AP Admits Noncitizens Vote In U.S. Elections While Insisting It’s No Big Deal

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GORGbx3XsAAXaPR?format=jpg&name=small

AP Admits Noncitizens Vote In U.S. Elections While Insisting It’s No Big Deal


https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/22/ap-admits-noncitizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-while-insisting-its-no-big-deal/

https://apnews.com/article/voting-immigrants-noncitizen-trump-republicans-2024-1c65429c152c2a10514b5156eacf9ca7

[Black Diamond]

Well as long as their candidate wins.

[revelarts]

the Playbook

It's not happening!
If it is happening it's rare. <-- You are here.
If it isn't rare it's good!
If it's good you should support it!!
If you don't support it, you'll be punished... &/Or it's your fault.:unsure:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GORr7f1XkAEptY7?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

AP Admits Noncitizens Vote In U.S. Elections While Insisting It’s No Big Deal


https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/22/ap-admits-noncitizens-vote-in-u-s-elections-while-insisting-its-no-big-deal/

https://apnews.com/article/voting-immigrants-noncitizen-trump-republicans-2024-1c65429c152c2a10514b5156eacf9ca7

I'm not sure AP admitted anything. A political reporter wrote a story about some political news.

On a related note; the Federalist seems to have been moving towards more reactionary stories over the past half decade or so.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure AP admitted anything. A political reporter wrote a story about some political news.

On a related note; the Federalist seems to have been moving towards more reactionary stories over the past half decade or so.

I find both the Federalist and AP and nearly all media moving more and more towards the extreme of their favorite pov.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure AP admitted anything. A political reporter wrote a story about some political news.

On a related note; the Federalist seems to have been moving towards more reactionary stories over the past half decade or so.


I find both the Federalist and AP and nearly all media moving more and more towards the extreme of their favorite pov.

Is what the Federalist said about AP false?

Or is your concern more about the tone?

[Kathianne]

Is what the Federalist said about AP false?

Or is your concern more about the tone?

I'll let fj answer for himself. What I'm saying is that if the two were to write on exactly the same topic, with same 'facts,' both would present in a way to make the story fit their preconceived pov-reinforcing most of their readers expectations. It's not 'news' rather it's propaganda.

[Gunny]

Faux outrage, IMO. Not saying it is or isn't true. What's more important to me is that illegals count on census and census dictates reps in Congress. And where are all these illegals flocking too? Or being sent (unintended consequences). Big, blue cities. That IS fact and you don't hear any of these "experts" pointing it out. It's a surprise:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Is what the Federalist said about AP false?

Or is your concern more about the tone?

Yes. If you can show that so-and-so reporter at the AP, or AP itself, has for years been denying the obvious evidence that non-citizens are voting in federal elections then the Federalist piece would be correct. It's not a gotcha moment IMO. And also unfortunately IMO the Federalist has been going for these types of "articles" of late. The sad reality these days is trump says something that might have a grain of truth but is greatly overstated then we see "journalists" offering cover stories. Kathianne is spot on (cause she's a genius ;) ).

The problem you, Mr. whatever-happened-to-the-Constitution, should be worried about is further federalization of clear state responsibilities being pushed by the Republican party. This is more populist rabble.

[revelarts]

I'll let fj answer for himself. What I'm saying is that if the two were to write on exactly the same topic, with same 'facts,' both would present in a way to make the story fit their preconceived pov-reinforcing most of their readers expectations. It's not 'news' rather it's propaganda.

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that's true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV that all of the MSM and alt media have their own povs.
It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than MSM, to those some here consider "fringe". Or they won't even consider seriously because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases.
And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively on a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a response/review of the AP story.
So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story seems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messengers issues.

[Kathianne]

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that,s true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV all of the MSM and alt media have there on povs. It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than those some here consider "fringe". Or won't even condsider because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases. And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively one a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a rsponse/review of the AP story. So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story eems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messegers issues

Humans have bias, that imo is a given. In what is now referred to as MSM or legacy media it used to be the norm to be aware of biases and try to control for them, there were also editors to check for bias, (add grammar). LOL! Those days have been gone since at least 2000 and the progression has been accelerating since.

