reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that Democrats have been inconsistent on voter ID, particularly photo ID. He notes that for years Democrats claimed voter ID was a tool of voter suppression, then began hedging. He contends that Democrats now publicly say they support voter ID, with some leaders claiming their objection is not to a photo ID, but to other inclusivity formats like leases, utility bills, debit cards, or photocopies. He asserts that, in contrast, the Democrat floor leader said he objected to photo ID and called for inclusive voter ID options, but that Democrats have also supported photo ID in many other contexts (air travel, school enrollment, opening bank accounts). He argues this inconsistency shows Democrats “backpedaling” when pressed to support ID at the polls. The speaker cites severalDemocrats who have, at times, supported or stated favorable views toward voter ID, yet later qualified or avoided the position. He mentions a senior Democrat from New Jersey who said he would support a voter ID bill until pressed, then began avoiding the commitment. He references a junior Georgia Democrat who claimed, “I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID,” while also noting concerns about the specific requirements under discussion. He also quotes additional Democrats to illustrate what he sees as mixed messages: a Democrat from Arizona suggesting support for a strict voter ID approach; a Democrat from Rhode Island describing their state’s “sensible voter ID law” and frequent roll reviews as effective; the Democrat Senate leader stating that “Democrats support voter ID” ten days earlier; and a Georgia Democrat reiterating the expectation to prove one’s identity before voting and describing it as “basic.” The speaker announces an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill, intended to require a photo ID at the polls, such as a driver’s license, tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, or a passport. He clarifies that this amendment would not affect the Save America Act and would not obligate Democrats to vote for the final bill; they could vote for the amendment and against the overall act. The amendment’s purpose, he says, is to force Democrats to demonstrate whether they truly support photo ID in a concrete, real-world form. The speaker invites Democrats to demonstrate their actual stance by supporting the clean photo ID amendment and asserts that this would reveal where they truly stand.

The speaker claims Democrats don't want to stop waste and fraud because it attracts and retains illegal immigrants. They allege FEMA money was used to pay for luxury hotels in New York for illegal immigrants, even after an executive order to stop it. The speaker asserts this was done because Democrats are trying to import voters. They also state that California and New York State do not allow voter ID, which they find insane and a violation of the Constitution.

The claim is that 69 million married women won't be able to vote if they took their husband's name, disenfranchising voters. Voters want ID, signature verification, chain of custody controls, and updated voter rolls. They also want partisan observers watching the voting process. The only reason to be against these measures is if you want illegal aliens to vote in large numbers. Every other country requires an ID to vote. The idea that married women, a Republican voting demographic, can't get ID is a dumb talking point. The REAL ID Act creates an ID at the DMV that proves citizenship. Democrats want illegal aliens to vote. The Biden administration gave millions of illegal aliens Social Security numbers, making it easy to vote, collect welfare, and get free government benefits. They want illegals to steal elections.

The clip argues that ICE and the National Guard would “chill participation” at polling places and that there must be “a stake in the ground and do things differently.” The speaker, who says, “throughout that entire eighteen year period, there was never a single time that I showed up at a polling station on election day because I did not have the right to vote in America,” asks: “So what is Gavin Newsom saying here? There are immigrants who are voting?” They claim “the presence of ICE will stop people from going to the polls” and conclude that, “So basically what he is saying is that illegal immigrants will be deterred from going to the polls.” They ask, “Is this the reason why they don't want voter IDs?” “If this is not a confession of how corrupt the voting system in Democrat controlled states have become, I don't know what will convince you.” “As a new American citizen... I believe that my vote needs to be protected from being wiped out by illegal immigrants.” “If this was not a plan, I am calling on ICE to actually show up at polling stations because citizens are not intimidated by seeing law enforcement.” “And we cannot continue to allow our election system to be abused.”

