- 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: Senate is set to vote on the SAVE Act; Thune is setting it up for failure
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/14/26 at 9:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Those would be based on the same authority as the SAVE Act.
That depends on how that hypothetical case is adjudicated.
0
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:01 pm to David_DJS
Yankton
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:06 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Going to do my best to primary Thune here in South Dakota.
frick that guy. He could have even allowed trump recess appointments but did not.
frick that guy. He could have even allowed trump recess appointments but did not.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Okay, so you support the SAVE Act,
I don't support
And there we have it. An unintentional moment of rare candor by STATIST MO FO.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In terms of principles, the violation of states rights
An odd/lame principle to stand on in this contest given currently federal law has negated a state's right to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
quote:
You don't want to hand them this precedent. What the left can do with this precedent is a lot scarier than what the right can gain (temporarily)
Be specific.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:30 pm to Warboo
quote:
The pubs that vote against it are history.
Been hearing that about turtle and murkowski for a decade
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
What a TDS afflicted individual with his 'I am right' avatar. What a collasol prick.
This post was edited on 3/15/26 at 12:02 am
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:53 am to Jbird
quote:
Yankton
There are a few of us South Dakotans around here. I was born in Lemmon. Raised in Rapid City.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the feds can impose voter ID on states, they can make it illegal for states to require it.
FFS they already have. Why am I informing the lawyer of this?
Look up Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, counselor.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 6:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:So you are OK with illegals voting? Not sure how you get more palatable than that if you are true America first. You?
Either craft more palatable legislation
Posted on 3/15/26 at 12:28 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
So you are OK with illegals voting? Not sure how you get more palatable than that if you are true America first. You?
SFP doesn't know what he thinks on this subject, which is why he likely poofed from the thread.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 12:30 pm to David_DJS
quote:
An odd/lame principle to stand on in this contest
What is the point in having principles if "context" can do easily destroy them?
quote:
Be specific
I gave some examples later
Posted on 3/15/26 at 12:32 pm to David_DJS
quote:
FFS they already have
They have not. I have to show ID in Louisiana to vote
Posted on 3/15/26 at 12:32 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
you are OK with illegals voting?
No.
That's already illegal, though
Posted on 3/15/26 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They have not. I have to show ID in Louisiana to vote
They have.
The SAVE Act is about proof of citizenship. Showing ID at the poll doesn't address citizenship, but federal law does: it's illegal for a state to require proof of citizenship upon registration for federal elections.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:18 pm to JiminyCricket
You have her (sfp) dead to rights on this. Her comments are what you get from a retarded leftist masquerading as a states rights, principled conservative.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:29 pm to David_DJS
quote:
They have.
Then how can LA require ID to vote?
quote:
The SAVE Act is about proof of citizenship. Showing ID at the poll doesn't address citizenship, but federal law does: it's illegal for a state to require proof of citizenship upon registration for federal elections.
At least you're citing the ruling of the case
You still have not responded to my point directly, though, which was about voter ID
And the banning voter ID is just one potential policy I listed
Universal mail in voting and automatic registration are probably much more impactful. Oh yeah universal ballot harvesting too.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:30 pm to Branson
quote:
You have her (sfp)
.what the frick?
quote:
Her comments are what you get from a retarded leftist masquerading as a states rights, principled conservative.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yep. The GOP has had (now) six years since the 2020 election to address this at the state and local levels. Scott Pressler even provided the prototype on how to get it done. But someohow they chose this almost certainly futile path instead. Silly.
What is the point in having principles if "context" can do easily destroy them?
I think people want some "shock and awe" change. But in reality, the path to change comes from a lot smaller, consistent, and local changes. Damn near no one wants to do that work. They'd rather punt to the highest possible level of government and sacrifice their rights to get what they want.
Posted on 3/15/26 at 1:37 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
Your claim is that republican principles dictate advocation for limiting of federal powers whether those powers have constitutionally legitimate grounds or not?
Uh, yeah.
States rights isn't about constitutionality
It's about preferred policymaking and political philosophy within our system.
quote:
Please explain how federal power is infinite in a constitutional republic?
When the current interpretation of that Constitution gives the fedgov near unlimited power via the Commerce Clause.
quote:
Are you saying that supporting federal government operating within its constitutional purview means one must simultaneously back seat states rights?
Thar depends on the federal policy being discussed and the hypocrisy a person is willing to engage in.
quote:
keep bringing up the constitutional point because it undermines your original assertion that Republican support for a bill regulating federal elections is antithetical to Republican values of limited federal government. Republican values typically adhere to constitutionality, not limited government for limits sake.
This both rewrites conservative policy stances and ignores the bear unlimited constitutional power of fedgov.
If your line of demarcation is constitutionality, then you are advocating for near unlimited federal power and the near universal preemption of state authority. I've never heard a conservative take that position as a conservative principle
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News