Now alternative media or new media also used to call out the legacy for its biases and correct, often in a fisking format. Those days too are gone. Now they often outdo the MSM in not hiding bias, simultaneously calling the MSM intentionally lying and using social media to amplify said lies. Which the new media does too, on some issues much more effectively. Tech advances, including now AI will only make this whole mess worse.

[fj1200]

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that,s true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV all of the MSM and alt media have there on povs. It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than those some here consider "fringe". Or won't even condsider because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases. And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively one a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a rsponse/review of the AP story. So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story eems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messegers issues

Why is there defense of the Federalist here? It openly accused the AP of something that isn't true; the AP didn't "admit" anything. The counter to bias in the MSM isn't, or shouldn't be, extreme bias the other way which is what we have here IMO. My opinion of them is falling and has been. Actually it appears I need to back up a little bit. I presumed the Federalist was related to the Federalist Society. I don't know that is true. My opinion of the Federalist Society (https://fedsoc.org/about-us) has been restored and my opinion of the Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/) wasn't screechingly high in the first place.

[revelarts]

Why is there defense of the Federalist here? It openly accused the AP of something that isn't true; the AP didn't "admit" anything. The counter to bias in the MSM isn't, or shouldn't be, extreme bias the other way which is what we have here IMO. My opinion of them is falling and has been. Actually it appears I need to back up a little bit. I presumed the Federalist was related to the Federalist Society. I don't know that is true. My opinion of the Federalist Society (https://fedsoc.org/about-us) has been restored and my opinion of the Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/) wasn't screechingly high in the first place.
Britannica Dictionary definition of ADMIT
: to say usually in an unwilling way that you accept or do not deny the truth or existence of (something)/


Seems the AP article did "admit" that illegals have voted.
how did the federalist make a FALSE accusation?
Maybe you prefer they used the word "reported" or "says" but the word "admit" is not technically used incorrectly.

seems in your previous post YOU are assuming some history etc that there's NO need to go into.
the AP article admits the reality that some illegals have voted. And they quote many who minimize that fact without mentioning the counter evidence that the Federalist points out in it's review.

I'm not here to edit your view of the federalist OVERALL, my point with most articles is the Article/Story/Commentary ITSELF.
Not the OVERALL credibility or bias of the "source" that so many seem bond too.
Sorry you don't like the Federalist bias. And your idea of them has lessened.
But that doesn't mean most of what they say should be ignored, at least if one is trying to be objective and find facts.

Everyone on this board has said things that have been wrong/false/biased, That doesn't mean I should dismiss you or others out of hand.
or put it in the worse possibly light.

CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX,PBS, NYTS, WashPOst, CDC, FBI, CIA, Harvard, Lancet, Websters, TuckerCarlson, Reason mag, theBlaze, PJmedia, RedState, RonPaulreport, dailycaller, Federalist, NewsMax, HuffPost, FACTcheck.org, Military newssites, ZeroHedge, COPWatch all the way to yes Alex Jones.
ALL have been wrong (or lied) on somethings, and ALL have been correct on somethings.
We all can play favorites, but bottom line is the SOURCE isn't the most important thing. It's what's the best evidence for whatever is presented.

How we each interpreted or LIKE any facts presented is up to us.
& Everyone on this board, at least, are smart enough to do so.

And IN THIS CASE the Federalist is not saying anything false or extreme.
Maybe the way it's said is uncomfortable to you and not the way you'd say it,
or what you would like them to say it, but it's not false.

All media is like boney fish at this point. take the meat and leave the bones.
but don't pretend that just because you don't like the taste or smell that it MUST have MORE bones.

[Gunny]

Ok, so it's generally true. But comes from a PoV.
In my thinking , I say. Yes, yes that's true. And it been that way since the 1980s. Its been my POV that all of the MSM and alt media have there own povs.
It's something I've pointed out for years and the MAIN reason I look at sources other than MSM, to those some here consider "fringe". Or they won't even consider seriously because they aren't mainstream or or familiar or whatever ephemeral standard some folks have in mind when looking at "news reports" & history.
Walter Cronkite was propaganda.
At this point the best we can do is understand where we are, and our own biases.
And filter the facts from spin & fiction as best we can. Objectively on a Story by story basis.

