Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   The Cheating Begins   (theguardian.com) divider line
    More: News, Elections, Election, Voter turnout, significant voting restrictions, Voting, November election, weeks of early voting, important battleground states  
•       •       •

7403 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2020 at 6:35 PM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



96 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-01 5:26:52 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-01 5:44:17 PM  
"Begins"?
 
2020-07-01 5:47:24 PM  

centrifugal bumblepuppy: [Fark user image 550x339]


Don't bother reading that. Dumbass writer compares trumpelthinskin to Truman.
 
2020-07-01 6:11:55 PM  
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation. He relied on a 2019 US supreme court ruling concluding that partisan manipulation of electoral districts was acceptable.
 
2020-07-01 6:37:12 PM  

gopher321: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation. He relied on a 2019 US supreme court ruling concluding that partisan manipulation of electoral districts was acceptable.


Conservatives are the enemy.  Know one?  Ruin them.
 
2020-07-01 6:37:53 PM  

gopher321: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation. He relied on a 2019 US supreme court ruling concluding that partisan manipulation of electoral districts was acceptable.


And the conservative corrupted courts screw the people again.

Lemme guess, no hope another court shiatcans this before it's too late?
 
2020-07-01 6:37:54 PM  
Well go ahead and put Wisconsin in the Trump column.
 
2020-07-01 6:38:10 PM  
When Dems win in 2020, they must not treat the GOP like loyal opposition, but as enemies of America.
 
2020-07-01 6:39:09 PM  
So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?
 
2020-07-01 6:39:21 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: centrifugal bumblepuppy: [Fark user image 550x339]

Don't bother reading that. Dumbass writer compares trumpelthinskin to Truman.


Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman?
 
2020-07-01 6:40:00 PM  
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation.

HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER??
 
2020-07-01 6:40:29 PM  

gopher321: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation. He relied on a 2019 US supreme court ruling concluding that partisan manipulation of electoral districts was acceptable.


Dear Wisconsin GOP 
media0.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-07-01 6:40:53 PM  

Cafe Threads: "Begins"?


It's short for "has been in continuous operation for at least the last two decades".
 
2020-07-01 6:41:41 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?


Based on that ruling, yes. Discrimination against a political party is fine, because there is clearly not discrimination against people if various minorities make up that party.
 
2020-07-01 6:41:52 PM  

fusillade762: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation.

HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER??


Not to put too fine a point on it but Nazis and Fascist are political parties/stances and I discriminate so much against them.
 
2020-07-01 6:42:45 PM  
NC Republicans draw blatantly partisan gerrymander
Youtube yBweZMNIm2M
 
2020-07-01 6:43:42 PM  
This record does not support a conclusion that the legislators who voted for the contested statutes cared about race; they cared about voters' political preferences."

Sorry, but the two are inextricably linked. Or haven't you looked at the polling and almost every election result of the past 30 years. I am so sick of the black and white BS from the government. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Look up the numbers of African American who vote Republican as to the ones who vote Democrat and tell me again that race has nothing to do with politics. This country is so farked.
 
2020-07-01 6:43:56 PM  
I kinda wish Posner had stabbed Easterbrook in the throat when he had the chance.
 
2020-07-01 6:44:07 PM  

fusillade762: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation.

HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER??


IT IS NOT!
 
2020-07-01 6:44:33 PM  

harleyquinnical: Olympic Trolling Judge: So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?

Based on that ruling, yes. Discrimination against a political party is fine, because there is clearly not discrimination against people if various minorities make up that party.


Republicans forget.

Any power they hands themselves they hand to their opposition at some future time.
 
2020-07-01 6:44:38 PM  

fortheloveof: fusillade762: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation.

HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER??

Not to put too fine a point on it but Nazis and Fascist are political parties/stances and I discriminate so much against them.


So does that mean if I run a business I'm free to not hire Republicans and tell them to fark off and shop somewhere else?
 
2020-07-01 6:45:37 PM  
"The changes were made because of politics," he wrote. "This record does not support a conclusion that the legislators who voted for the contested statutes cared about race; they cared about voters' political preferences." He added that Democratic lawmakers could retake control of the legislature and change the laws they objected to in the future.

