nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

I hope true and paves the way for a EO
You show the Dems and RINOs the data and they probably wouldn't believe it. Would have to be substantial votes and truly reliable

Burdizzo said:

---

Jarrin Jay said:

---

So you want AOC in office for another 40 years?!?!?!!!!!

We absolutely need term limits. And for federal offices it must be a requirement you were born and raised in the USA IMHO.

---

If we had better informed voters, the term limit question would not be an issue.

---

• control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school

- Saul Alinsky

Obama, Hillary & a former DNC were acolytes of Alinsky

txags92 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

The only answer is "because no one has ever proven that we need one."

It's a dumb answer, but it's what they'll claim.

---

And they will do whatever it takes to make sure nobody is ever able to get such proof.

---

Including calling obvious proof something other than proof.

Take Fulton county.

Plaintiff: You violated a regulation when you counted those votes. Violating a regulation is against state law.

Raff: Nope. Some of those regulations are optional, and it is not a violation of law to ignore them.

Plaintiff: Which regulations are optional? Where is it spelled out where a regulation is a requirement versus being optional?

Raff: Regulations are optional and not legally required if I decide I don't want to follow the regulation. That is the only question that matters.

Plaintiff: So, all regulations are optional, then?

Raff: Only if I say that they are.

Plaintiff: What about Fulton County elections board members, and who Fulton County seats in that board. Those regulations are optional, right?

Raff: No, they are legally required.

Plaintiff: why are they legally required but the election regulations that the board oversees are only optional?

Raff: Because I said that they are legally required, and that the elections operations regulations are optional. That's why.

Plaintiff: So, you are a tyrant?

Raff: No, the rule of law is important. It's just that I get to decide which rules are rules and which rules are law, because I said so.

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

Actually there is literally below 1% evidence of voter fraud outside of the typical circle jerk echo chambers, this is just another attempt to subvert the will of the people, illegally hold onto power just like the 2020 fake electors debacle and following 40+ failed lawsuits by Trump + Co., and rip up thy constitution just a wee bit more.

If not authoritarian, why so many BS authoritarian acts. Can't wait for this to be shut down in the Courts.

nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

My team and I have been anticipating this for months. It is unconstitutional and illegal.

The media should note: Last time he issued an EO about voting, we sued and won. If Trump issues such an order we will sue again and we will win again. https://t.co/gGNpevd9tE

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) February 26, 2026

74Ag1 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

I hope true and paves the way for a EO
You show the Dems and RINOs the data and they probably wouldn't believe it. Would have to be substantial votes and truly reliable

---

The better option is for House Republicans to send an army of federal observers to the swing states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/21083a

Quote:

---

designated congressional election observer
In this section, a "designated congressional election observer" is a House or Senate employee who is designated in writing by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, or a successor committee, to gather information with respect to an election, including in the event that the election is contested in the House of Representatives or the Senate and for other purposes permitted by article 1, section 5, clause 1 and article 1, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

---

If the SAVE act doesn't pass, Bryan Steil just needs to designate about 1,000 federal election observers to blanket Fulton, Maricopa, Philadelphia, etc.

We don't need new authorities to make sure election laws are followed, only elected officials with the testicular fortitude to use the laws in place to get what needs to get done, done.

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

My team and I have been anticipating this for months. It is unconstitutional and illegal.

The media should note: Last time he issued an EO about voting, we sued and won. If Trump issues such an order we will sue again and we will win again. https://t.co/gGNpevd9tE

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) February 26, 2026

---

Yes, and Marc Elias is an enemy of the republic and should be treated as such. His response is indicative this is warranted, indeed.

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

---

And you are wrong. And you know why the fraud is not "actual, proven fraud." And of course that is why you oppose the SAVE America Act.

nortex97 said:

---

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

My team and I have been anticipating this for months. It is unconstitutional and illegal.

The media should note: Last time he issued an EO about voting, we sued and won. If Trump issues such an order we will sue again and we will win again. https://t.co/gGNpevd9tE

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) February 26, 2026

---

Yes, and Marc Elias is an enemy of the republic and should be treated as such. His response is indicative this is warranted, indeed.

---

He is an anti-American piece of marxist *****

You can be certain that Elias believes illegals should be allowed to vote in our elections.

t_J_e_C_x said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Interesting if true. There is so much evidence of systemic fraud that I think it might be justified, and could survive even Biden-Obama judge trial court scrutiny (on appeal to adults).

