Jesse Howe

How do you know your vote was counted?

@RepThomasMassie We need to find a different location to build data centers; they're doing it because its a high profit build. However they are mass consuming our productive farm land. Same with solar.

Today our Judiciary Committee will vote on HR 8037 to give exemptions for DATA CENTERS from environmental regulations. I’ll vote No, because no industry deserves special treatment under the law. If the regulations are too onerous, repeal them for everyone.grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5…

83-year-old veteran randomly shoved onto NYC subway tracks dies from injuries, illegal migrant charged with murder trib.al/jSRje4o

Today is just another day that @LeaderJohnThune is failing as a leader by refusing to work to pass the SAVE act. There is zero reason for not working on this bill... unless you benefit from a lack of voter id laws.

@snackpack210 @nypost I agree that charged implies caffeine - just not the level per serving they had. I would think black tea or coffee levels which float around 100mg lets say. This had over 300 per serving I think.

@HoweThoughtful @nypost It was called a charged lemonade… You would have a point if they labeled it as normal lemonade. Do you expect Panera to know this girl had a heart condition?

Tragic caffeine death of college student, 21, fuels parents' battle for energy drink reform trib.al/Zp6d3Vx

@SanteeJacksonSr That sounds right, but the issue is that we can only confirm your ballot was received. However we can't confirm it counted. We sorta just trust once our vote is received everything is tallied appropriately.

@HoweThoughtful Each state has different voting rules. I voted absentee in Texas for years. The state has a website that tracks your vote and tells you if your ballot was received and accepted.

How do you know your vote was counted?

@JamieDuffDevOPs @nypost yeah apparently it is like a huge amount of caffeine to not be expecting.

@HoweThoughtful @nypost Not just caffeinated, it had more caffeine than a 4 RedBulls

@ALgoooooTime @nypost Lmao meant to say the lemonade was caffeinated - apparently several red bulls worth

@HoweThoughtful @nypost ‘But the lemonade and she died’

@rado_88z @nypost Cool blocked lol

@HoweThoughtful @nypost Fire and go? It takes 2 seconds to proof read. Don’t be fucking stupid.

@gioman62 @EshaAA33 I don't think we do - can you right now audit your own vote? I can't as far as I am aware.

@HoweThoughtful @EshaAA33 We already have one, Jesse

Thune cancels recess while Democrat Senators head out for paid vacation. If 51+ GOP members stay for quorum, Sen. Mike Lee says the Senate can pass bills. Do you support the SAVE America Act ? A. Yes B. No

@rado_88z @nypost lmao - I just fire and forget and hope for the best "but the lemonade was caffeinated" is what I meant to say. Listen at least I don't use AI for my posts so thats a win.

@HoweThoughtful @nypost Huh? Proof read your shit

@golden_jud95652 @kondomanic @EshaAA33 Can you tell me right here how you can concretely confirm your vote was counted? If not then we have no idea how many illegals are voting. These failsafes are therefore completely necessary vs an unknown unknown.

@HoweThoughtful @kondomanic @EshaAA33 According to the Heritage Foundation’s database, only 99 non-citizens voted since 2000. Very limited mail in voting will hurt red states more than blue states.

@kondomanic @EshaAA33 It needs to pass so that only citizens are voting in our elections. After that though there needs to be a second layer of defense by making our voting system open source. We should be able to test the software end to end and audit elections results ourselves, as voters.

@HoweThoughtful @EshaAA33 Why?

@BreitbartNews Awesome - what will be the next iconic franchise they destroy

JUST IN: Paramount will not renew "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" for a third season. Its second season was greenlit and in production before the first season, which has struggled to show up on Paramount+'s Top 10 charts, premiered.

@MarkWarner If you have neither the willingness nor ability to prove you are a citizen; then you should not be voting.

Our democracy is built on the principle of free and fair elections. With the SAVE Act, Trump is trying to take voting rights away from millions all because he can’t get over losing in 2020.

