Quote:

---

REAL ID compliant drivers licenses require proof of citizenship.

---

No they do not. You do not need to be a citizen to obtain a REAL ID. There are, in some states, something called "Enhanced ID" that DO suffice as proof of citizenship, but REAL IDs do not. I think the problem is people confuse two different requirements in the SAVE America Act.

The first is documented proof of citizenship in order to REGISTER to vote in federal elections. A REAL ID, alone does not do this.

The second is photo ID at the polling location to receive a ballot proving that you are who you say you are and are the person on the voter roll. REAL ID is acceptable for this purpose.

But you do not need to be a citizen to obtain a REAL ID.

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I don't think California and New York have real id compliant licenses. I don't think Minnesota does, either.

---

ALL 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five territories are compliant with the REAL ID Act and currently issue REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards. These cards, marked with a star in the upper right corner, are required for boarding domestic flights and accessing secure federal buildings starting May 7, 2025.

https://www.tsa.gov/realid/realid-faqs#:~:text=Q:%20Are%20all%20states%20issuing,;%20and%205)%20Lawful%20Status.

---

New York is one of the states that even offers an "Enhanced ID" that IS proof of US citizenship. Texas does not have this option.

As long as force the states (that all coincidentally were won by Kamala) to mandate an ID be shown when they vote it will go a long way to curbing a LOT of fraud.

" There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!"" -Trump

I mean it's not news that he doesn't give two licks about Congress, but yikes.

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

dvldog said:

---

Looks like they are 1 Senator away if the zombie filibuster fors away (SIAP - last I read here was that they were 2 away):

OH MY GOSH! @BasedMikeLee’s SAVE America Act now has 48 cosponsors.

Senator Dan Sullivan is on board!

Lee + 48 cosponsors = 49 Senators.

Don’t stop until it’s done! pic.twitter.com/QCDCCk6yAg

— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) February 12, 2026

🚨 PUSH FOR 50! Patriot Scott Presler is putting HEAT on Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) RIGHT NOW, demanding he co-sponsor the SAVE America Act!

We are ONE SENATOR AWAY from 50 co-sponsors.

50 + VP JD Vance = WE SMASH THE FILIBUSTER and PASS THE BILL.

CALL THOM TILLIS NOW: (202)… pic.twitter.com/t7GNjy9hl6

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) February 13, 2026

Maybe Fetterman will cross the aisle in the end? Turtle and Murkowski are unattainable, and Tillis/Collins are likely longshots (although as shown above, Scott is working hard on Tillis).

---

Just called Tillis
Recommend you all do the same
Push "3" and ask him to support the Save Act
(202) 224-6342

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

ETFan said:

---

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

---

Why, he said he has been doing it a LEGAL way without Congress. Why misrepresent what he said then indicate he is abusing his power and such?

Hard to have a discussion with such blatant dishonesty.

Quote:

---

If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

---

Why, he said he has been doing it a LEGAL way without Congress. Why misrepresent what he said then indicate he is abusing his power and such?

Hard to have a discussion with such blatant dishonesty.

Quote:

---

If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.

---

---

So sorry, I forgot he could implement sweeping nationwide voter ID changes by EO. Silly me.

Yeah, I'M the one misrepresenting things.

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

---

Why, he said he has been doing it a LEGAL way without Congress. Why misrepresent what he said then indicate he is abusing his power and such?

Hard to have a discussion with such blatant dishonesty.

Quote:

---

If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.

---

---

So sorry, I forgot he could implement sweeping nationwide voter ID changes by EO. Silly me.

Yeah, I'M the one misrepresenting things.

---

So he cannot even try? He clearly says he will present a legal rationale for vote ID via executive order, allowed for under our constitution, that can only stand up and be enforced if ruled constitutional. What is your problem with that? Orange Man Bad for wanting fair elections? Blue Xe/Xer-dens have to cheat in order to win?

Yes, you are absolutely misleading by indicating Trump is attempting something unconstitutional. It's a bad, sad look. Particularly when you double down.

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

---

Why, he said he has been doing it a LEGAL way without Congress. Why misrepresent what he said then indicate he is abusing his power and such?

Hard to have a discussion with such blatant dishonesty.

Quote:

---

If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.

---

---

So sorry, I forgot he could implement sweeping nationwide voter ID changes by EO. Silly me.

Yeah, I'M the one misrepresenting things.

---

So he cannot even try? He clearly says he will present a legal rationale for vote ID via executive order, allowed for under our constitution, that can only stand up and be enforced if ruled constitutional. What is your problem with that? Orange Man Bad for wanting fair elections? Blue Xe/Xer-dens have to cheat in order to win?

Yes, you are absolutely misleading by indicating Trump is attempting something unconstitutional. It's a bad, sad look. Particularly when you double down.

---

Listen, I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future on this thread.

THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING

🚨 I’m thrilled to receive the news that Senator Susan Collins has announced her support for the SAVE America Act!🚨

This is huge! pic.twitter.com/PxAvRD2C5N

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 13, 2026

Is this legit?

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

🚨 I’m thrilled to receive the news that Senator Susan Collins has announced her support for the SAVE America Act!🚨

This is huge! pic.twitter.com/PxAvRD2C5N

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 13, 2026

Is this legit?

---

It's Sen Mike Lee's official X account you tell me

Well, that's huge!

They have 50 now.

I don't think this is legit.

I googled his name and x account. There was one that said @SenMikeLee and then another one that was @BasedMikeLee. I wasn't sure.

🚨 🚨 🚨

The SAVE America Act has 49 cosponsors…

And I’m thrilled to announce that @SenatorCollins is now supporting the bill!