Trump has previewed a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election Per Washington Post

This creates the basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting. pic.twitter.com/GW07AglmwC

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 26, 2026

---

Actually there is literally below 1% evidence of voter fraud outside of the typical circle jerk echo chambers, this is just another attempt to subvert the will of the people, illegally hold onto power just like the 2020 fake electors debacle and following 40+ failed lawsuits by Trump + Co., and rip up thy constitution just a wee bit more.

If not authoritarian, why so many BS authoritarian acts. Can't wait for this to be shut down in the Courts.

---

Words have meaning.

The bolded is only true if you F around with the meaning of the words voter "evidence" and "fraud".

There were literally millions of votes certified by election officials in the 2020 election that were counted and certified that were specifically against the laws of the state to count or certify those votes.

The only reason that certifying those votes is not called "voter fraud" is because a judge said that they were not.

If Fulton County has very precise rules in place to make sure that votes are not double counted, and the county flagrantly disregards those rules as optional, it is an intellectually dishonest argument that the evidence of voter fraud is low.

Basically, the argument is this:

Raff: There is no evidence of voter fraud!

Voter: Did you follow all of the rules that were put in place to prevent fraud?

Raff: No.

Voter: then how do you know there is no voter fraud?

Reff: because we didn't find any.

Voter: but, why didn't you follow the rules in place that were supposed to catch voter fraud?

Raff: Because, if we followed those rules, we might have found voter fraud, and then I couldn't say we haven't seen any evidence of voter fraud. Besides, our recount proves that there was no fraud.

Voter: well, could someone have committed voter fraud that you didn't find out about because you didn't follow the rules to find voter fraud and still could have passed your recount?

Raff: that doesn't matter. We did a recount. Whether or not that recount was likely to find the specific fraud that the rules that we ignored isn't important when we say that the recount didn't find voter fraud.

Voter: So, the voter fraud that could have been caught by the rules you didn't follow wasn't caught because you didn't follow the rules, and the recount that you made did didn't catch any voter fraud because the way you did the recount wouldn't have caught the fraud that would have been caught if you had followed the rules, and that makes it all better?

Raff: Yep.

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud.

---

You have no basis to say that rampant voter fraud isn't true, because the people that counted all of the votes failed to follow all of the rules in place that were designed to catch fraud.

You can say that evidence isn't there, but you can't say the fraud isn't there, because no one followed the rules to catch fraud.

It just doesn't hold water anymore. You can't simply ignore internal controls around a procedure and say that there is no evidence of fraud even though you ignored all of the procedures to catch fraud.

No one believes you anymore. Check the polls.

I just see a bunch of replies against my cited sources that have no citations of their own. You can do better.

You can also be certain Elias spent heaps of time at Epstein isle or whatever the new island of choice is for the pedo elite.

chrisocker said:

---

I just see a bunch of replies against my cited sources that have no citations of their own. You can do better.

---

And of course, the SAVE Act would ensure the sanctity of our elections. If there is nothing illegal happening, then it will be no problem.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

I just see a bunch of replies against my cited sources that have no citations of their own. You can do better.

---

And of course, the SAVE Act would ensure the sanctity of our elections. If there is nothing illegal happening, then it will be no problem.

---

Let the states put forth their own measures. I don't need nor want the federal government's intervention. That has been my very first and final point in my original post; states rights over federal.

chrisocker said:

---

Let the states put forth their own measures. I don't need nor want the federal government's intervention. That has been my very first and final point in my original post; states rights over federal.

---

It's a balancing act with states' rights and you know it. In fact, I could argue my voting rights as a US citizen living in Texas are being damaged when voting integrity is compromised in other states. Why should illegal or phantom votes elsewhere be allowed to nullify my vote for President and through him the entire apparatus of the Executive?

AlexNguyen said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

Let the states put forth their own measures. I don't need nor want the federal government's intervention. That has been my very first and final point in my original post; states rights over federal.

---

It's a balancing act with states' rights and you know it. In fact, I could argue my voting rights as a US citizen living in Texas are being damaged when voting integrity is compromised in other states. Why should illegal or phantom votes elsewhere be allowed to nullify my vote for President and through him the entire apparatus of the Executive?

---

And peaceful secession is the only logical outcome if you go too hard on states rights where some states can put forth policy that you completely disagree with and are directly effected by. It's the ultimate state's right.

