Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, a thing for a thing. A gift certificate for a vote.No the business owner gave certificates to those who had already voted.The business owner engaged in a quid pro quo. Handing out water to people in line is not.it doesn't matter. A few years ago a business owner was fined because he gave gift certificates for coffee and a donut to employees who voted. However last state election in California democrats were giving smokes for votes to homeless people.They’re already in line to vote. It’s not any sort of quid pro quo.Giving someone anything to vote is illegal. It's a simple concept.
It is not starvation to fail to provide snacks and water.
Democrats engage in quid pro quo.
No one has yet collapsed in a voting line from dehydration. Elections are in November. Heatstroke is not an issue.
They can certainly have a little water. Just bring a bottle.Yes, a thing for a thing. A gift certificate for a vote.No the business owner gave certificates to those who had already voted.The business owner engaged in a quid pro quo. Handing out water to people in line is not.it doesn't matter. A few years ago a business owner was fined because he gave gift certificates for coffee and a donut to employees who voted. However last state election in California democrats were giving smokes for votes to homeless people.They’re already in line to vote. It’s not any sort of quid pro quo.Giving someone anything to vote is illegal. It's a simple concept.
It is not starvation to fail to provide snacks and water.
Democrats engage in quid pro quo.
No one has yet collapsed in a voting line from dehydration. Elections are in November. Heatstroke is not an issue.
Handing water to people in line is not that.
God forbid someone in line have a little water. The foundations of democracy won’t survive that.
Was there some crisis in Georgia with people being given water in line to vote? How was this going to address voter fraud?They can certainly have a little water. Just bring a bottle.
That's just it..these laws are not really meant to address so called voter fraud..they are meant to suppress the number of people voting.Was there some crisis in Georgia with people being given water in line to vote? How was this going to address voter fraud?They can certainly have a little water. Just bring a bottle.
The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
You can go to FEDEX and scan it there for $2.00, moron.You now need to scan your Drivers License and print it off to include it with your mail-in ballot.
So if you're in Georgia, go buy a scanner and a printer. Will cost you over $100 to do that so...sorry if you're poor or disabled. Thank the GOP for making it a requirement for mail-in.
Bribing voters with sustenance at the polls should be illegal. Sorry you don't see the problem with it.Well folks you can now go to jail in Georgia if you offer people waiting in a long line to vote a little water and a snack thanks to republicans in that state. Other republican controlled states may follow suit..Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law. There are even restrictions on snacks...
Water, food etc can certainly be gifts, and they have value.Yes, a thing for a thing. A gift certificate for a vote.No the business owner gave certificates to those who had already voted.The business owner engaged in a quid pro quo. Handing out water to people in line is not.it doesn't matter. A few years ago a business owner was fined because he gave gift certificates for coffee and a donut to employees who voted. However last state election in California democrats were giving smokes for votes to homeless people.They’re already in line to vote. It’s not any sort of quid pro quo.Giving someone anything to vote is illegal. It's a simple concept.
It is not starvation to fail to provide snacks and water.
Democrats engage in quid pro quo.
No one has yet collapsed in a voting line from dehydration. Elections are in November. Heatstroke is not an issue.
Handing water to people in line is not that.
God forbid someone in line have a little water. The foundations of democracy won’t survive that.
more than proposed, it's now lawWho proposed that??Also, no water while wait to buy a gunBlacks are going to die from dehydration and starvation while waiting in line to vote!
www.cbsnews.com
The issue here is surely the length of time it takes to vote. You should not have to wait in line,you should be able to walk in and vote. 5 minutes tops over here.
It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.
maybe you would be dumb enough to go out and buy a scanner for one use. Smart people will go to fedex, staples, office max, and so on for 1 dollar for a scan.You now need to scan your Drivers License and print it off to include it with your mail-in ballot.
So if you're in Georgia, go buy a scanner and a printer. Will cost you over $100 to do that so...sorry if you're poor or disabled. Thank the GOP for making it a requirement for mail-in.
The plain language decribes that I said...the law, qualifies what a persons the law is talking about.It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.
If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.
Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.
If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.
That is how it is still over here. Its usually a school or a church hall. The stations are manned by local council staff and the papers are counted at the town hall by bank clerks who get paid a few quid for their trouble. You get a card through the post a week or two before the ballot and you produce it to the girl and she gives you your voting slip. No need for any water because you only live 100 yards away.The issue here is surely the length of time it takes to vote. You should not have to wait in line,you should be able to walk in and vote. 5 minutes tops over here.
It USED to be that way in America when they used paper ballots and the elections decided by counting by midnight time.
I remember the schools were the primary place to vote using the GYM area for it. It was easy and the wait a couple minutes, the only time it takes longer is when there is a heavy voting turnout and that was still easily acuminated by waiting 5-10 minutes more.
Now it is a mess these days, how did America fuck it up so badly?
It’s not enough for the court because the title is not the place where they define terms used in the law.The plain language decribes that I said...the law, qualifies what a persons the law is talking about.It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.
If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.
but if that isn't enough for a Court, then the Court can look at legislative intent.
Like I said, there is no point in us arguing over this...clearly the propagandist are being dishonest about it, we know that...but as to the 25 feet, or 150 feet rule...I suppose if someone is charged for handing their mom a cracker while waiting in line together we shall see what a Court does.
I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities
It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.
Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently
I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.
I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1
Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.
If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.
Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?
I'm from the South I know how the sun works down here and so does everyone else who has lived in the region for a summer.How much water do you need for a five hour wait in the Georgia sun?Democrats believe Black people are to stupid to bring their own drinks and snacks.Well folks you can now go to jail in Georgia if you offer people waiting in a long line to vote a little water and a snack thanks to republicans in that state. Other republican controlled states may follow suit..Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law. There are even restrictions on snacks...
And why the hell would anyone providing water to people waiting in those lines be committing a crime?
bring your own. are you that stupid not to?, or do you always really on the free handout?So, the Georgia legislature passed an unwarranted law to prevent people from giving other people water and snacks while waiting in a long line to vote.
Priceless...
