HR1 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

Kill it. This is an attempt at the most agregious federal overreach I have ever seen. Don't like laws like Georgia's? Go to court.

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your CigarBid Forums forum account or Register a new forum account

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

You’re a racist, and you’re #cancelled

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Being against federal overreach sounds dangerously close to a states rights argument that is merely a cover for pro-slavery.

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Ya, what's the matter with you? You don't want a United State of America?
Damn the Constitution, there can only be One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them To D.C.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Why if only someone...oh wait...

http://www.cigarbid.com/Forum/c/posts/m/4585073/Presidentin-Is-The-Thing-You-Know-The-Thing#post4585073

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Another reason why states should tighten it up and rebuke HR1...

During the last election cycle, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, founded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, gave the Center for Tech and Civic Life more than $350 million to award “grants” to local jurisdictions as a way of allegedly helping counties and municipalities run their elections safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This money—which the Foundation for Government Accountability has dubbed “Zuckerbucks”—was supposed to help with pandemic-related expenses, including personal protective equipment and other unique challenges at a time of social distancing.

Requests for public records in Pennsylvania counties have revealed that most of this money wasn’t used for personal protective equipment but for get-out-the-vote efforts and other non-related COVID-19 expenses, which influenced Democrat turnout and actually may have affected the results of the election in the state.

Twenty-three of Pennsylvania’s jurisdictions, plus the Pennsylvania Department of State, received more than $20 million from the Center for Tech and Civic Life. Chester County received $2.5 million, the second-largest grant in the state, which was more than the county’s entire 2020 budget for voting services.

Philadelphia received nearly five times as many “Zuckerbucks” as Allegheny County, despite being only slightly larger in population. Dauphin County asked for $206,471, but was actually granted more than double that amount. Although Hillary Clinton narrowly won this county in 2016, Joe Biden increased the Democrat vote total by 22%.

It appears that the greatest allocation of Zuckerbucks went to counties with the greatest chance of Democrats winning. Although several counties did go for Donald Trump in 2020, the counties that received the majority of Zuckerbucks went for Biden. In fact, 92% of the total amount granted was in Biden counties.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/05/zuckerbucks-in-pennsylvania-reveal-impact-of-corporate-influence-in-elections/?

That's called a return on your investment!

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

If this crap load gets passed, this would be the ideal time for the states to invoke Jefferson and Madison's Principles of '98.

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

If this crap load gets passed, this would be the ideal time for the states to invoke Jefferson and Madison's Principles of '98.

RayR wrote:

Well they’re gonna have to dig them up! Buncha old slave holders.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

the Elections Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the ultimate authority to establish federal elections laws...not the states...HR1 is a legitimate exercise of Congress' Constitutional power to regulate elections, under Article 1, section 4 of the Elections Clause...

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

Whistlebritches
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#10

delta1 wrote:

So you saying you support this crap???

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#11

I support the Constitution, which empowers the Congress to enact regulations on how elections are run...HR1 is within the purview of Congress to pass...it passed the House and will go to the Senate...I'm not sure it will pass there, if it needs 60 votes...

I'm satisfied with how CA runs elections so I don't have a horse in the race...

rhetorical question: why should we pass laws that make voting harder? it is a basic and fundamental right of all American citizens guaranteed by the Constitution...

Smooth light
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#12

As long as you are the voter, and only vote once.
Plus a US CITIZENSHIP.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#13

I'm satisfied with how CA runs elections so I don't have a horse in the race...

delta1 wrote:

Most people don’t realize how California runs elections and that it is one party rule by design.

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election regardless of party preference move on to the general election.

It is not uncommon in the general election the only choice is two Democrats.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#14

That’s why delta is ok with it.

Whistlebritches
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#15

rhetorical question: why should we pass laws that make voting harder? it is a basic and fundamental right of all American citizens guaranteed by the Constitution...

delta1 wrote:

This statement covers a lot of ground

1st: How is picture ID required making voting harder?You need it to open a bank account,buy cigarrettes and alcohol..........or better yet to pick up your MLB tickets at the kiosk.

2nd: American CITIZENS is the key here.........live citizens, no headstone markers allowed.

3rd :Guaranteed........absolutely to those CITIZENS of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older

4th :Please make one valid argument for not requiring photo ID/proof of citizenship to vote......just one please

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#16

Well obviously minorities are too dumb to acquire ID.

None of them drive I guess. Just the cab drivers.

Whistlebritches
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#17

Oh wait...........HR1 is OK because now "it's for the children"

Completely **** ing up the border is OK also because "it's for the children"

Remember folks if it's "for the children" how can it possibly be bad

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#18

delta1 wrote:

So is owning firearms, but that hasn’t prevented common sense measures to restrict that right.

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#19

Whistlebritches wrote:

Nos. 1and 4: I have NO PROBLEM with being required to show ID to vote. Period. I don't think that anyone should oppose this in good conscious.
Nos. 2 and 3: Both are false equivalents. No one in their right mind wants dead peoples' votes or underage voters. No one has said they should count.

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#20

So is owning firearms, but that hasn’t prevented common sense measures to restrict that right.

Abrignac wrote:

Irrelevant.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: