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.
If the line is an 8 hour wait they can die and shorten the line.Well because, if a voter wants water while waiting in their 8 hour line they can either die there in the line or get out of line and go drink water. Fraud avoided.How does it prevent “voter fraud”?How does this suppress votes?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.
Because idiot lefties say so...
Link to an 8 hour wait please.
www.theguardian.com
The real question is what chicanery led to such a law being passed?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.
The real question is what chicanery led to such a law being passed?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.
All we're hearing here are childishly simplified emotional outbursts devoid of any intellectual depth of understanding.
"Water is illegal!!!! Waaaahhh!!!!". F'n retards.
Like the entirety of the bill, none.The real question is what chicanery led to such a law being passed?
Do you think water is now an illegal substance in Georgia?Like the entirety of the bill, none.
Georgia had an election with little evidence of fraud let alone proof of widespread impropriety. Yet, here is a bill overhauling the election mechanisms. The only reason for this, the only thing they changed, is that Democrats won and that’s what they intend to address with this bill.
/—-/ “Here’s some snacks —- and don’t forget to vote democRAT. “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...
Indeed. You don't believe Georgia has made water illegal, like the title of this thread contends, right?Thank God I’m one of the reasonable ones.
Please take no offense to this. But it is clear you never argued in a court of law. Most haven't. But from a comparison standpoint, we had a President say "it depends on what the definition of the word is, is"....If they intended for it to be limited to people doing campaign activity, they would have said so. You’re inserting words which aren’t in the bill.doing campaign activity
Besides; there’s already a prohibition against campaign activity. The intent is clear that it’s not supposed to apply to just those people otherwise it would be unnecessary.
And the reasoning behind this is what?I saw It as a ban of distributing water/snacks on the voting line.
The thread title is "Georgia republicans just made water an illegal substance".Truthfully “water being illegal” didn’t enter my mind.
So if a person sells that water for 1 cent...it is no longer a hand out. So is it breaking the law?Well, then in this case it says “nor shall any person” hand out water.actually, in law, "no person " applies to everyone because you can not argue that someone is not a person.So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.No really. The subject is “campaign activity” if you actually read the title. It doesn’t say anything about “campaign members”. It would seem that the section considers giving out water to be a “campaign activity”. This is clearly the intent to apply to all people given the prohibition against all persons from campaigning in the area of the polling place. I think we can both agree that no one is allowed to campaign at the polling place regardless of whether they belong to the campaign or not. Right?I don't think it is either...but if the subject is clear...for example....BLUE WHALES....and then I go on to discuss under the title..."whales" the reader, at least a reasonable reader, should understand I am discussing Blue Whales.Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?So you only know what you think.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?
Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.
Im OK with that.
FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better
I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.
In this case, if the subject, is clear...as it is CAMPAIGNS...and I got on to say person in the subsection...I am referring to the people associated with the campaign.
Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.
However, when you say "person" it opens up the debate as to who are you referring to.....and it opens up the debate as to who is a person in the eyes of the law.
Don't get me wrong. It is silly, foolish and ridiculous.
But that is how attorneys think....and an attorney of the opposite side needs to be prepared for it.
Look at how the debate of fetuses and abortion has gone. If the original argument in Roe Vs Wade was "it is a living being with human DNA that requires oxygen to survive, the whole debate may have gone a different way. Instead, the pro lifer side called it a living human being... a person......and that opened up the debate. No?
So it seems that it applies to everyone.
It is if you hand it to someone in line waiting to vote.Do you think water is now an illegal substance in Georgia?Like the entirety of the bill, none.
Georgia had an election with little evidence of fraud let alone proof of widespread impropriety. Yet, here is a bill overhauling the election mechanisms. The only reason for this, the only thing they changed, is that Democrats won and that’s what they intend to address with this bill.
If they intended for it to be limited to people doing campaign activity, they would have said so. You’re inserting words which aren’t in the bill.doing campaign activity
Besides; there’s already a prohibition against campaign activity. The intent is clear that it’s not supposed to apply to just those people otherwise it would be unnecessary.
And the reasoning behind this is what?I saw It as a ban of distributing water/snacks on the voting line.
Were people trying influence people's votes with their "generosity"?
That seems far more likely than the silly meme of "Evil repubs illegalize water".
The thread title is "Georgia republicans just made water an illegal substance".Truthfully “water being illegal” didn’t enter my mind.
Maybe 'grandma', being an intelligent adult, and anyone else that sees a long line can bring their own damn bottle of water with them if they need it?I can't believe they actually passed a law to make it illegal to bring grandma some water in the voting line. What a buncha freaks.
Perhaps black folks wouldn't anticipate a 4-6 hour line .. CLOWN
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.
So why pass a law making it illegal to offer someone water in a voting line?The real question is what chicanery led to such a law being passed?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.
All we're hearing here are childishly simplified emotional outbursts devoid of any intellectual depth of understanding.
"Water is illegal!!!! Waaaahhh!!!!". F'n retards.
Agreed. It seems rather obvious that that is what they are trying to prevent here, not this silly "water is illegal" hysterical BS.I do not think it’s unreasonable to allow water snacks to be given out, provided that those people are not attempting to influence the vote.
Seems like you’re just trying to avoid the topic by playing semantics.No, the water isn't illegal. I'm not going to entertain your stupidity on this subject. Have a great day.
