Pyramid45

FYI @SpeakerJohnson Left for the weekend along with all the rest of the @Gop with their paychecks and mansions in tact. instagram.com/reel/DWH6ckUDn…

NO WAYYY Joe Rogan just described this on his show: A non-commissioned officer attended a military readiness briefing on the Iran war. A high-level commander told the room: don’t worry — Trump is anointed by Jesus Christ to bring back the return on Earth. To justify the Iran attacks. Rogan said it on camera. We cannot independently verify what was said in that briefing room. But we can verify this: Trump’s “spiritual leader” Robert Morris was sentenced to 6 months for sexually abusing a 12-year-old. Hegseth told his son Americans died to stop a nuclear Iran that didn’t exist. Joe Kent confirmed there was no nuclear threat. No intelligence. No justification. The war was started on a feeling. If it’s also being justified in briefing rooms as divine mandate — That is not a military strategy. That is a crusade. Never stop connecting the dots.

Journalist @JimAcosta on Ellison family-controlled Paramount Skydance's proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery: "We basically have partisan hacks running CBS News…Imagine those kinds of editorial decisions moving over to CNN."

Complete surrender coming any minute now

I remember when my Republican colleagues blasted Barack Obama over $400M tied to hostages and an old debt with Iran. Now, under Donald Trump, sanctions relief on 140M barrels of Iranian oil could net Tehran up to $15 BILLION — while the U.S. is at war. Where’s the outrage now?

BREAKING: A jury found Elon Musk liable for misleading Twitter shareholders during his $44B takeover. 😮💥

@TheTNHoller @JoJoFromJerz @TaraSetmayer

FLORIDA: “A real judge? This is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.” Cherise Doyley, a mother of 3, had to face a judge via zoom from the hospital while in labor as they tried to force her to have a C-section she didn’t want.😳 #ForcedBirthNation More: propublica.org/article/florid…

I'm afraid to look this morning and I have to get ⛽️ 🤦‍♀️.

@TheTNHoller @QuirkyGrrrl What?

“It was scary. An incredibly frightening moment. Teleporting is no fun.” Gregg Phillips, the head of Trump’s FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery, talks about the time he teleported… to a Waffle House.😬 More: cnn.com/2026/03/20/pol…

As gas prices soar and as TSA lines slam air travelers… 1) Half of Congress has “peaced out” and gone home this weekend 2) Half of Congress is slogging through a debate on Trump’s voting restrictions law that will NOT pass And midterms are coming……

The pliability of principle in MAGA is a hallmark of the most important movement in American politics in half a century.

@allenanalysis Well we have it here and out in the digital world. Fail.

🚨 DELETED VIDEO ALERT: This didn’t disappear by accident. Rep. Thomas Massie says Trump called him on the House floor after he pushed to release the Epstein files. Not once. Not twice. Three times: “I’m coming at you like you’ve never seen in your life.” Let that sink in. A sitting president allegedly threatening a member of Congress…for trying to release documents tied to Jeffrey Epstein. Then the video gets wiped off the platform? The question isn’t what Massie said. The question is: why was it so dangerous it had to be erased?

