- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mitch McConnell today regarding SAVE Act
Posted on 2/27/26 at 1:16 pm to TBoy
Posted on 2/27/26 at 1:16 pm to TBoy
quote:
Just consider something briefly mentioned in another thread, why do you think that the SAVE Act is being held up by republicans? My best guess is that Republican leadership wants every vote it can get in the next cycle and they know that rural voters are the most likely to not have passports or certified birth certificates. The SAVE Act may block more rural republicans than urban democrats.
My theory as to why? There is a segment of the GOP that has the spine of a jellyfish and truly doesn’t want to be in charge. They’d rather whine about what the left is doing but have the fallback of throwing their hands up and saying “well we can’t change it. We’re out-voted in the house/senate.”
2
Posted on 2/27/26 at 1:26 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
My theory as to why? There is a segment of the GOP that has the spine of a jellyfish and truly doesn’t want to be in charge. They’d rather whine about what the left is doing but have the fallback of throwing their hands up and saying “well we can’t change it. We’re out-voted in the house/senate.”
I would never argue against that. Totally plausible.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 4:32 pm to TBoy
quote:
I would never argue against that. Totally plausible.
I am curious by something you posted earlier. You said you’d have no issue with at least some form of verification of citizenship to ensure the security of our elections. Even in the best case scenario that you suggested, it would be likely that we would end up in a place where “flagged” individuals would need to provide documentation to clear their status. We found common ground there. Is it possible that perhaps after digging into, not just tag lines and talking points, but the reality of how our elections could reasonably be made more secure that you’re not as opposed to the functionality of the SAVE Act after all?
As I said earlier, even in the hypothetical you introduced, the need for documentation would still arise. Do you feel any less opposed than you did before?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 4:37 pm to scrooster
Fire the motherfricker now as a matter of national security.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 4:38 pm to JiminyCricket
No, they are all in on the grift. What works for the Dems today could work for the Reps tomorrow.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 4:45 pm to TBoy
quote:Obviously there are "means." The question for blue states, for the first time since Southern blue state Dems implemented Jim Crow, is do they have will to implement the means?
when there are already means available today to ensure the security of the system.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:01 pm to cajuntiger1010
Kentucky strikes again.
Get your shite together.
Get your shite together.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:04 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
I am curious by something you posted earlier
Democrats are all giant hypocrites.
They spent years trying to convince you Putin hacked our elections but now try and convince you fraud doesn’t happen.
Requiring ID for voting is racist. Needing it for everything else in life that actually matters, not racist.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News