fundamental right to vote?
As Popeye the Sailor – um, er, uh I mean Ross Perot – emphasized, “The devil’s in the details.”
First, there’s the constitutional issue. Article I, Section 4 of our Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.”
The Save Act might be ruled unconstitutional. Assuming the SCOTUS declares it constitutional, its passage would create practical problems.
If passed, millions of otherwise voter eligible Americans would either jump through extra hoops or be denied their right to vote. The tens of millions of otherwise eligible American without U. S. passports or state-issued ID's confirming citizenship would have to bring their birth certificates to prove citizenship.
What if an otherwise voter eligible American shows up at the polls with a copy of his certified birth certificate, one without the original seal. Is that valid? What if an otherwise eligible American shows up to vote but has an expired drivers' license? The Texas voter ID law at least formerly prevented an otherwise voter eligible American from voting unless he had a CURRENT picture ID WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE, i.e. an otherwise eligible American would be denied his right to vote if he is currently a Univ. of Texas student and all he had was his student (picture) ID. Student IDs don't have an expiration date. Of course, if he had a current NRA ID, he could vote because those IDs have an expiration date. But if his NRA ID expired the day before the election, he would be denied his right to vote. That provision might have been stricken by the courts, however.
Does the Save Act have such nonsensical restrictions?
There'd also be thorny problems when otherwise voter eligible Americans' surnames are different from the surnames on their birth certificate, drivers' licenses or state-issued IDs. This problem would predominantly affect women - a lot of women. Of course, women are more likely to vote Democratic. Do these women need to also produce certified copies of their marriage certificates?
The Save Act probably would result in much longer wait times to vote. Current wait times already are frequently too long. If a poll worker allows someone to vote who does not meet the Save Act's strict criteria, he's a criminal. Poll workers advisedly would take their time to meticulously ensure the documents presented are adequate AND authentic – i.e. that they aren’t forgeries. Otherwise, they might be dragged through the criminal justice system.
In addition, beleaguered poll workers would also have to take the time to explain to otherwise voter eligible Americans why they're denied their right to vote.
Can you imagine the abuse and anguish volunteer poll workers or poll workers with paltry compensation would undergo trying to make sure they aren't criminals? Those showing up to vote having "faulty" IDs probably would be livid when the poll worker explains that their ID doesn't conform to the law. The harassment poll workers have been subjected to over recent decades would escalate. Who'd want to be a poll worker if doing so means they'd either be criminals or harassed?
What about the millions of otherwise voter eligible adult Americans who don't have a driver's license, don’t have a state-issued ID and don’t have a copy of their birth certificate? Under the Save Act they would be denied their right to vote unless they go to the trouble and expense of getting their certified birth certificates AND their state-issued IDs or drivers’ licenses. Would that be a constitutionally prohibited toll tax?
The Save Acts also bans mail-in voting, with limited exceptions. In order to be granted an exception, you have to jump through more hoops. Thankfully, now Hawaii almost exclusively has mail-in voting. At first, I was against the idea. But the safeguards and checks are rigorous enough to deter substantial voter fraud. Many eligible voters are single parents working a FT and a PT job. They don't have time to take-off and go vote, especially if there's a long wait time.
Is it constitutional for the feds to ban mail-in voting and to place hurdles in the way of those wanting an exception to this ban?
Those favoring the Save Act either don’t realize its likely ramifications or favor voter suppression. Most in Congress and at least some in the Trump administration certainly are in this latter category. I don’t know what category President Trump falls under.
Some don’t want every eligible American to vote. My experience is that they are usually conservatives. For example, Bill O’Reilly – who is fundamentally conservative despite his denials - said something to the effect that he’s not one who thinks that everyone who can vote should vote. In fairness, Bill Maher – a moderate liberal – also says this.
There's the argument that the Save Act would restore trust in our elections. First, those making that argument strangely look like the ones spreading the lie of rampant voter impersonation or of non-citizens voting. Second, the sour grapes wanting to delegitimize elections that don't go their way typically will find a conspiracy theory to justify their victimhood.
This is a great summary of the problems with the bill. The people that say you just need to show your ID don't realize that the bill specifies that you can only show an ID that shows on the front of it that you are a US citizen. None of our ID's (there are a select few states that do show it) will be sufficient. Wanting them to fix the problems is not an indication that people want to illegally vote.
I personally don't care if the Save act prevents illegal voting or not. I see it as a method to build integrity into the voting system. Why anyone is afraid of this legislation is a mystery to me. Could be that there is illegal voting?
