Профиль

This isn't Trump. Republicans decided to shift to authoritarian rule in the early 1990s. President Bush's political advisor came up with a plan for permanent GoP majorities. Take over of state governments and gerrymandering was key to the plan. Trump was the first one to rush through the opening.

That is kind of how it works. Just like in the USA a portion don't know what is happening. There are a portion of Canadians that support Trump. Then there are those that don't see it as a threshold issue. The 25% is actually quite high.

They represent a majority of the USA at this point. In government of, by and for the people it appears that 'the people' have been offered and accepted authoritarian rule. I really think that the USA has turned the corner to authoritarian rule since Republicans support what Trump does.

I don't have to give my opinion on the point of whether or not he damaged the pool. The government expert said to the GJ the pool was damaged before the encounter and the cost of the repairs needed were not impacted by the action of the defendant. Where does 'opposition party' come into play here?

OK. I can see here that you are going to believe what you believe. But your belief is not my reality.

OK, so clearly you don't know the difference between a criminal prosecution and forming public policy. There is not 'opposition' political party involved in a criminal prosecution.

Here is the thing. It is legal for non-citizens to register to vote in NJ. Voting is a tool of governance, it isn't something that states can't use for purposes other than electing representatives to Congress. What happened here was non-citizens were not coded as non-citizens. Nothing illegal here.

I don't understand who benefits from the collapse of communism in Cuba. The USA has been waging economic warfare against Cuba since before we were born. The embargo was in response to the national emergency of international communism.

It is a rule of thumb for data systems designers. It is just a bit of trivia from my profession. It has nothing to do with the current discussion here. So I am not going to waste time looking for a reference.

The use of signature as ID verification was intended to give the verifier a way to deny the vote. The use traces back to Jim Crow laws.

Signature isn't intended to be used as identity verification. It is to be use for a challenge - 'Is this your signature'. The use of signature for ID verification was intended to create a way to deny the vote. It likely that your state use of signature for that purpose traces back to Jim Crow laws.

States decide how people can register. Motor Voter forced states to register voters WHEN they got a DL or state issued ID. The reason was that a person has to present documents for a DL so it was convenient to register voters. That had nothing to do with voter id or mail-in registration.

Well no. Voter ID has been around for a long time now and the evidence is that it really doesn't have long term voter suppression. States like Texas and Ohio introduce Voter ID in every session for the last 30 years or so to create a campaign issue. They use Voter ID to paint Democrats as cheaters.

FWIW, the 10% number is nominal for a name check type of system. That applies regardless of application.

Doesn't matter. If it is 14% in Texas that means that 14% of the voters in Texas will get bounced. That is something like 3 million voter or 2% of the voting population of the USA. Basically, the number of voters SAVE disenfranchise in TX on error is larger than the entire non-citizen population.

Please post your backup for the statement that 'dead people have been voting'.

www.texastribune.org/2026/02/13/s...

Voter ID has nothing to do with voter lists. Voter lists will _always_ contain errors. That doesn't really impact the security of elections at all. So what the name of a deceased person is on the voter rolls. That doesn't impact election results at all.

If SAVE doesn't pass, then Republicans will run on the idea that Democrats want to cheat. They also could use some of the 'issues' SAVE is supposed to correct as a basis for questioning an election. SAVE has nothing to do with the provision in SAVE. It won't survive the first lawsuit.

The purpose of the SAVE Act is to be able to dispute election results. Consider that it took 20 years to implement the Real ID Act. There is no possible way that states can implement the SAVE Act which is far more complex by the Nov election. GoP want to have a basis to claim an election isn't legal