The speaker argues against the SAVE Act, claiming it would cause gridlock and is a pernicious, nasty piece of legislation described as “Jim Crow two point o.” They allege the SAVE Act would cause more than 20,000,000 people to lose their right to vote, requiring registration with a passport or original birth certificate, and would eliminate vote by mail. The speaker criticizes senior citizens confined to homes by wheelchair, suggesting they would lose their right to vote under the Act. They warn that the voter rolls would be purged using an AI system “set up by Musk and Doge,” so people could show up at the polling place only to be told they’re not on the rolls and would not be notified. The speaker emphasizes that millions would be purged from the rolls because of this system, and voters would be denied notice and turned away at polling sites. The rhetoric likens the measure to one of the nastiest pieces of legislation, returning to the Old South where people were prohibited from voting and spreading it across America. Additionally, the speaker references President Trump’s stance, stating that Trump says he will not sign any legislation until Congress passes Doge, and asserts that “we ain’t passing Doge.” The broader point is that this stance would provoke gridlock in Congress and prevent passage of bills that could lower costs for prescription drugs and electricity.

The speaker criticizes the idea that black and brown people cannot obtain IDs to vote, calling it racist and a form of low expectations. They emphasize that voting in the country is easy and that they, along with their family members who served in the military, have never faced difficulties in obtaining IDs. The speaker urges others to focus on voter integrity and not let the issue be framed as a racial one. They promise to fight for the people's right to have their votes counted in Congress.

In California and New York, showing ID when voting is not allowed, even if you want to. The question is, why would that ever be a good idea? Well, if you're trying to facilitate fraud in elections, it's a great idea. There's logically no other reason why that would be a good idea. It's for fraud. Wake up, people. If you wanted to commit fraud, the first things you would do is say that you don't need an ID and that you can mail in your ballot.

A person attempted to show their ID while voting in Palo Alto, California, but election officials refused to look at it. According to the speaker, they were "not allowed" to look at the ID even when offered. The speaker characterizes this as "madness" and claims that if Democrats win nationally, they will implement similar policies nationwide, resulting in the end of democracy.

The discussion centers on voter registration and a bill that, according to the speaker, allows ICE to remove tens of millions of people from voter rolls. The speaker says these individuals are not informed until election day, when they arrive to vote and are told they are not registered, not registered in that location, and not on the rolls. The speaker states that people then respond, “I didn’t know that.” The speaker argues that the bill is not about requiring voters to show ID at the polls. Instead, they say it targets the voter registration rolls by purging them and preventing people from being notified. They further claim the process involves an algorithm “put together by ICE,” “put together by Doge and Musk.” The speaker describes the bill as an “outrage” and says that this is why many people do not want it passed.

This proposal is a serious matter. People who register and vote illegally disenfranchise actual US citizens. The speaker objects to the suggestion that their motive is to disingenuously sow fear and uncertainty about election legitimacy, calling the accusation inaccurate and lacking proof. The speaker believes there is ample reason to bring the proposal forward and expresses deep disappointment that it cannot pass. It is not too much to ask to put teeth into existing laws stating that only US citizens can vote in US elections. The House passed it, and the Senate could pass it now. It is inexcusable not to.

The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID. The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.

Mail-in ballots are problematic, and so is the lack of voter ID requirements. It's baffling that some argue against needing ID to vote, especially since IDs are required for many everyday activities, like getting a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID status, raising questions about the rationale behind it. At the Democratic National Convention, extensive identification was required for attendees, yet voting—an essential civic duty—does not have the same requirement. Many people, including Democrats, believe voter ID should be mandatory, but some politicians oppose it, possibly to facilitate cheating. Ultimately, it's hard to understand why there would be resistance to ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

Governor Tim Wall signed the driver's license for all bill into law, allowing all Minnesotans to obtain a driver's license regardless of immigration status. One speaker stated that instead of changing the politician, the goal is to change the voter. Allowing undocumented immigrants to have an ID is considered un-American, and the speaker believes the intention is to flood the market with illegal voters, given concerns about free and fair elections. The speaker claims this policy will allow millions of people to have an ID. The speaker believes that taxpaying and everyday Americans find this policy disgusting and outrageous, and that policymakers are not listening to the concerns of the public.

Mail-in ballots pose significant issues. Voter ID requirements are also contentious, with arguments against them often lacking clarity. It's perplexing why some oppose having ID, especially since it's required for many everyday activities, like obtaining a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID, raising questions about the rationale behind such a decision. In contrast, organizations like the Democratic National Convention require extensive identification for their events. If ID is necessary for various transactions, why not for voting, which is crucial? Many citizens, including Democrats, support voter ID, but some politicians resist it, possibly to maintain opportunities for fraud. Ultimately, the lack of voter ID raises concerns about the integrity of elections.