But in defense of the Federalist in this case, the article is a response/review of the AP story.
So they arent simply writing a story. It's already commentary. While the AP story seems to positions itself as covering all the facts.

Also I think more and more people are aware of the bias in reporting. hopefully more people can see past all sides to the facts. not just stopping at the media/messengers issues.Right idea, wrong method. Ignoring the MSM and paying attention only to alternate sources is every bit as bad as getting your news from MSNBC and the View.

[fj1200]

Britannica Dictionary definition of ADMIT
: to say usually in an unwilling way that you accept or do not deny the truth or existence of (something)/


Seems the AP article did "admit" that illegals have voted.
how did the federalist make a FALSE accusation?
Maybe you prefer they used the word "reported" or "says" but the word "admit" is not technically used incorrectly.

seems in your previous post YOU are assuming some history etc that there's NO need to go into.
the AP article admits the reality that some illegals have voted. And they quote many who minimize that fact without mentioning the counter evidence that the Federalist points out in it's review.

I'm not here to edit your view of the federalist OVERALL, my point with most articles is the Article/Story/Commentary ITSELF.
Not the OVERALL credibility or bias of the "source" that so many seem bond too.
Sorry you don't like the Federalist bias. And your idea of them has lessened.
But that doesn't mean most of what they say should be ignored, at least if one is trying to be objective and find facts.

Everyone on this board has said things that have been wrong/false/biased, That doesn't mean I should dismiss you or others out of hand.
or put it in the worse possibly light.

CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX,PBS, NYTS, WashPOst, CDC, FBI, CIA, Harvard, Lancet, Websters, TuckerCarlson, Reason mag, theBlaze, PJmedia, RedState, RonPaulreport, dailycaller, Federalist, NewsMax, HuffPost, FACTcheck.org, Military newssites, ZeroHedge, COPWatch all the way to yes Alex Jones.
ALL have been wrong (or lied) on somethings, and ALL have been correct on somethings.
We all can play favorites, but bottom line is the SOURCE isn't the most important thing. It's what's the best evidence for whatever is presented.

How we each interpreted or LIKE any facts presented is up to us.
& Everyone on this board, at least, are smart enough to do so.

And IN THIS CASE the Federalist is not saying anything false or extreme.
Maybe the way it's said is uncomfortable to you and not the way you'd say it,
or what you would like them to say it, but it's not false.

All media is like boney fish at this point. take the meat and leave the bones.
but don't pretend that just because you don't like the taste or smell that it MUST have MORE bones.

Your entire premise is incorrect. You believe unwilling. There's no evidence for that.

The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does.

BTW you tossed this bit of meat out with the bones.


The problem you, Mr. whatever-happened-to-the-Constitution, should be worried about is further federalization of clear state responsibilities being pushed by the Republican party. This is more populist rabble.

[revelarts]

Right idea, wrong method. Ignoring the MSM and paying attention only to alternate sources is every bit as bad as getting your news from MSNBC and the View.
I should have worded that post better, instead of saying:
"I've pointed out for years and it's the MAIN reason I look at sources other than MSM, to those some here consider "fringe"....."

I should have said:
"I've pointed out for years and it's the MAIN reason I look at sources AS WELL AS the MSM, to others some here consider "fringe"....."


I read and refer to plenty of MSM material. I just rarely believe they are giving the whole story.... therefore ergo ALT media... for the Paul Harvey like "Rest of the story". But on some issues the MSM regularly gives false reports.

[revelarts]

Your entire premise is incorrect. You believe unwilling. There's no evidence for that.
The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does.


