Posted on 04/18/2024 10:51:12 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
As it stands, liberal Arizona voting laws have paved the way for non-citizens, whether they are legal or not, to register for and cast a ballot in the 2024 presidential election.
U.S. Air Force master sergeant Nick Kupper, who is one of several state legislature candidates vying for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives’ District 25. While the voting laws do not affect his run for office, he is gravely concerned about the upcoming presidential race.
“In Arizona,” Kupper said, “even if the state can’t verify whether you’re a citizen, people can still assert that they are citizens.” While these individuals are not allowed to vote in Arizona elections, they can still vote in the federal election. “They can still vote for the president,” he explained.
In an April 16 post on X, Kupper pointed out that “In 2020 Biden got 73% of the federal only votes & Trump lost AZ by 10K votes. There are now over 32K federal only voters in AZ which would give Biden 15K more votes than Trump in 2024.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
A stopped clock is right twice a day. We’re still waiting for the first time with GP.
So don’t go there or open these threads. Then you wonder why there are no conservative news sites or shows.
Are you guaranteeing there will be no votes from these illegal invaders?
Gateway pundit can’t tell the truth to save their lives.
This is from the AZ Secy of State website:
A person who submits valid proof of citizenship with their voter registration form (and is otherwise an eligible registrant) is entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections in which they are eligible. A.R.S. § 16-101.It matches exactly what Kupper said.A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a "federal only" voter). In April 2022, the legislature passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote in presidential elections (2492); however, this law has not yet gone into effect.
A "federal only" voter will become eligible to vote a "full ballot" in all federal, state, and local elections if they later provide valid proof of citizenship to the appropriate County Recorder's office.
Arizona requires a DPOC submittal with proof of citizenship.
Require doesn’t equal enforce
“Require doesn’t equal enforce”
True. But it trashes th OP reference to “laws”.
“There’s a segment of FR that can’t separate the important facts from the made up stuff at GP. “
I’m pretty sure that “the made up stuff at GP” is the entire problem.
I’m not sure why their fibs are any more excuseable than those of Joe Whose Uncle Was Eaten By Cannibals.
I’m pretty sure that “the made up stuff at GP” is the entire problem.
I'm pretty sure there is indeed important stuff that needs to be separated from the made up stuff.
Why would we want to read a site that includes ‘made up stuff’ in the first place?
(It’s not like we can equate GP with Franklin’s ‘Silence Dogood’ writings...)
“I’m pretty sure there is indeed important stuff that needs to be separated from the made up stuff.”
And you know which of GP’s claims is real, and which of their claims is made up, how, exactly? Do you roll dice? Throw darts?
Why do you think anyone would take your judgement seriously when you’re using a source that YOU know makes stuff up?
Before the internet, conservative journalism thrived and wasn’t making stuff up. Human Events. National Review. American Spectator. University Bookman. Intercollegiate Review.
Now with the internet we instead have a tidal wave of grifters and conspiracy nutbags making stuff up. There’s progress for ya.
This was my fear when I first became involved with the Internet in the early 1990s. I could see that there would be no vetting of anything, and the time would come when nobody could trust anything.
And you know which of GP’s claims is real, and which of their claims is made up, how, exactly? Do you roll dice? Throw darts?
The same way you know what's real and what's fake?
Unbelievable.
I'm talking to a moron.
Before the internet, conservative journalism thrived and wasn’t making stuff up. Human Events. National Review. American Spectator. University Bookman. Intercollegiate Review.
All of those sources you mention, every source gets things wrong. Every single source has to be checked. You don't understand that???
You think I blindly cite information from GP without checking their "facts"? I do that for every source?
Apparently, you don't know how to do that?
Every source gets things wrong. Sometime GP covers things that other sources don't cover.
It's really not that complicated a concept.
‘Made Up’ is very different from ‘getting things wrong’.
(Are you being paid, by the way?)
Geez, no kidding.
Every source gets things wrong for whatever reason. Sometimes GP gets things right that nobody else is covering.
As I said, it's really not that complicated a concept.
And as I said, getting things wrong is very different from making things up.
It’s really not that complicated a concept.
And as I said, getting things wrong is very different from making things up.
I said Geez, no kidding. I'll give you a hint. That means I agree with that comment.
Now address my above argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.