Speaker 0 argues that illegal voting occurs with penalties in place, and asserts that it happens all the time. He contends that the claim of illegality not being widespread is not reliable, insisting that we do not know how widespread illegal voting is because it is not being detected. He describes the California voter registration process, noting on the section where a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number are entered, there is a box underneath each one stating, “I don’t have one,” which allows a person to proceed to vote. He says this demonstrates that the notion of needing to present some form of identification to register to vote is not accurate and is not being implemented in California. Additionally, he states that people are being registered to vote at the DMV, and cites audits indicating that the DMV has improperly registered people, including illegal immigrants. He claims there is immunity in place that says if the DMV registers someone who is not eligible, they are immune from prosecution. Based on these points, he expresses the belief that there are not sufficient safeguards in place to detect and prevent people from committing voter fraud.

Speaker 0 argued that illegal voting occurs and that the penalties in place are not deterring it; “It happens all the time, senator. It happens all the time. You're just saying it's not widespread. But I'm saying we don't know how spread it is because we don't detect it.” He pointed to California’s registration process, noting that on the registration website there is a box under the fields for the driver’s license and the last four of the social number that says, “I don't have one. I don't have one.” He stated that one is allowed to proceed to vote after checking that box, implying that the requirement to present some form of identification to register is not accurate. He added, “So this idea that you're not allowed to register to vote unless you present some sort of identification is not accurate. It's not true. It's not being implemented in the state of California.” Speaker 0 further claimed that people are being registered to vote at the DMV, and cited audits indicating that the DMV has improperly registered people, including illegal immigrants. He asserted that there is immunity in place that says if the DMV registers someone who is not eligible they are immune from prosecution. Based on these points, he expressed the view that there are not sufficient safeguards in place to detect and prevent people from committing voter fraud.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states are not requiring proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia issued an executive order to clean up voting rules. The Biden administration's Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to try to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern because everyone should want the law to be followed.

The speaker claims the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining election integrity, not them. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting, but states have issues. The speaker says the House passed the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, but Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. The speaker alleges the open border policy is a Democratic strategy to enable non-citizen voting. They estimate 16 million illegal aliens are in the country since the border was opened, raising concerns about their potential illegal participation in elections, where some races are decided by very few votes. The speaker also cites California's ballot harvesting and unmanned ballot boxes in Wisconsin as potential sources of fraud.

The speaker states that the best investigators are pursuing election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and can be exploited to manipulate vote results. This vulnerability allegedly drives the mandate to implement paper ballots across the country, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

The speaker states that the idea of law enforcement intentionally allowing individuals to cross the border illegally for the purpose of voting is preposterous. The speaker believes everyone should condemn that rhetoric.

Voting illegally happens frequently, despite penalties. In California, registering to vote online doesn't require ID. The DMV is registering people to vote, even illegal immigrants, with immunity from prosecution. Safeguards against voter fraud are lacking.

The speaker discusses the issue of voter fraud in Texas and how it cannot be prosecuted due to a court ruling. They explain that local district attorneys are not prosecuting voter fraud cases, so the attorney general took on the responsibility. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals deemed it unconstitutional for the attorney general to be involved in court cases. This means that voter fraud is no longer being prosecuted. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of defense against voter fraud and mentions attempts to pass a law to reauthorize prosecution, but it was not prioritized by the Texas House. They emphasize the importance of addressing voter fraud as it impacts the election of the right people.

The speaker believes the election was rigged due to COVID changes in voting. Censorship of COVID discussions is seen as undemocratic. In a democracy, people need all information to make informed decisions during elections. Without access to all information, there is no true democracy or free elections.

In California and New York, it is illegal to ask for or show ID when people vote. According to the speakers, there is no logical reason for this law other than to facilitate election fraud. To commit fraud, one would eliminate the need for ID and allow mail-in ballots.

The speaker expresses shock at the idea of allowing people to vote without an ID. They mention that some people believe all Indians and Chinese look alike, making it difficult to identify individuals. They argue that anyone could show up and vote, even pretending to be someone else. The speaker believes that having an ID should be a basic requirement for voting and suggests that everyone should be required to provide identification.