Elections Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

Loiosh said:
That's why I asked you if you believed it was true.

Progressive policies aren't intended to grow the Democratic voting base by bringing in more bodies.

Immigrants aren't a net negative to the economy, either. An adult immigrant is a huge boon as children are incredibly expensive to a country. You'll notice that Republicans fought every measure to process them efficiently and prefer to just kick them all out by any means necessary.

Considering American birth rates it's an incredibly short-sighted philosophy.

What troubles me the most is how little conservatives care about human rights and the constitution.
Click to expand...

I am not a conservative, but prior to trump, the constitution for conservatives was the be all end all. Maybe that’s changing, but for me, it is still muy importante
 
nhbbear said:
I am not a conservative, but prior to trump, the constitution for conservatives was the be all end all. Maybe that’s changing, but for me, it is still muy importante
Click to expand...
As someone that usually respects your positions on things, you are most definitely conservatively leaning whether you like to admit it or not. You were/are a LEO, right? It's totally understandable you would be. I would be too if I were in that profession.
 
fingercuffs said:
This whole women having to prove their name when 80% of them changed their name due to marriage is unsettling, another P25 thing about our rights, but I think more Dems have passports than GOP so it could backfire.
Click to expand...
You’re spouting out lies from the left .

Stop believing blue anon bro
known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), introduced in the 119th Congress. This bill aims to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for registering to vote in federal elections. Let’s address your question about whether married women can still vote under this legislation, based on the bill’s text and its implications.

The SAVE Act does not explicitly mention marital status or target married women. Instead, it focuses on ensuring that only U.S. citizens register to vote by requiring specific forms of identification. Section 3 of the bill mandates that states cannot accept or process a voter registration application for federal elections unless the applicant provides documentary proof of citizenship, such as a REAL ID-compliant identification (e.g., a driver’s license or state ID indicating citizenship), a U.S. passport, or a birth certificate paired with a government-issued photo ID. It also allows states to establish alternative processes for applicants who cannot provide these documents, as long as they can still demonstrate citizenship.

Concerns about married women being unable to vote seem to stem from misinformation or misinterpretation circulating online, particularly on platforms like X. Some posts suggest that if a woman’s name on her voter registration doesn’t match her birth certificate (e.g., due to taking her husband’s last name after marriage), she might be barred from voting. However, the bill’s text does not support this claim. It does not require a voter’s current name to match their birth certificate; it requires proof of citizenship tied to the individual’s identity. Common IDs like a driver’s license or passport—updated to reflect a married name—would suffice, as long as they meet the citizenship verification criteria (e.g., REAL ID compliance). Additionally, Section 4 allows states to verify citizenship using federal databases or other records, providing flexibility for name changes due to marriage.
 
Loiosh said:
Maybe?

Have you been watching the news?

Trump has been pissing all over the constitution.
Click to expand...

I don’t watch the news. I get it from articles that I choose to read. I don’t read the news very often now because it is very depressing and upsetting.
 
Crazy Source said:
As someone that usually respects your positions on things, you are most definitely conservatively leaning whether you like to admit it or not. You were/are a LEO, right? It's totally understandable you would be. I would be too if I were in that profession.
Click to expand...

I have conservative leanings on some issues (gun rights) but liberal tendencies on other issues-treatment of mental illness/drug addicts/occasionally other issues as well. But some issues, it’s hard to determine which side I fall on because both sides claim to be supporters of the first amendment, which is debatable. I have been accused by some of being very conservative and others, like those guys I used to supervise on the pd, of being a raging liberal. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I guess is an applicable expression here. I take it issue by issue, case by case. I do genuinely hate extremists on both sides and like life right here in the middle, however, it feels pretty lonely on my own little island with little in the way of political representation
 
nhbbear said:
I have conservative leanings on some issues (gun rights) but liberal tendencies on other issues-treatment of mental illness/drug addicts/occasionally other issues as well. But some issues, it’s hard to determine which side I fall on because both sides claim to be supporters of the first amendment, which is debatable. I have been accused by some of being very conservative and others, like those guys I used to supervise on the pd, of being a raging liberal. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I guess is an applicable expression here. I take it issue by issue, case by case.
Click to expand...
<mma4>
 
ShadowRun said:
You’re spouting out lies from the left .

Stop believing blue anon bro
known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), introduced in the 119th Congress. This bill aims to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for registering to vote in federal elections. Let’s address your question about whether married women can still vote under this legislation, based on the bill’s text and its implications.

The SAVE Act does not explicitly mention marital status or target married women. Instead, it focuses on ensuring that only U.S. citizens register to vote by requiring specific forms of identification. Section 3 of the bill mandates that states cannot accept or process a voter registration application for federal elections unless the applicant provides documentary proof of citizenship, such as a REAL ID-compliant identification (e.g., a driver’s license or state ID indicating citizenship), a U.S. passport, or a birth certificate paired with a government-issued photo ID. It also allows states to establish alternative processes for applicants who cannot provide these documents, as long as they can still demonstrate citizenship.

Concerns about married women being unable to vote seem to stem from misinformation or misinterpretation circulating online, particularly on platforms like X. Some posts suggest that if a woman’s name on her voter registration doesn’t match her birth certificate (e.g., due to taking her husband’s last name after marriage), she might be barred from voting. However, the bill’s text does not support this claim. It does not require a voter’s current name to match their birth certificate; it requires proof of citizenship tied to the individual’s identity. Common IDs like a driver’s license or passport—updated to reflect a married name—would suffice, as long as they meet the citizenship verification criteria (e.g., REAL ID compliance). Additionally, Section 4 allows states to verify citizenship using federal databases or other records, providing flexibility for name changes due to marriage.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what we have already haha.
 
ShadowRun said:
Well apparently some weak ass mod did not like our discussions about voter IDs and the circumstances around it all . How disappointing I thought we had a good back and forth
Click to expand...
Who knows who, let's pinky make don't know what but do it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,969
Messages
58,332,019
Members
176,002
Latest member
Shock7

Share this page

Back
Top