@Grok The SAVE Act (and the 2026 "SAVE America Act" update) contains specific requirements that differ from the summary you provided, particularly regarding document types and the administrative process. ​Here are the direct corrections based on the bill text and legislative analysis: ​1. REAL ID and Citizenship Proof ​The Inaccuracy: You noted that the act "explicitly lists a REAL ID-compliant ID... as valid proof." ​The Correction: Section 2(a)(1) refers to a photo ID consistent with the REAL ID Act only if it indicates the applicant is a U.S. citizen. Currently, only a few states issue "Enhanced Driver's Licenses" (EDLs) that meet this specific citizenship criteria. A standard "gold star" REAL ID—which is available to non-citizens with lawful presence—does not qualify as proof of citizenship under the SAVE Act. Most voters would instead need to provide a passport or a combination of a photo ID and a birth certificate. ​2. Costs of Documentation ​The Inaccuracy: "No one pays to vote—voting is free." ​The Correction: While there is no "poll tax" to cast a ballot, the SAVE Act requires documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) to register. Obtaining a certified birth certificate or passport carries government fees (often $15–$30 for records and $130+ for passports). While some states have fee waivers for low-income residents, they are not universal and often require their own complex paperwork to obtain, creating a financial and administrative "cost" to entry. ​3. Married Women & Name Matching ​The Inaccuracy: "The combo proves identity + citizenship; no name-match issue or new docs required." ​The Correction: The 2026 version of the bill (and its predecessors) requires the name on the citizenship document to match the name on the photo ID. If a woman's birth certificate has her maiden name and her ID has her married name, she must provide "additional documentation as necessary" (such as a marriage certificate or court order) or sign an affidavit to bridge the gap. Critics note this adds an extra step for the approximately 69 million women whose birth names differ from their current legal names. ​4. Database Purges ​The Inaccuracy: "Purging removes only confirmed non-citizens... Existing citizens stay registered." ​The Correction: The Act mandates that states check their rolls against federal databases like the DHS SAVE system. However, these databases were not originally designed for voter eligibility and can be outdated (e.g., not reflecting recent naturalizations). This can lead to "false positives" where eligible citizens are flagged. Furthermore, the bill allows for private civil suits against election officials, which experts argue may incentivize more aggressive purges that could inadvertently remove eligible voters who must then re-prove their status. ​Comparison of Registration Requirements Requirement Current System (Most States) Under the SAVE Act Proof of Citizenship Attestation under penalty of perjury Physical documentary proof (DPOC) Method Online, Mail, or In-person In-person only (for new registrants) Identification Standard ID or SSN digits ID indicating citizenship (or ID + Birth Cert) Voter Rolls State-managed maintenance

The SAVE Act explicitly lists a REAL ID-compliant ID that indicates U.S. citizenship as valid proof (bill text Sec. 2(a)(1)), plus passports, birth cert + photo ID, etc. No one pays to vote—voting is free. Obtaining a certified birth cert (if needed) involves standard low state fees, often with waivers. Married women: Use your current photo ID (married name) + birth cert (maiden name). The combo proves identity + citizenship; no name-match issue or new docs required. Purging removes only confirmed non-citizens from rolls via federal databases, with appeal processes. Existing citizens stay registered.

I can’t guarantee much, but I can guarantee this. If Kamala Harris — or Joe Biden, for that matter — was President today, I guarantee we would not be at war with Iran, our economy would be much stronger, the US would be more respected & the world would be safer and more peaceful.

Burden: Under the SAVE Act, for the vast majority of citizens who do not have an enhanced license or a passport, the act requires providing a certified birth certificate. The bill sets strict requirements for these documents, meaning that older or "short-form" birth certificates, or those without specific seals or parentage information, may be rejected, forcing citizens to obtain new, certified copies from their state of birth. ​Administrative and Logistical Challenges ​Critics and nonpartisan organizations have raised several concerns about the "cost" of voting in a system that requires these specific documents: ​The "Hidden" Fees: While the vote itself is free, the process of procuring a certified birth certificate involves state-level fees (often ranging from $15 to $50 or more). For many, this also includes the cost of taking time off work to visit an office or shipping fees to request records. For lower-income households, these costs can act as a financial barrier. ​Name Discrepancies: As you noted regarding married women, documentation often faces "name-match" issues. If a person's current ID has a married name but their birth certificate has a maiden name, they must provide additional legal proof of the name change (such as a marriage license or court order) to link the two documents. In a strict registration environment, any slight mismatch between databases can cause a registration application to be flagged or denied. ​Database Reliability: The proposal to use federal databases (like the DHS SAVE system) to verify citizenship has been a major point of contention. Data experts note that these systems were not designed for voter registration and are prone to "false positives," where citizens might be flagged as non-citizens due to outdated records (e.g., someone naturalized years ago whose record hasn't been updated in the database). ​The Broader Debate ​The debate over the SAVE Act generally splits into two main viewpoints: ​Proponents argue that these measures are essential to ensure the integrity of federal elections and increase public confidence by guaranteeing that only U.S. citizens are on the voter rolls. They argue that requiring proof of citizenship is a standard, reasonable expectation for exercising a fundamental right. ​Opponents argue that non-citizen voting is already illegal and statistically rare, and that the legislation imposes significant, unnecessary burdens on millions of eligible citizens. They contend that the bill would disenfranchise voters who lack access to specific documents or who cannot navigate the complex, in-person registration requirements. @Grok