So what if they made it illegal to vote in a general election if you have ever voted in a Democratic primary and said if Democrats have a problem with that they can fix it it next time they take the majority?
 
2020-07-01 6:45:47 PM  

harleyquinnical: Olympic Trolling Judge: So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?

Based on that ruling, yes. Discrimination against a political party is fine, because there is clearly not discrimination against people if various minorities make up that party.


Just one of many classic "ignore the outcome" technical rulings by conservative judges.

/decided to backspace over 'justices'
 
2020-07-01 6:45:49 PM  
"The changes were made because of politics," he wrote. "This record does not support a conclusion that the legislators who voted for the contested statutes cared about race; they cared about voters' political preferences." He added that Democratic lawmakers could retake control of the legislature and change the laws they objected to in the future."

A judge wrote this, folks.  "This is legal because it disenfranchises voters of a particular party. But hey, that party can always change the law if they gain power *snicker*"
 
2020-07-01 6:46:12 PM  

Surrender your boo-tah: harleyquinnical: Olympic Trolling Judge: So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?

Based on that ruling, yes. Discrimination against a political party is fine, because there is clearly not discrimination against people if various minorities make up that party.

Republicans forget.

Any power they hands themselves they hand to their opposition at some future time.


Thing is, they don't.  They're hypocrites who will gladly hold the other side to a standard they won't apply to themselves.  Just ask Merrick Garland.
 
2020-07-01 6:46:33 PM  

fusillade762: fortheloveof: fusillade762: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation.

HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER??

Not to put too fine a point on it but Nazis and Fascist are political parties/stances and I discriminate so much against them.

So does that mean if I run a business I'm free to not hire Republicans and tell them to fark off and shop somewhere else?


We are not important enough to act like the government.
 
2020-07-01 6:46:33 PM  

fusillade762: fortheloveof: fusillade762: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation.

HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER??

Not to put too fine a point on it but Nazis and Fascist are political parties/stances and I discriminate so much against them.

So does that mean if I run a business I'm free to not hire Republicans and tell them to fark off and shop somewhere else?


In that state, absolutely.
 
2020-07-01 6:46:37 PM  
Let's admit it, Americans are stupid.
 
2020-07-01 6:47:00 PM  
Can this be appealed to a higher court?
 
2020-07-01 6:47:11 PM  

Icarus_Rising: "The changes were made because of politics," he wrote. "This record does not support a conclusion that the legislators who voted for the contested statutes cared about race; they cared about voters' political preferences." He added that Democratic lawmakers could retake control of the legislature and change the laws they objected to in the future."

A judge wrote this, folks.  "This is legal because it disenfranchises voters of a particular party. But hey, that party can always change the law if they gain power *snicker*"


Now we need to find out who appointed him.
 
2020-07-01 6:48:48 PM  

Surrender your boo-tah: harleyquinnical: Olympic Trolling Judge: So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?

Based on that ruling, yes. Discrimination against a political party is fine, because there is clearly not discrimination against people if various minorities make up that party.

Republicans forget.

Any power they hands themselves they hand to their opposition at some future time.


No, they make sure to neuter the laws before they are forced to give up power.
 
2020-07-01 6:48:48 PM  

gopher321: Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation. He relied on a 2019 US supreme court ruling concluding that partisan manipulation of electoral districts was acceptable.


Yeah, that got a pretty hefty "what in the actual titty-farking fark is that bullshiattery!!?" from me. But this part just made me go quizzical dog face...
"In the midst of a pandemic, this ruling takes us back to long lines of in-person absentee voters," said Maribeth Witzel-Behl, the city clerk in Madison.

/So confusion
//Much head scratching
///Wow
 
2020-07-01 6:48:56 PM  
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that the voting restrictions were acceptable because Republicans who controlled the legislature were not discriminating against voters based on race, but based on their political affiliation. He relied on a 2019 US supreme court ruling concluding that partisan manipulation of electoral districts was acceptable.

"The changes were made because of politics," he wrote. "This record does not support a conclusion that the legislators who voted for the contested statutes cared about race; they cared about voters' political preferences." He added that Democratic lawmakers could retake control of the legislature and change the laws they objected to in the future.


You're kidding yourself if you don't think he can see the giant farking hole in his own ruling.
 