Yes, it's hysterical! I'm seeing maga people posting comments like, "She didn't get fired!! Read the article!!" It's true she is not unemployed, but she was removed from a Cabinet Secretary position to a made up job with no clear responsibilities. In the corporate world, we call that "special assignment".
Perhaps Trump is trying to retain the sycophants he has in house because few, if any, reading the tea leaves are willing throw their existing career overboard knowing they will likely ruin their future for uncertainty with him.
John: I want to explore the term RINO, which I hate. Stands for Republican In Name Only and was most recently applied to Dan Crenshaw, who fell out of favor with the MAGA crowd and lost his primary race in Texas. I actually think most of the modern Republican party are RINO's, having forsaken many of the principles of conservatism - rule of law, personal responsibility, and especially fiscal conservatism. Has RINO just become a pejorative term among our Republican crowd for RIDL (Republicans I Don't Like)?
I’ve been wondering for awhile now which is better: parties selecting their candidate in backroom deals Like the old days; or the public primary system which, as you say, very few people participate in which leaves the party radicals left to pick the candidate. Your thought?
John, I admire your optimism about the future of Iran, and once again, I am not shedding any tears for the mullahs or other leaders in Iran that have met their 72 virgins. However, if you look at our track record in the Middle East vis a vis regime chance: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan - we are basically 0-4. Our military is the best in the world, and can defeat any other military in the world in conventional combat situations, but "regime change" takes more than that. I just think it's overly naive to think this war won't drag on, in some form for at least 10 years. This looks like Iraq 2.0 to me.
I agree with you. If Trump plans to put troops on the ground to support a regime change that's a big mistake. Another concern is a study I read awhile back that 20 percent of Iranians support their religious leaders. If we cut that in half you have 9 million which I would call religious fanatics. Probably many are supportive simply for survival. But if there are even one million fanatics, transition won't be easy.
Exactly. Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq in 2003? Different country and culture in Iran of course, but principle is the same.
“Why is it easier to kill an evil, Hitler clone, Iranian Dictator, than it is to pass the Save Act, that 95% of all Republicans support, 70% of Democrats support, and 85% of all Americans support. — Rob O.”
Because there's less than 60 ignorant or unethical or spineless people in our Senate.
At best, the Save Act is a solution to a fantasy-driven problem. Study after study has shown that there's hardly any voter impersonation and voting by non-citizens. For example, the 2020 election votes were repeatedly scrutinized. In states where Biden narrowly won, i.e. by 10,000 votes or so, only a handful of votes were fraudulent. If memory serves, none of these votes were for Biden. Even former Atty General Bill Barr, a Trump loyalist, admitted that there was no substantial voter fraud in 2020.
At first glance, the bill is seductive. Even though there‘s hardly any voter impersonation or voting by non-citizens, what’s the harm of requiring a picture ID and proof of citizenship in order to exercise your fundamental right to vote?
As Popeye the Sailor – um, er, uh I mean Ross Perot – emphasized, “The devil’s in the details.”
First, there’s the constitutional issue. Article I, Section 4 of our Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.”
The Save Act might be ruled unconstitutional. Assuming the SCOTUS declares it constitutional, its passage would create practical problems.
If passed, millions of otherwise voter eligible Americans would either jump through extra hoops or be denied their right to vote. The tens of millions of otherwise eligible American without U. S. passports or state-issued ID's confirming citizenship would have to bring their birth certificates to prove citizenship.
What if an otherwise voter eligible American shows up at the polls with a copy of his certified birth certificate, one without the original seal. Is that valid? What if an otherwise eligible American shows up to vote but has an expired drivers' license? The Texas voter ID law at least formerly prevented an otherwise voter eligible American from voting unless he had a CURRENT picture ID WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE, i.e. an otherwise eligible American would be denied his right to vote if he is currently a Univ. of Texas student and all he had was his student (picture) ID. Student IDs don't have an expiration date. Of course, if he had a current NRA ID, he could vote because those IDs have an expiration date. But if his NRA ID expired the day before the election, he would be denied his right to vote. That provision might have been stricken by the courts, however.
Does the Save Act have such nonsensical restrictions?
There'd also be thorny problems when otherwise voter eligible Americans' surnames are different from the surnames on their birth certificate, drivers' licenses or state-issued IDs. This problem would predominantly affect women - a lot of women. Of course, women are more likely to vote Democratic. Do these women need to also produce certified copies of their marriage certificates?
