@tbooth1388@FPL_TomHadley I got knocked out of the Always Cheating Last Cheater Standing league because of that. Thought I’d survived when he got the 10th, only to have it all ripped away!
Actual quotes from President Trump:
Trump’s “victory timeline” claims.
Mar 3: "We won the war."
Mar 7: "We defeated Iran."
Mar 9: "We must attack Iran."
Mar 9: "The war is ending almost completely, and very beautifully.
March 10: practically nothing left to target
Mar 11: “You never like to say too early you won. We won. In the first hour it was over.” Mar 12: "We did win, but we haven't won completely yet."
Mar 13: "We won the war."
Mar 14: "Please help us."
Mar 15: "If you don't help us, I will certainly remember it."
Mar 16: "Actually, we don't need any help at all."
Mar 16: "I was just testing to see who's listening to me."
Mar 16: "If NATO doesn't help, they will suffer something very bad."
Mar 17: "We neither need nor want NATO's help."
Mar 17: "I don't need Congressional approval to withdraw from NATO."
Mar 18: "Our allies must cooperate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz."
Mar 19: "US allies need to get a grip - step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz."
Mar 20: "NATO are cowards."
Mar 21: "The Strait of Hormuz must be protected by the countries that use it. We don't use it, we don't need to open it."
Mar 22: "This is the last time. I will give Iran 48 hours. Open the strait"
Mar 22: "Iran is Dead"
Mar 23: "We had very good and productive talks with Iran."
Mar 24: "We’re making progress."
Mar 25: “They gave us a present and the present arrived today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize.” Mar 26: "Make a deal, or we’ll just keep blowing them away."
Mar 27: "We don’t have to be there for NATO."
Mar 28: No major quote
Mar 29: Claimed talks were progressing
Mar 30: "Open the Strait of Hormuz immediately, or face devastating consequences."
Mar 31: Claimed a deal was "very close" and that Iran would "do the right thing"
Apr 1: "We’ll see what happens very soon."
Apr 2: Repeated that a deal was likely, while warning of continued strikes if not
Apr 3: "Something big is going to happen."
Apr 4: Said Iran must comply "immediately" or face further consequences.
Apr 5: "Open the fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah."
April 6 :a whole civilization will die
April 7: total and complete victory
April8: objectives were met
A true disaster
Trump: do as I say, or I will bomb you back to the stone ages
Iran: best I can do is this 10 point plan where you give us everything we want
Trump: deal!
FoxNews: Trump is a master negotiator
@RobS7@RJSprouse@RepThomasMassie I'm not sure I understand your question. The law is already that only citizens can vote. And, under the current law, the evidence of non-citizens voting is statistically insignifcant.
Can someone who supports the SAVE Act provide proof that there is an actual (non-imagined) problem of non-citizens voting in our elections?
Every audit/study I've seen shows non-citizen voting to be a non-issue: the LA audit that found 79 potential non-citizen voters among 2.9 million registered voters; the UT study that found zero confirmed cases; and, the 7-state study covering 35 million registered voters that ran voter rolls through the SAVE database, which identified only 4,200 non-citizens registered (i.e. 0.01% of registered voters) and even that number is high because it was found many were erroneously flagged for administrative errors.
If there is not a real problem, how does the solution outweigh the potential harm, which is quite real? Approx 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens lack immediate access to documents proving citizenship. When KS tried a similar law in 2013, 30,000+ eligible voters were blocked from registering before the law was struck down.
The SAVE Act is a solution in search of problem. This begs the question, why? Is it simply to appease constituents who have been duped into believing there is widespread voting by non-citizens? Or is it to intentionally disenfranchise legitimate voters that historically vote for the other party?
Can someone who supports the SAVE Act provide proof that there is an actual, non-imagined problem of non-citizens voting in our elections?
Every audit/study shows non-citizen voting to be a non-issue: the LA audit that found 79 potential non-citizen voters among 2.9 million registered voters; the UT study that found zero confirmed cases; and, the 7-state study covering 35 million registered voters that ran voter rolls through the SAVE database, which identified only 4,200 non-citizens registered (i.e. 0.01% of registered voters) and even that number is high because many were erroneously flagged for administrative errors.
If there is not a real problem, how does the solution outweigh the potential harm, which is quite real? Approx 21 million voting-age US citizens lack immediate access to documents proving citizenship. When KS tried a similar law in 2013, 30,000+ eligible voters were blocked from registering before the law was struck down.
The SAVE Act is a solution in search of problem. This begs the question, why? Is it simply to appease constituents who have been duped into believing there is widespread voting by non-citizens? Or is it to intentionally disenfranchise legitimate voters that historically vote for the other party?
@InvertTheWing Shouldn't have even been a foul. Sarr stiff-armed him in the face and he was trying to move that stiff-arm away. Soft-ass, namby pamby bullshit league.