The Trump Thread

[SanAndreasX]

Jimbo1337 said:

Torillian said:

It's about the scale of the threat and the side effects of the fix. 26 foreign nationals working on influencing an election can have a much larger impact than 400 non-citizens voting. 

But beyond that my main concern is with the solutions being proposed. I would not want to make things more difficult for actual voters just to avoid a mistake that didn't even impact any elections. So you bring me a solution that won't negatively impact actual voters and I'll just agree that they should do that. 

Using airport-style identity checks actually perfectly addresses your concern about side effects, because it proves we can have high security without making life harder for the average person.

Think about how the TSA operates today: you walk up, insert your ID into a scanner, a green light flashes, and you walk through. It takes five seconds. The advanced technology does the heavy lifting on the back end, while the experience for the traveler remains seamless and simple.

Bringing that same logic to voting doesn't mean adding long lines or complex paperwork for citizens. It means updating local polling places with modern, automated ID scanners that instantly verify eligibility against state records. High security doesn't have to mean high burden; it just means using smart, fast technology to protect the system automatically.

The TSA example only strengthens the argument against SAVE, not for. 

You're subjective to very intrusive searches by the TSA. They flash what are essentially nude pictures of you on scanners, with your naughty bits blurred out, or touch you to the degree that the authorities think they can get away with in a courtroom.  Much of it is security theater. We put up with it because once you're 40,000 feet in the air in a pressurized tube, you're at the absolute mercy of the elements and those who can manipulate that specific set of elements with weapons. In the air during the flight, the captain and crew are the absolute law, which we put up with because one disruption, even without malicious intent, can put the passengers and crew on the plane in danger. .That scenario doesn't exist in a voting booth.  There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to fly on an airplane, which means that we either agree to all of this or find another method of transportation. There is, however, a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. 

One man's hurt feelings over rejection do not constitute an argument for taking away mail-in voting or any of my other rights, nor do the vicariously hurt feelings of his supporters. Full stop. As the pro-gun people say (and I myself am a gun owner), enforce the laws already on the books.

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 06 August 2026