The Save Act probably would result in much longer wait times to vote. Current wait times already are frequently too long. If a poll worker allows someone to vote who does not meet the Save Act's strict criteria, he's a criminal. Poll workers advisedly would take their time to meticulously ensure the documents presented are adequate AND authentic – i.e. that they aren’t forgeries. Otherwise, they might be dragged through the criminal justice system.
In addition, beleaguered poll workers would also have to take the time to explain to otherwise voter eligible Americans why they're denied their right to vote.
Can you imagine the abuse and anguish volunteer poll workers or poll workers with paltry compensation would undergo trying to make sure they aren't criminals? Those showing up to vote having "faulty" IDs probably would be livid when the poll worker explains that their ID doesn't conform to the law. The harassment poll workers have been subjected to over recent decades would escalate. Who'd want to be a poll worker if doing so means they'd either be criminals or harassed?
What about the millions of otherwise voter eligible adult Americans who don't have a driver's license, don’t have a state-issued ID and don’t have a copy of their birth certificate? Under the Save Act they would be denied their right to vote unless they go to the trouble and expense of getting their certified birth certificates AND their state-issued IDs or drivers’ licenses. Would that be a constitutionally prohibited toll tax?
The Save Acts also bans mail-in voting, with limited exceptions. In order to be granted an exception, you have to jump through more hoops. Thankfully, now Hawaii almost exclusively has mail-in voting. At first, I was against the idea. But the safeguards and checks are rigorous enough to deter substantial voter fraud. Many eligible voters are single parents working a FT and a PT job. They don't have time to take-off and go vote, especially if there's a long wait time.
Is it constitutional for the feds to ban mail-in voting and to place hurdles in the way of those wanting an exception to this ban?
Those favoring the Save Act either don’t realize its likely ramifications or favor voter suppression. Most in Congress and at least some in the Trump administration certainly are in this latter category. I don’t know what category President Trump falls under.
Some don’t want every eligible American to vote. My experience is that they are usually conservatives. For example, Bill O’Reilly – who is fundamentally conservative despite his denials - said something to the effect that he’s not one who thinks that everyone who can vote should vote. In fairness, Bill Maher – a moderate liberal – also says this.
There's the argument that the Save Act would restore trust in our elections. First, those making that argument strangely look like the ones spreading the lie of rampant voter impersonation or of non-citizens voting. Second, the sour grapes wanting to delegitimize elections that don't go their way typically will find a conspiracy theory to justify their victimhood.
This is a great summary of the problems with the bill. The people that say you just need to show your ID don't realize that the bill specifies that you can only show an ID that shows on the front of it that you are a US citizen. None of our ID's (there are a select few states that do show it) will be sufficient. Wanting them to fix the problems is not an indication that people want to illegally vote.
I personally don't care if the Save act prevents illegal voting or not. I see it as a method to build integrity into the voting system. Why anyone is afraid of this legislation is a mystery to me. Could be that there is illegal voting?
"Why anyone is afraid of this legislation is a mystery to me. Could be that there is illegal voting?"
Did I not give detailed answers (yes, plural) to your question. Do me a favor. Take another gander at it.
Bob, your outline is way to long for my small brain.
Another one under the bus
Another one under the bus
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one under the bus, yeah
Hey, you gotta make some room
Another one under the bus
I see the MAGA crowd is calling Noel’s change in position a “promotion.” lol. What is wrong with these people.
Yes, it's hysterical! I'm seeing maga people posting comments like, "She didn't get fired!! Read the article!!" It's true she is not unemployed, but she was removed from a Cabinet Secretary position to a made up job with no clear responsibilities. In the corporate world, we call that "special assignment".
Perhaps Trump is trying to retain the sycophants he has in house because few, if any, reading the tea leaves are willing throw their existing career overboard knowing they will likely ruin their future for uncertainty with him.
John: I want to explore the term RINO, which I hate. Stands for Republican In Name Only and was most recently applied to Dan Crenshaw, who fell out of favor with the MAGA crowd and lost his primary race in Texas. I actually think most of the modern Republican party are RINO's, having forsaken many of the principles of conservatism - rule of law, personal responsibility, and especially fiscal conservatism. Has RINO just become a pejorative term among our Republican crowd for RIDL (Republicans I Don't Like)?
Actually John now that I think about it you wrote about the primary system awhile back, didn’t you?
I’ve been wondering for awhile now which is better: parties selecting their candidate in backroom deals Like the old days; or the public primary system which, as you say, very few people participate in which leaves the party radicals left to pick the candidate. Your thought?