As mentioned before
the Playbook:
It's not happening!
If it is happening it's rare. <-- You are here.
If it isn't rare it's good!
If it's good you should support it!!
If you don't support it, you'll be punished... &/Or it's your fault.http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/unsure.gif

Washington DC Judicial Watch just FOIAd gov't documents that train local non-citizens how to vote in local elections.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2024/05/read-washington-dc-training-on-how-to-get-illegal-immigrants-registered-to-vote/

Ohio
"The Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division and Office of Data Analytics and Archives recently completed a review of identification records provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The data found 137 voter registrations assigned to Ohio residents who have twice confirmed their non-citizenship status to the BMV. ..."
https://www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2024/2024-05-14a/

Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379414000973
"...Our exploration of non-citizen voting in the 2008 presidential election found that most non-citizens did not register or vote in 2008, but some did. The proportion of non-citizens who voted was less than fifteen percent, but significantly greater than zero. Similarly in 2010 we found that more than three percent of non-citizens reported voting....

More detail from that study here > https://www.justfacts.com/news_non-citizen_voter_registration
Studies estimate between 6% & 27% of non-citizens voted.

Seems there is some real meat to throw.
Should right headed proper republicans never look into it or mention it because someone might call them names like populist?






BTW you tossed this bit of meat out with the bones.



The problem you, Mr. whatever-happened-to-the-Constitution, should be worried about is further federalization of clear state responsibilities being pushed by the Republican party. This is more populist rabble.

You're right, the states should be dealing with it. See OHIO above.
The only thing the Feds might help with are some tools, studies and closing the broader and proper deportations.

[fj1200]

<-- You are here.

Great. You're not listening. I'm used to it.

[revelarts]

Great. You're not listening. I'm used to it.

maybe you could give some context for you comment.

"Your entire premise is incorrect."
What do YOU think my premise is?


"You believe unwilling."
I believe unwilling? umm what? I believe what? what do you think i believe... unwilling? wha?


"There's no evidence for that."
I assumed "THAT" was non-citizens voting. so i replied with evidence.

"The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does."
Since there's evidence there is MEAT to be thrown... and should be.
it's what a good citizen does if they see election problems.

So what did I not listen to exactly?
Seems i listened to & replied to every point i could.

BTW
you didn't reply to this:

Should right headed proper republicans never look into it or mention it because someone might call them names like populist?

[Gunny]

Skipping over the fluff to the point: we've (almost) ALL been saying Biden's Border policy was to get the bodies and then let them vote assuming they would be grateful to his fine self:rolleyes: I put the Dems above no shenanigans to figure out a way to try and make it happen.

The damage is done. Looking for the Republicans, IF they gain any control of anything, to put a bandaid on it and say it's the best they can do. There's no going back and I'm not seeing mass deportations going anywhere.

[fj1200]

maybe you could give some context for you comment.

"Your entire premise is incorrect."
What do YOU think my premise is?


"You believe unwilling."
I believe unwilling? umm what? I believe what? what do you think i believe... unwilling? wha?


"There's no evidence for that."
I assumed "THAT" was non-citizens voting. so i replied with evidence.

"The Federalist is throwing meat to the masses. But that's what a good populist does."
Since there's evidence there is MEAT to be thrown... and should be.
it's what a good citizen does if they see election problems.

So what did I not listen to exactly?
Seems i listened to & replied to every point i could.

BTW
you didn't reply to this:

You provided a definition that said that they were "unwilling" and then proceeded to go under the premise that that unwillingly admitted. There is no evidence for that. It seemed pretty clear to me since it was all in one paragraph.

It's populist to try and fix a problem that doesn't exist especially when it's under the purview of the states and is also currently illegal for illegals to vote in federal elections.

[revelarts]

You provided a definition that said that they were "unwilling" and then proceeded to go under the premise that that unwillingly admitted. There is no evidence for that. It seemed pretty clear to me since it was all in one paragraph.

It's populist to try and fix a problem that doesn't exist especially when it's under the purview of the states and is also currently illegal for illegals to vote in federal elections.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79635-Inside-the-disinformation-industry-government-sponsored-agency-censoring-journalism

[fj1200]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?79635-Inside-the-disinformation-industry-government-sponsored-agency-censoring-journalism

Objection: Non-responsive.

Sustained. /gavel