this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
281 points (100.0% liked)

politics

28830 readers
2663 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/56508353

Donald Trump threatened on Sunday to withhold his signature from all bills until Congress passes a GOP-led voting bill that implements voter restrictions ahead of the November midterms.

“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION – GO FOR THE GOLD: MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY – ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL,” Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The bill, called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, requires individuals to show citizenship documents to register to vote and strict forms of photo ID to cast a ballot. If passed, the legislation would also administer criminal penalties for election officials who register anyone lacking the required documents.

As my colleague Ari Berman wrote in February, the bill would potentially block tens of millions of Americans from voting. Nine percent of American citizens, or approximately 21 million people, don’t have ready access to citizenship documents. The bill may impact millions of US citizens in other ways: tens of millions of women who took their partner’s last name, for example, may not have a birth certificate that matches their legal name could find it more difficult to register.

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wammityblam@lemmy.world 72 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They literally wrote and published a playbook about how they were going to it.

[–] FaygoRedPop@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This comment gets posted every time Trump does anything at all. WE know. His voter base still hasn't changed, nor will it.

[–] Wammityblam@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Likewise, we know.

Propaganda works

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

“Plus, it’s fine as long as he only does it to restrict Dem votes because then we win, right?”

-Galaxy-Brain voters

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 14 points 23 hours ago
[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the knowledge is more widespread on lemmy than imgur, but worth remembering: If he doesn't sign legislation within 10 days, as long as Congress is in session, it will automatically go into effect. So the Senate doesn't even have to shut down, they can keep on passing legislation, as long as they're in session.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

I think his implication is that he'll veto everything, not just let it desk rot.

I hesitate to ascribe any sense of strategy to the guy, but the presidential veto is one of the most direct exercises of power that he has, and this is a guy who salivates at any opportunity to flex whatever power he can.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's enough actual evidence of GOP fraud in the 2024 election to call into question some of the swing state results. Regardless if it would have overturn the election, unlike Trumps Big Lie, the GOP actually did commit election fraud.

Americans need to primary both DNC and GOP members in droves.

[–] Town@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't understand why confronting election cheating isn't a made a bigger political issue for the Democratic party. Are they afraid to lose in court? Are they afraid voters wont like addressing it?

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 12 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Because a lot of the sitting DNC are just lip servicers with corporate lobbyist hands in their pockets grabbing them by the balls.

They're literally paid to not rock the boat.

"The GOP and the DNC are the sword and shield of the wealthy elites respectively."

Nothing will get better for America until Americans start primarying incumbents that don't deliver for the working class.

[–] lectricleopard@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago

Both sides are afraid of what might be discovered if they search thoroughly.

GOP wants to use the issue as a wedge to create doubt in the result. Then they have a chance in court if they cherry pick.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Given how the GOP's prospects in the next election are only likely to get worse, this might actually be the thing they end the filibuster for.

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It'll be hilarious if they end the filibuster and then end up with a narrow minority in both chambers.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The ideal outcome would be

  1. They nuke the filibuster to pass the bill

  2. It gets held up in courts because it's obviously unconstitutional and doesn't get implemented in time for the midterms

  3. They get blown tf out in the midterms

  4. The law gets overturned in courts because it's obviously unconstitutional

  5. No more filibuster.

[–] Ghostie@lemmy.zip 3 points 21 hours ago
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

SAVE will disenfranchise an insane number of people. But, ironically, it is expected to disenfranchise significantly more republicans and "low education voters" as college educated voters are much more likely to have an income that makes international travel (and thus passports) viable. And... Brown People(TM) have been getting their papers in order for years.

But its also very important to understand: We have already seen the plan for January. The chuds just won't swear in any new democrats (except for platner, of course).

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

But, ironically, it is expected to disenfranchise significantly more republicans

This seems more like a hypothesis of yours rather than a well-understood expectation. Let me get this straight: you think the SAVE act is going to protect voting rights of previously-disenfranchised voters? That seems unlikely, and i dont think many share your theory.

And... Brown People(TM) have been getting their papers in order for years.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying people of color are unique positioned to gain from the SAVE act? Why do you think this?

More than 3.8 million adult U.S. citizens lack any form of citizenship documents, such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers, according to UMD's Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement.

This is a critical issue among people of color. Three percent said they had no document at all, compared to 1% of white citizens.

Another 11% of people of color, or some 8.4 million people, cannot readily access citizenship documents compared to 8% of white Americans.

The issue cuts across political affiliation, too. Independents were more likely than Democrats and Republicans to lack citizenship documents or not have ready access to them.

Young people, aged 18 to 24, are also less likely to have access. Many young people may not know where their birth certificate is stored or it may be in another location, another state, with parents or other family members, the center's analysis suggested.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-save-america-act-would-make-major-changes-to-voting

In short, it seems like youre shrugging off this issue to "they'll never achieve this" at a time when it is increasingly clear that the right has the power to do pretty much whatever they want - most often successfully.

[–] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

Yes, and we'll see how willing he is to restrict them when the first terrorist/false flag attack happens this year

[–] FaygoRedPop@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Lemmy is somehow full of people at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to outlook on future elections. It's either "No one is going to do anything, democracy is over, Trump is king." or it's "This is the end of the Republican party, it's Democrats and the left after this next election and here on out."

Neither side will stand for the middle class. Either way, I just hope that when we all die that my kids don't suffer. I don't have the energy to care anymore. I'll vote, but I'm so tired.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Duh. election = jail. He knows that.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago

Yeah like how he went to jail the last two time Dems won elections. Wait...

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who knows if any bills will get to Trump's desk, before cholesterol gets to his chest.

[–] Ghostie@lemmy.zip 3 points 21 hours ago

That most recent speech looked like he was working on his summertime jaundice tan.