Please join me in thanking her! 🇺🇸

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 13, 2026

Looks legit.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

I googled his name and x account. There was one that said @SenMikeLee and then another one that was @BasedMikeLee. I wasn't sure.

---

One is his office and one is his personal, the grey checkmark means it's certified his

FlyRod said:

---

Won't make it out of the Senate. For all its current flaws, the upper house still steps in to stop unhinged whackadoodlery like this.

---

God I pray you have to eat your words but liberals rarely have the self reflection to admit when they're wrong.

AggieP18 said:

---

I don't think this is legit.

---

Mike Lee has been tracking the count. It's legit.

Let’s go. Susan Collins is a YES! pic.twitter.com/eUgEntH0My

— My moms caregiver (@mymomcare) February 13, 2026

However, she wont support the nuclear option, it seems.

Prosperdick said:

---

Well, that's huge!

---

They aren't going to survive a filibuster and they aren't going nuclear, so it really isn't.

🚨 BREAKING: SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME) is a YEA on the SAVE America Act, a HUGE victory!

We are now at 50 GUARANTEED VOTES — with JD Vance, that's enough to PASS it after a talking filibuster!

Collins was previously unsure.

THIS IS MASSIVE! Get it done, save the republic! pic.twitter.com/At96Ieqk9i

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 13, 2026

Better.

rgag12 said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Well, that's huge!

---

They aren't going to survive a filibuster and they aren't going nuclear, so it really isn't.

---

They have the power to change the Senate Rule back to the talking filibuster. Once the filibuster is over, they can vote and get it passed.

e=mc2 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Well, that's huge!

---

They aren't going to survive a filibuster and they aren't going nuclear, so it really isn't.

---

They have the power to change the Senate Rule back to the talking filibuster. Once the filibuster is over, they can vote and get it passed.

---

That's the question... are there 50 votes in the Senate to change the filibuster from simple non-voice objection to a talking filibuster, where the opposition literally has to talk non-stop until the chamber decides not to pursue the bill on the floor?

Instead of nuking the filibuster, this would restore it to old-time rules and introduce the possibility that a filibuster attempt could fail.

Would be a big step forward if true. I'm still very skeptical that the R's have corralled 50 votes for it.

I would love to be very wrong.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

e=mc2 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Well, that's huge!

---

They aren't going to survive a filibuster and they aren't going nuclear, so it really isn't.

---

They have the power to change the Senate Rule back to the talking filibuster. Once the filibuster is over, they can vote and get it passed.

---

That's the question... are there 50 votes in the Senate to change the filibuster from simple non-voice objection to a talking filibuster, where the opposition literally has to talk non-stop until the chamber decides not to pursue the bill on the floor?

Instead of nuking the filibuster, this would restore it to old-time rules and introduce the possibility that a filibuster attempt could fail.

Would be a big step forward if true. I'm still very skeptical that the R's have corralled 50 votes for it.

I would love to be very wrong.

---

I had my doubts it would get out of the house. Thune is on board as well but hasn't endorsed as some procedural deal. Thanks for the better explanation.

ETFan said:

---

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

---

Not when POS degenerate Democrats are trying to block efforts to defeat their voter fraud apparatus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with verifying that only Eligibile citizens vote. Any argument against that including yours is on the side of cheating.

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

REAL ID compliant drivers licenses require proof of citizenship.

---

No they do not. You do not need to be a citizen to obtain a REAL ID. There are, in some states, something called "Enhanced ID" that DO suffice as proof of citizenship, but REAL IDs do not. I think the problem is people confuse two different requirements in the SAVE America Act.

The first is documented proof of citizenship in order to REGISTER to vote in federal elections. A REAL ID, alone does not do this.

The second is photo ID at the polling location to receive a ballot proving that you are who you say you are and are the person on the voter roll. REAL ID is acceptable for this purpose.

But you do not need to be a citizen to obtain a REAL ID.

---

What am I missing here?

(b) Documentary Proof Of United States Citizenship.As used in this Act, the term 'documentary proof of United States citizenship' means, with respect to an applicant for voter registration, any of the following:
"(1) A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.
"(2) A valid United States passport.
"(3) The applicant's official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.
"(4) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.

flown-the-coop said:

---

🚨 🚨 🚨

The SAVE America Act has 49 cosponsors…

And I’m thrilled to announce that @SenatorCollins is now supporting the bill!

Please join me in thanking her! 🇺🇸

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 13, 2026

Looks legit.

---

They need to vote on it tonight, then.

Don't give any of these squirrely RINOs the opportunity to start crawfishing

I think Texas law might have recently changed in that regard but I do not believe that is true for all states (and I am not sure it's even true for Texas). I believe you just have to show you are in the country lawfully and are a resident.

aggieforester05 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Desert Power said:

---

Yikes as in you think it's a bad idea? We should've had voter ID for a long time.

---

Yeah, going around Congress is a bad idea, we can all agree. Thanks.

---

Not when POS degenerate Democrats are trying to block efforts to defeat their voter fraud apparatus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with verifying that only Eligibile citizens vote. Any argument against that including yours is on the side of cheating.

---

Of course it is. We know it, and he knows it.

Problem is, the left just doesn't care. The ends justifies the means with them.

Cheating doesn't bother them. You can't shame them into doing the right thing because they have no shame.

As long as they get what they want, how they get it doesn't matter.

That's what happens when you lack morality.

Not all REAL IDs qualify, which is why they added "that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States."

Otherwise they would've just said REAL ID.

JobSecurity said:

---

Not all REAL IDs qualify, which is why they added "that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States."

Otherwise they would've just said REAL ID.

---

No the wording is clear, your comprehension of it is not