- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Trump will sign Executive Order Mandating Voter ID
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:44 am to djsdawg
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:44 am to djsdawg
quote:
but if the EO the best we can do in an effort to save the nation from the evil left, you have to do it.
And this is the end result with pumping emotions (primarily fear) to create a polarized worldview. "We'll give up any rights and limits on government to attack that evil perceived out group!"
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 6:45 am
1
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:58 am to shoelessjoe
quote:
That would mean democrats legitimately win an election.
And there is the (authoritarian) assumption used to justify the hypocrisy "this time"
The GOP is not going to rule in perpetuity. There are more DEMs in the country than Republicans. Also, in an election where almost everything was favorable to Trump, he barely won the popular vote and has a thin majority in Congress.
Here is the thing you need to understand. If national election law is run from the White House via EO, when the DEMs win again, they can enact policies that give them a bigger advantage than what GOP/Trump/MAGA can propose. Imagine the impact of these policies being the law nationally:
-Voter ID being made illegal. No election could require ID
-Universal mail in voting, where ballots can be accepted 2 weeks after the election
-Universal early voting for 1 month prior to the election
-Universal same-day registration
-Universal, automatic registration when using/applying for any governmental service at the state or federal level, including filing taxes
Or, we can take this one step further and use the same rhetoric for permitting this via EO and applying that to districts. The President could then, via EO, redraw all Congressional districts from the White House. I mean why not, under this rationale?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 7:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
States have had the domain of running elections since the founding, I believe. That's how the Founders envisioned it
True. States can run elections as they see fit. The federal government placing standards that must be applied in federal elections wouldn't interfere with how states run an election.
These are two separate issues.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 7:19 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
The federal government placing standards that must be applied in federal elections wouldn't interfere with how states run an election.
That's the literal definition of interference
Posted on 9/2/25 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
The federal government placing standards that must be applied in federal elections wouldn't interfere with how states run an election.
That's the literal definition of interference
I disagree. States already must adhere to federal voting laws/regulations. This is no different. It would simply be another federally mandated law/regulation that states would be required to adhere, in whatever method or process they choose.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's team-based, with no principles whatsoever. Hell, people on here can barely state their principle without looking elsewhere to be told what they should be (for today, subject to change at any time).
Give me a P...
Give me an O...
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:03 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
It would simply be another federally mandated law/regulation that states would be required to adhere, in whatever method or process they choose.
AKA, more erosion of states rights.
Also, those laws you reference are Congressional acts, with the most invasive being the VRA, which was authorized by the 14th Amendment, which has also been gutted over the past 10 years or so (effectively to protect states rights and decreased overly intrusive federal overreach).
Other than that, there really aren't that many federal laws, especially if we're talking about conducting elections themselves. You have a law about registration, some ADA stuff ensuring physical accessibility, and some for military members.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
Why are you so abgry that the dems wont be able to cheat to win
Weird how upset you are over it
Weird how upset you are over it
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:07 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Why are you so abgry that the dems wont be able to cheat to win
Weird how upset you are over it
You don't understand why I'm against federal expansion and erosion of states rights, even with me showing specifically why it's a bad idea for non-DEMs?
I'm shocked.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
AKA, more erosion of states rights.
I agree this would need to made law by Congress, but it needs to be done.
Federal law already exist that only citizens can vote in federal elections.
The fact that some states aren't enforcing that law is the issue that must be addressed. Requiring states to verify legal status isn't an erosion of states rights, its simply forcing states to comply with existing law.
I can't understand how this erodes staes rights. Not at all.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 4:55 pm to Chicken
quote:
I keep coming back to this thread, hoping the OP had corrected his link.
My apologies. I didn't know that it wasn't working. It took me a few tries, but it should be good now.
Thanks!
Posted on 9/2/25 at 5:15 pm to KCRoyalBlue
While it’s obvious the voting situation is a joke.
And obvious the mail-in situation has been out of control.
Would it be that surprising to people that this type of thing is used as a dialectic to create changes that are desired by those that engineer society?
To me, my red flag goes off that this type of stuff has been set up to move us toward the inevitable and obvious agenda of Digital ID, which is an essential concept for a technocracy to take full hold.
I think they’ve rotted the voting situation, as well as other things, to garner support from the right for things that otherwise would be more clearly dystopian.
To me, stuff like this is cracking the heat up on the frog in the pot.
And obvious the mail-in situation has been out of control.
Would it be that surprising to people that this type of thing is used as a dialectic to create changes that are desired by those that engineer society?
To me, my red flag goes off that this type of stuff has been set up to move us toward the inevitable and obvious agenda of Digital ID, which is an essential concept for a technocracy to take full hold.
I think they’ve rotted the voting situation, as well as other things, to garner support from the right for things that otherwise would be more clearly dystopian.
To me, stuff like this is cracking the heat up on the frog in the pot.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 9/2/25 at 5:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The GOP is not going to rule in perpetuity. There are more DEMs in the country than Republicans. Also, in an election where almost everything was favorable to Trump, he barely won the popular vote and has a thin majority in Congress.
Still won the popular vote, still with illegal voting. It’s not an assumption, if it’s actually happening.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 5:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Two words.
I wonder how the "states rights conservatives" react to this.
Federal Elections.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 5:43 pm to Victor R Franko
quote:
I like this proposal and would happily go to SS office and have my photo taken every 7 years or so. Not sarcastic, I mean it. This could really cut down on the grift of SS money. SS could have a data base on photos that could determine if a photo is used under more than one name, or the other way around. Basically the same as a passport without international travel.
Agreed: if a federal election is on the ballot, this should be easily enacted. Let state and local do what they want.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 5:56 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Two words.
Federal Elections.
Does this include how we select the President?
Rectify this EO with the Electoral College process laid out in the Constitution
quote:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
Elections aren't technically even required for EC nominations.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:00 pm to djsdawg
quote:If the EO establishes that POTUS can direct elections by capricious EOs , you haven’t defeated the evil. You’ve empowered it, as soon as the next guy gets in.
Yea, we need to do more than have an EO, but if the EO the best we can do in an effort to save the nation from the evil left, you have to do it.
If voter ID can be required by EO, it can be banned by EO.
The idea that “your team” will never lose a future election is a poor place to be.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:09 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:Watchng (alleged) republicans back the same justifications used for the VRA for executive action is absolutely wild. Being on same side as LBJ should give even the most blind pause.
I disagree. States already must adhere to federal voting laws/regulations. This is no different. It would simply be another federally mandated law/regulation that states would be required to adhere, in whatever method or process they choose.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 6:22 pm to Smeg
Does Trump vote by mail?
Posted on 9/3/25 at 6:35 am to Jimbeaux
I agree. Rules s/b standard when electing the person responsible for governing all states. Case in point until recently CT did not have early voting. Its reason for finally changing the law according to the political base was voter disfranchisement. Personally I'm not a fan of early voting. I'm assuming each state produces an official voter list using it as each voter arrives at the polls. Most of CT's data to compile this list is a result of the Dept of Motor vehicles adding another layer to the process. According to what I just read, as my driver's license is missing a gold star in the upper corner, my ID is not federally approved and I'm an election official! My point being that there s/b a standard set of rules across the board for applying/receiving a driver's licence or some form of I.D. that clearly states one is a citizen, esp. as this data is used to verify a voter at the polls!
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News