208 Democrats Voted Against The Save Act, Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote. Why Do Democrats Want Non-Citizens To Vote?

[pxmcc]

all i got was "Error" from trying to pull up those links.

you seem pretty sharp, but i trust Heritage as a reliable source about as much as i trust Faux News.

can you cite any criminal prosecutions of illegal aliens who voted, with the requisite mens rea? those would be in the public record and therefore verifiable.

Originally Posted by Tiny

I found 98 cases in under 2 minutes. Look at the Heritage election fraud database and choose "ineligible voting" under fraud category and "alien" under subcategory.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

Here are the first three cases. You can read about the other ninety-five on the Heritage website.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200674
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200705
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201262

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

that's quite a few "shoulds" there Tiny. one more reason this proposed legislation is just plain nuts.

If our duly elected representatives can come up with legislation that has no chance of ever becoming law, like this bill, then why can't I come up with my own fantasy legislation too?

Originally Posted by pxmcc

all i got was "Error" from trying to pull up those links.

you seem pretty sharp, but i trust Heritage as a reliable source about as much as i trust Faux News.

can you cite any criminal prosecutions of illegal aliens who voted, with the requisite mens rea? those would be in the public record and therefore verifiable.

Try again tomorrow, the web site is down. These are in the public record and verifiable. The case descriptions are factual, with no editorializing.

Is mens rea an issue for many of the cases? Well, I'd suspect "Hell Yeah." As it would be for cases involving felons who voted.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^evidence sir..

i accept your distinction, no matter how lame. so now, produce your evidence..

Dis is how dey do it. They exploit cracks, flaws, backdoors and hidden pathways into and through the many systems. This is why the left hates DOGE and by extension Musk Man Bad.

Ironically, it's not partisan, as you see below. Though it does involve sharp folks that have a clue and ask questions (Gasp!), which may well be a reason for the Lefties to despise them, i.e. they can't comprehend it, because of how easy it is to ferret out that which was buried with so much care - IMMHO. Basically, They got caught with their hands in the till.

Billionaire and massive Democratic donor Antonio Gracias dedicated his time to fixing the Social Security Administration

And then the cross reference to voter roles and VIOLA!

[Yssup Rider]

Jesús I wish you fellas would stop quoting randos on Twitter as your source of facts.

It’s nothing more than “people are saying…”

It really hampers discussion. Then the point of contention becomes your source.

Maybe that’s because you’re unable to use reputable (even any) legit source of news to corroborate your scary information. Maybe it’s a nothing burger outside of social media?

Regardless, it’s difficult to debate.

Especially when the topic of a thread is based in BS, provocative and trollish claims. Like this one. OPs understanding of how legislation is created and passed is shockingly simplistic. Hence “a vote against X is a vote for Y”

SMMFH

[pxmcc]

yes, can we stick to peer reviewed tho..

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Jesús I wish you fellas would stop quoting randos on Twitter as your source of facts.

It’s nothing more than “people are saying…”

It really hampers discussion. Then the point of contention becomes your source.

Maybe that’s because you’re unable to use reputable (even any) legit source of news to corroborate your scary information. Maybe it’s a nothing burger outside of social media?

Regardless, it’s difficult to debate.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Jesús I wish you fellas would stop quoting randos on Twitter as your source of facts.

It’s nothing more than “people are saying…”

It really hampers discussion. Then the point of contention becomes your source.

Maybe that’s because you’re unable to use reputable (even any) legit source of news to corroborate your scary information. Maybe it’s a nothing burger outside of social media?

Regardless, it’s difficult to debate.

Especially when the topic of a thread is based in BS, provocative and trollish claims. Like this one. OPs understanding of how legislation is created and passed is shockingly simplistic. Hence “a vote against X is a vote for Y”

SMMFH

Sounds exactly like a progressive Democrat argument.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

all i got was "Error" from trying to pull up those links.

you seem pretty sharp, but i trust Heritage as a reliable source about as much as i trust Faux News.

can you cite any criminal prosecutions of illegal aliens who voted, with the requisite mens rea? those would be in the public record and therefore verifiable.

The Heritage Foundation election fraud database is back on line again. You can read their descriptions of the cases. However, their links that back up the cases aren't working right now. I'll be back to remind you when they are, if I remember.

I figure the web site is under cyberattack from a foreign power that wants us to believe our elections are free and fair, probably Canada or Denmark. Or maybe it's coming from a highly organized group of illegals, something like the "Network" in the movie Machete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fGKttdOWQE

[Schwarzer Ritter]

You don't have to trust the Heritage Foundation or Fox News. Like Reagan said, trust but verify. If they give you a name or a case, look it up yourself. Don't be a fool or an ignorant hack. Use that powerful internet to confirm or debunk.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Sounds exactly like a progressive Democrat argument.

Yow.

I suppose everything sounds like that to you.

Or nothing does.

All or nothing.

Got it, Schwarzer. That's you to a "t"

[royamcr]

Democrats voting constitutionally. Republicans don't give a shit about the constitution.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

You don't have to trust the Heritage Foundation or Fox News. Like Reagan said, trust but verify. If they give you a name or a case, look it up yourself. Don't be a fool or an ignorant hack. Use that powerful internet to confirm or debunk.

Dude, really?

So if someone doesn't like the links you provide (when you provide links), does that make them fools or ignorant hacks?

I don't trust either. But I trust BOTH more than some rando posting on Twitter or TrumpSocial.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

TRUST BUT VERIFY...words to live by. Like your claim that Trump said the Nazis loved Jews. That didn't age well after verification.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

TRUST BUT VERIFY...words to live by. Like your claim that Trump said the Nazis loved Jews. That didn't age well after verification.

Who claimed that, man? Not me!

So let's see some verification and context for that lie.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

...Maybe that’s because you’re unable to use reputable (even any) legit source of news...

Ahhhh, I love, love, me the smell of "Tactics of the Lame" in the morning, especially that first step... Say what ya really mean. Pravda approved sources that you agree with. Come on man...
Guessing you miss ol' Nina "Moaning Myrtle" Jankytitz by now.

TBH: It was a relief seeing you not get selected to replace her, because, I'm not even sure we would have seen much, if any, differences.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

...Especially when the topic of a thread is based in BS, provocative and trollish claims...

I think you got the case cracker here. Should be really simple for you to list all of the Dems that voted for the act to prove that slam dunk case. Tell ya what, I'll even supply you the space to jot them all down here > <. That should be adequate space for the task.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

...Hence “a vote against X is a vote for Y”...

You are over complicating it. Back in the Holler, we simply go with: You're either voting with us or a'gin us. Regardless, it ain't a vote for "x".

[Salty Again]

... Glad to see us wonder back to the thread topic.

The Dems - 208 of them Voted AGAINST it.

The Democrats obviously DO NOT want secure Federal elections.

#### Salty