2020-07-01 6:50:45 PM  
Body bags. That's the only way this will end this tyranny.
 
2020-07-01 6:54:03 PM  
How much farking time do people need to vote?
 
2020-07-01 6:54:06 PM  

KodosZardoz: Look up the numbers of African American who vote Republican as to the ones who vote Democrat and tell me again that race has nothing to do with politics.


Correlation is not causation.
 
2020-07-01 6:58:00 PM  
Also, the judge is a Reagan appointee. I eagerly await the collective shocked faces.
Also also "Maribeth Witzel-Behl, the city clerk in Madison." Whistle-Bell is an awesome name.
 
2020-07-01 6:58:18 PM  

Icarus_Rising: "The changes were made because of politics," he wrote. "This record does not support a conclusion that the legislators who voted for the contested statutes cared about race; they cared about voters' political preferences." He added that Democratic lawmakers could retake control of the legislature and change the laws they objected to in the future."

A judge wrote this, folks.  "This is legal because it disenfranchises voters of a particular party. But hey, that party can always change the law if they gain power *snicker*"


I dream of a world where people are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the color of the political party they support whether it's blue or red.
 
2020-07-01 6:58:39 PM  

GoldSpider: How much farking time do people need to vote?


As much as they need. Do you have even one reason that they shouldn't be given that much time?
 
2020-07-01 6:59:29 PM  

northgrave: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/yBweZMNI​m2M]


Ugh. I forgot Harnett county NC even existed and that was a less than pleasant reminder.
 
2020-07-01 7:00:14 PM  

GoldSpider: How much farking time do people need to vote?


God I hate to agree with you, but if I'm reading this right this still gives voters 2 extra weeks to vote.  If this had cut it down to Election Day only voting it would be egregious.
 
2020-07-01 7:00:38 PM  
I thought we were supposed to look at oppression in laws based not on their wording but on their application.  This absolutely disproportionately affects voters of color and other marginalized communities.  But I guess laws don't matter when the judges are just sucking conservative dick.
 
2020-07-01 7:00:57 PM  

Surrender your boo-tah: harleyquinnical: Olympic Trolling Judge: So a law that prohibited registered Democrats from voting would be a-ok, because... politics?

Based on that ruling, yes. Discrimination against a political party is fine, because there is clearly not discrimination against people if various minorities make up that party.

Republicans forget.

Any power they hands themselves they hand to their opposition at some future time.


No. They have not forgotten that. This is where the GOPniks are, now:

Forget about the bloody gods and listen to what I'm telling you

They know their cheating is blatant and obvious.

They do not intend to suffer any consequences.
 
2020-07-01 7:02:10 PM  
To all Wisconsonites (and to any other residents of states who end up pulling similar bullshiat) please, please, please don't let this discourage you from voting. Please let it instead fill you with resolve to do what it takes to make your vote count!

I know this easy for me to ask, but I know that, should this ratfarkery hit my state, I will do everything in my power to vote too.
 
2020-07-01 7:02:48 PM  
We're not getting out of this without another civil war, sooner or later. Too many broken promises and too many lies, too much racism and too little democracy.
 
2020-07-01 7:06:10 PM  
farking with the literal most primary foundation of this country should be punishable by death.
 
2020-07-01 7:07:06 PM  
A little voter suppression here, a little ballot tampering there, this could easily happen.  Even if he loses the popular vote by twice as much this time.

Fark user imageView Full Size


/can't sleep at night
 
2020-07-01 7:07:09 PM  
burn wisconsin to the ground.
 
2020-07-01 7:09:26 PM  

adamatari: We're not getting out of this without another civil war, sooner or later. Too many broken promises and too many lies, too much racism and too little democracy.


there is no way to change it without violence, or the collapse of the union. the rules favor the Republicans and the only to change the electoral college or the composition of the Senate is with an Constitutional Amendment that is never happening. America is doomed.
 
2020-07-01 7:10:03 PM  

drewsclues: burn wisconsin to the ground.


It has been horrifying to watch Wisconsin (and North Carolina, and to a lesser extent Iowa) just slide into cruel madness over the last ten years or so.  These states need to stand as warnings to all of the Democrats that we cannot allow the Republicans to take control, because they will do whatever they can to make sure they keep it, forever.  And millions suffer for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.