@MN6Watch @BasedMikeLee Well I'm a little confused. This reads like AI wrote it. It misses quite a few things with confidence and conflates things I said with things you said.

The EAC guidance arrives in 10 days. Primaries are already underway. Officials are making decisions right now, before the guidance exists. And when guidance does arrive, if it’s vague or silent on a specific document combination — which is virtually guaranteed given the complexity — officials face the same calculation: up to 5 years prison for accepting, zero penalty for rejecting. The default will be rejection every time. EAC guidance doesn’t eliminate the private right of action either — that’s written into the statute. No guidance document removes the ability of any individual to file a civil suit regardless of merit. On the standard being consistent — the closest comparable is I-9 employment verification, which also requires citizenship attestation. Federal law explicitly builds in a good faith safe harbor: employers who follow written procedures and act without actual knowledge of ineligibility are protected from penalty. The SAVE Act omits that standard entirely. That’s not consistent with how citizenship attestation works elsewhere — it’s the exception.

Senate Democrats make many arguments against the SAVE America Act Not one of them is legitimate Not even one This bill would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat Americans deserve both Senate Democrats want “easy to vote” But not “hard to cheat”

You can't have both - if there is a chance they are held responsible then there is a chance they will seek to shirk that responsibility but that is what the EAC's input is for (which is called out in the SAVE act as it is now written). To me this setup is line with other setups we have for citizenship attestations and honestly standards for basic law enforcement even; so I see no problem with the official bearing responsibility. Personally, I would like to see an additional punishment placed on the voter as well. That being said all of this is accounted for by the EAC. So really - your argument here is with the EAC's potential output which is unknown right now.

It’s not opinion. Decades of behavioral economics research establish what happens in exactly this situation. Kahneman and Tversky’s foundational work on loss aversion demonstrates that people weight potential losses roughly twice as heavily as equivalent gains. When the asymmetry is this extreme — prison and lawsuits on one side, nothing on the other — rational actors don’t use the escape hatch. They default to rejection in every case of uncertainty. I want them to be held accountable when they are being negligent, like every other professional standard.

@MN6Watch @BasedMikeLee Thats just your opinion. Personally - I want both held accountable; the voter if theyre lying and the official if they're accepting it.

The attestation process exists on paper — but the incentive structure falls entirely on election officials, not voters. Officials face up to 5 years federal prison plus private civil suits from any individual for accepting a questionable registration, regardless of whether they followed proper procedures. Zero penalty for wrongful rejection of an eligible citizen. When the downside of accepting is unlimited civil liability and prison, and the downside of rejecting is nothing, officials default to rejection in every uncertain case. That’s not a side effect — it’s the predictable output of that incentive structure. The escape hatch exists but the people administering it are structurally incentivized never to use it. mn06watch.com/articles/save-…

@MN6Watch @BasedMikeLee No its fact, the save act explicitly allows an escape hatch for documentation as long as the individual signs an attestation so they can be held accountable if they are lying.

@HoweThoughtful @BasedMikeLee That’s just your opinion on who you are willing to disenfranchise for a stastically small amount of illegal aliens voting. I’m not willing to disenfranchise any American. That’s the difference between us I guess.

yes it will you just need to prove the name change with additional docs; something the real id does not require. Otherwise the document pool you use is mostly the same: passport, birth certificate, etc. In this case she probably just has to bring documents proving the name change which is accounted for in the save act: “(j) Ensuring only citizens are registered To vote.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State may not register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office held in the State unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of United States citizenship. “(2) ADDITIONAL PROCESSES IN CERTAIN CASES.— “(A) PROCESS FOR THOSE WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY PROOF.— “(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant who cannot provide documentary proof of United States citizenship under paragraph (1) may, if the applicant signs an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and eligible to vote in elections for Federal office, submit such other evidence to the appropriate State or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and such official shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship for purposes of registering to vote in elections for Federal office in the State.

@notrods @HoweThoughtful @BasedMikeLee No. It won’t