It's a balance and the blanket "states rights" statement has too many holes to poke through. And this comes from someone who is also a staunch states rights advocate.

No. California doesn't want illegals barred from voting, and they'll do nothing to stop it.

They're already using illegal truckers to kill as many people as possible, in violation of scores of laws.

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

"Hey, this person voted for [the other party] last time. We know that because we made the states turn over voter information to the federal government. Better not risk them being able to vote that same way in this election. Withhold them getting their [federal document needed to vote] until after the election."

- that's how you rig an election "legally". No thanks.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No. California doesn't want illegals barred from voting, and they'll do nothing to stop it.

They're already using illegal truckers to kill as many people as possible, in violation of scores of laws.

---

Still waiting for those cited and credible sources to back these claims of fraud.

When you have an anonymous ballot and require no ID, you cannot prove fraud. Saying "they haven't found fraud" as an excise to not require ID is as moronic as it gets. I worry how some of you get thru life.

chrisocker said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No. California doesn't want illegals barred from voting, and they'll do nothing to stop it.

They're already using illegal truckers to kill as many people as possible, in violation of scores of laws.

---

Still waiting for those cited and credible sources to back these claims of fraud.

---

Of course you are. And you know that if there are no mechanisms to verify ID, there are no mechanisms to verify voter fraud. By design.

Quote:

---

"Hey, this person voted for [the other party] last time. We know that because we made the states turn over voter information to the federal government. Better not risk them being able to vote that same way in this election. Withhold them getting their [federal document needed to vote] until after the election."

- that's how you rig an election "legally". No thanks.

---

Show us all the cited and credible sources of this happening.

It is beginning to feel like a lot of my fellow conservatives are suddenly all aboard giving away power to big government. If CA or other states have their issues, I don't want that to affect my ability to vote for my senators and house members here in TX, like this bill is going to do. The bill means well, but its execution is an overreach, and therefore bad in my opinion.

I'll stop here.

Appreciate the opposing views and thoughts, everyone, without resorting to derogatory name calling. That is what healthy debate is all about. Gig 'Em!

chrisocker said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

So you and your wife have never left the country? Even for a honeymoon? Because her passport should match her married name and would be proof of citizenship. If she was born in Texas, she can get a copy of her birth certificate sent to her by the state without even leaving the house. My wife went and got a name change on her SS card after our wedding and changed her passport and it took at most an hour or two of effort on her part in the mid-90s before you could do nearly all of it online. These barriers you are erecting in your mind are not nearly as insurmountable as you want to make them out to be.

---

"Hey, this person voted for [the other party] last time. We know that because we made the states turn over voter information to the federal government. Better not risk them being able to vote that same way in this election. Withhold them getting their [federal document needed to vote] until after the election."

- that's how you rig an election "legally". No thanks.

---

This is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other federal form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous.

---

So your wife does not have a current approved TX DL? Have been required to have certified copy of birth certificate to renew license or get an ID card for many years now.

chrisocker said:

---

None of us should want a bill that takes rights away from states, especially when it comes to elections. But I further argue that this SAVE America Act is based on the false narrative of rampant voter fraud. There just isn't any credible data that voter fraud is a major issue. Heck, even the conservative think tank that is heritage.org shows a mere 1,620 instances of actual, proven fraud dating back to 1982. See for yourself here

The new version of the bill also says that states must share information with federal agencies. I don't know about you, but as a conservative I don't want my information flowing through federal agencies that have no business knowing my business.

Lastly, your TX drivers license or state issued ID is not enough to be able to vote since it does not share where you were born (and why would it!?), according to this bill. You will need a passport or some other [u]federal[/u] form of identification to be able to vote. I have to imagine the pain in the ass my wife would have to go through trying to whip up her birth certificate, which doesn't match her state ID due to taking my last name. So then she will also have to find or purchase a copy of our marriage license, then take all three of these IDs to the polling place. That's just ludicrous. You can see for yourself here

I support state rights, which is why I cannot support this bill.

---

My wife and I both have copies of our birth certificates, our marriage license, and US Passports.

You can get them, too, if voting matters to you. Not that you need a Passport. Just saying, you can get one easily.

Heck, my wife was adopted at age 6, and we have both her original birth certificate and the one from her adoption.

Flagged for trolling

Notice how states' rights is only a thing when the GOP is in the White House.

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Notice how states' rights is only a thing when the GOP is in the White House.

---

Illegals don't have voting rights in any country.