DevoHusker

This is the only thing you typed in the post I referenced, along with the Tweets from Mr Doucette. Thanks for including your quote regarding the rest of the law. Again why does this specific part of the new law make it more difficult to stand in line, how does it affect POC more than anyone else, and if it was already illegal via "gifts" how is it earthshattering to actually spell it out? https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electioneering.aspx Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place. These restrictions usually include limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. Some states also address what apparel voters can wear within polling places (read NCSL's blog on the electioneering apparel case that made it to the Supreme Court). This webpage provides a breakdown of prohibitions in each state. Here is a summary: 15 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards 37 states prohibit campaign materials/signs/banners/literature 28 States prohibit influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion 17 states prohibit circulating petitions/soliciting signatures 9 states prohibit projecting sounds referring to candidates/issues 6 states prohibit polls/exit polls 9 states prohibit loitering 3 states prohibit peddling/advertising 10 states prohibit voter intimidation/interfering with voter 10 states prohibit obstructing entrance/hindering voter

I guess I haven't seen your answer. You propose a hypothetical in the post I referenced. As for me, picture this: At a GA polling location, in May or November, there is a line of folks waiting to vote. A person pulls a wagon that contains a cooler full of bottled water, and asks folks in line at the polling place if they are thirsty. A large photo of Stacy Abrams or Jon Ossof (or Brian Kemp) is posted on the side of the wagon and cooler. The politician depicted may not even be in the race for this election, but are popular representatives for each party in GA. Do you disagree that it might encourage voters in line believe that Abrams party, or Kemp's party, should get their vote because they were thirsty and were given water? That is what I meant by quid pro quo, and it was not in reference to your previous repeated non answers. Who does this "disenfranchise" and how in the world does it affect POC more than anyone else on election day? My other point still stands. If I believe I will have to stand in line an inordinate amount of time, and I might get thirsty, I would take a beverage with me. I think that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion for the optics. And, regarding the weather in GA for elections, the average daily high temp in May is 80 and the average for November is 63.

I honestly don't get this reference? Me or GA voting...?

If you don't wish to answer my question, that's fine. I will answer yours, as I did earlier in this thread: quid pro quo

Why is it a big deal? What about the rest of the law?

Okay, but you (or Mr Doucette) still only say it's terrible to not allow water to be given out. WHY? If I anticipate standing in line to vote, I would probably take a bottle of water, or fountain soda, with me if I believed I would become thirsty. Is that beyond the realm of thinking in GA? Bring your own beverage, and then there are zero issues? And what about the rest of the law...?

One of the better reads, that I have seen, on GA voting law https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/fact-check-georgia-voting-bill-law-elections-explained/index.html The "but no water" thing blew up on Twitter. I have yet to understand how it is even a bone of contention. Here is what it says: Another section of the law, which has generated criticism from Biden and others, limits how voters can be provided food and drink in the vicinity of a voting location. The law makes it a misdemeanor for "any person" to give or offer "any money or gifts," including "food and drink," to any voter within a polling place, within 150 feet of the building housing a polling place, or "within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place." This provision is located in the same paragraph as a provision banning campaign activity in these locations, but the provision doesn't prohibit only people who are campaigning from giving out food and drink. It says "any person," not just campaigners. There is, however, one exception: poll officers are allowed to make available "self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote." And it's perhaps worth noting that there is not a prohibition on voters in line buying food and drink for themselves; the provision is about other people providing "money or gifts" including food and drink.

What a great area, and what a cool architectural statement the RO Phillips house is! Lived on A Street when first married, and we would drive around and dream...

A very reasoned outlook that I happen to agree with. This is the hot button for a lot of the left, similar to gun control for the right. There has to be some middle ground on both issues. I liked your earlier proposal of combining the two so that everyone gets a little and gives a little.

For those of you that didn't see it in the other thread

Thanks for that insight @Guy Chamberlin

I certainly did not have a say in who either side was offering when it came time to vote. Out of the roughly 26 D candidates, the whittling began almost immediately, and while early primaries in IA and NH may have thinned the herd, it was decided by the party powers and the money.

Fair enough. When I am home at 5:30, I watch David Muir on ABC. I have often noted, even before the pandemic, that 28 minutes of coverage are predominately negative. Then, the last 2 minutes, they throw in a feel good story or something of positive human interest. I get that in the past year there has been a focus on COVID and ousting Trump.

The perspective that, regardless of topic, today's media trends towards the negative...and as consumers, we lap it up.

I don't know/read her on the regular, so I am unsure of her "adult recreation of choice". It was posted in our local paper, and I thought it was an interesting read.

http://www.hastingstribune.com/cynthia-m-allen-are-we-gluttons-for-punishment/article_61081d90-90a2-11eb-83b9-7bdd39c110b3.html

say what now? If the system didn't want them, and their Party leadership didn't want them, how is it on the hypothetical "us"??

What's ironic about this argument, while the vaccinations are free, I have to show a valid ID to get one

You are onto something with American Renovation. I think we could go the HGTV way... Fixer Upper? Flip or Flop? Love it or List it?

Not here...but...the key word in the link is "allow". If it stays that way I wouldn't have any problem with it.