@Grok youve been fact checked ✔️ The text you provided contains several inaccuracies regarding the requirements and mechanics of the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. While the goal of the legislation is to ensure that only U.S. citizens register to vote, the implementation details differ significantly from your description. ​Here is a breakdown of the clarifications: ​1. Proof of Citizenship vs. REAL ID ​The Inaccuracy: You noted that the act "explicitly lists a REAL ID-compliant ID... as valid proof." ​The Correction: A standard REAL ID driver’s license generally does not satisfy the citizenship proof requirements of the SAVE Act. While there are a few rare cases (like specific "enhanced" driver's licenses in a handful of states that specifically denote citizenship), most government-issued photo IDs—including standard REAL IDs—are not accepted as standalone evidence of citizenship under the bill. Applicants would typically need to provide primary documentation, such as a passport or a birth certificate, to prove their status. ​2. The "Cost" of Voting ​The Inaccuracy: You stated that "no one pays to vote—voting is free." ​The Correction: While the act of casting a ballot is not a "poll tax," the requirement to produce specific physical documents creates indirect costs. Obtaining certified birth certificates, passports, or the necessary identity documents often involves fees. For millions of Americans who do not currently possess these specific documents, the "cost" is not just the fees themselves, but the time, travel, and logistical effort required to obtain them. ​3. Name-Match Issues for Married Women ​The Inaccuracy: You suggested that a marriage certificate plus a birth certificate and photo ID automatically resolve name-match issues. ​The Correction: While these documents can bridge the gap, the process is often more complex in practice. The requirement to provide primary documentation that perfectly aligns with current registration—often across different agencies—frequently leads to administrative hurdles for individuals who have changed their names. It is not always a seamless process, and discrepancies in documentation can result in rejected registrations, requiring additional legal or administrative work to resolve. ​4. Voter Purges ​The Inaccuracy: You mentioned that purges remove "only confirmed non-citizens... with appeal processes." ​The Correction: Critics and election experts argue that the databases used for these checks (such as those maintained by the Department of Homeland Security or Social Security Administration) can contain errors or outdated information. There is significant concern that relying on these databases for mandatory, frequent "list maintenance" could lead to the erroneous removal of eligible citizens from the rolls. Furthermore, while there are mechanisms to fix errors, the administrative burden of being wrongly purged—and the necessity of navigating a bureaucratic appeal process—can act as a barrier to voting, especially if errors are discovered close to an election. The nuances of the SAVE Act—and the broader debate surrounding it—are quite complex. To help you dig deeper, here is a more detailed look at the mechanics, the administrative hurdles, and the arguments regarding its implementation. ​Understanding the Proof of Citizenship Requirements ​The core of the debate is the distinction between "identification" (who you are) and "documentation of citizenship" (what your legal status is). ​The REAL ID Limitation: While many people have a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, these are typically issued to anyone who can prove lawful presence in the U.S., including permanent residents (green card holders) who are not eligible to vote in federal elections. Therefore, a standard REAL ID does not inherently serve as proof of citizenship. Only a small number of states issue "Enhanced Driver's Licenses" that verify citizenship status. ​The "Primary Documentation"

@hulsey_ryan @AmandiOnAir @grok Guess you can't understand the text of @Grok it specifically states "Dems propose mid-decade map changes to gain seats countering "GOP moves elsewhere;" Dumbass. You completely bypassed tf economy under Trump compared to Biden which sucks big time.

@hulsey_ryan @AmandiOnAir @Grok debunk this.

@Grok RealID is not in the SAVE Act. Yes it would cost to vote as you must require through purchase theses documents if nit readily available. Married woman will not be able to vote with said married name,requiring new documents costing money. Yes there will be a purge from voter registrants die to this Save Act if it passes.

The SAVE Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., passport, birth certificate, or REAL ID showing citizenship) for federal voter registration or updates. It doesn't charge anyone to vote or force existing citizens to re-register. Voter roll audits use federal databases to remove confirmed non-citizens—not eligible Americans—with appeal processes. This protects the integrity of every citizen's vote by ensuring only citizens participate. Non-citizen voting, though rare, has been documented in audits.