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.

(Right Wing Watch)   A gleeful Josh Bernstein says the quiet part aloud   (rightwingwatch.org) divider line
    More: Creepy, Voter turnout, Voting, Poll, Election, former President Donald Trump's speech, Elections, Voting system, website Sunday night  
•       •       •

4844 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2021 at 2:40 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-03-01 9:51:55 PM  
"I want only the people who can afford to skip work to be allowed to vote."
 
2021-03-01 10:01:49 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-01 10:02:00 PM  
Ban him from voting. Forever. I'm sure he's got a felony in his background. Find it.
 
2021-03-01 10:06:04 PM  
and now tell us about your respect for the Constitution.
 
2021-03-01 10:11:20 PM  
Democrats will now be allowed to vote on election day, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., at a polling booth located next to dumpster behind their nearest Stuckey's.
 
2021-03-01 10:21:15 PM  
not banning voting entirely and allowing one person to make all the decisions

this is why democracy is a failure
 
2021-03-01 10:21:55 PM  
Dems need to push forward election reform in the next 2 years or they are farked.
 
2021-03-01 11:14:48 PM  

Mike_LowELL: not banning voting entirely and allowing one person to make all the decisions

this is why democracy is a failure


I think the person with the winning MegaBazillions Lottery ticket should be Predisent.  Serves them right.
 
2021-03-01 11:46:29 PM  

another one of them: I think the person with the winning MegaBazillions Lottery ticket should be Predisent. Serves them right.


they say the lotery is luck but u had to know it was the wining ticket otherwise why the hell would u buy it  lol
 
2021-03-01 11:49:51 PM  
Who?
 
2021-03-01 11:59:40 PM  
Who the fark is this grape-headed dolt?
 
2021-03-02 12:21:05 AM  
No other country in the world would put up with this shiat.

But Americans just shrug and say 'Oh well that's Republicans'
 
2021-03-02 12:22:39 AM  

syrynxx: Who the fark is this grape-headed dolt?


From his Wikipedia page: "Bernstein has advocated for the sterilization and execution of his political opponents, resulting in his ban from Youtube, Roku, and Patreon."

He seems nice.
 
2021-03-02 12:36:16 AM  

wademh: and now tell us about your respect for the Constitution.


He liked it before women and 'the coloreds' got the right to vote.
 
2021-03-02 1:01:44 AM  
On March 22, 1977, newly-elected president Jimmy Carter sent a letter to Congress recommending a package of electoral reforms. The president was concerned that America ranked twenty-first in voter participation among the world's democracies. He argued that the problem was not voter apathy but that "millions of Americans are prevented or discouraged from voting in every election by antiquated and overly restrictive voter registration laws"-a fact proven by the record rates of participation in 1976 in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota that let voters register on Election Day. Carter recommended same-day registration be adopted universally-tempering concerns that such measures might increase opportunities for fraud by increasing penalties against it to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


It was among the most sweeping political reform proposals in U.S. history-and soon afterward, legislators from both parties stood together at a news briefing to endorse all or most of it. The bill for universal registration, which RNC chairman Brock called "a Republican concept," was cosponsored by four Republicans. Senator Baker suggested going even further by making Election Day a national holiday, keeping polls open twenty-four hours, and instituting automatic registration. House minority leader John Rhodes, the conservative disciple of Barry Goldwater, predicted the proposal would pass "in substantially the same form with a lot of Republican support, including my own."

More democracy: who could object?

The answer was: the New Right, which took their lessons about "electoral reform" from legends of Kennedy beating Nixon via votes received from the cemeteries of Chicago.

The next issue of Human Events, a conservative newspaper, was bannered, "ELECTION 'REFORM' PACKAGE: EUTHANASIA FOR THE GOP." It argued that the current electoral system had never disenfranchised a single citizen-at least "no citizen who cares enough to make the minimal effort." So why was Carter proposing to change it? Because, Kevin Phillips insisted, it would "blow the Republican Party sky high." Phillips claimed that Carter had calculated that since he had won Wisconsin by a tiny margin, defying predictions, and since "most electoral analysts credited that upset to the 210,000 allowed to register on election day," he wanted to expand the scam to all fifty states. A Berkeley political scientist, Human Events noted, predicted national turnout would go up 20 percent under Carter's reforms-a bad thing, the editors said, because "the bulk of these extra votes will go to Carter's Democratic Party . . . with blacks and other traditionally Democratic voter groups accounting for most of the increase." Conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, got out one issue brief arguing that instant registration might allow the "eight million illegal aliens in the U.S." to vote, and another arguing that it was a mistake to "take for granted that it is desirable to increase the number of people who vote."

Ronald Reagan had been making similar arguments for years. "Look at the potential for cheating," he thundered in 1975 when Democrats proposed a system allowing citizens to register by mail. A voter "can be John Doe in Berkeley, and J. F. Doe in the next county, all by saying he intends to live in both places. . . . Yes, it takes a little work to be a voter; it takes some planning to get to the polls or send an absentee ballot . . . that's a small price to pay for freedom." He took up the same cudgel shortly after Carter's inauguration when California adopted easier procedures: "Why don't we try reverse psychology and make it harder to vote?" Now, following Carter's electoral reform message, Reagan wrote in his column that what this all was really about was boosting votes from "the bloc comprised of those who get a whole lot more from the federal government in various kinds of income distribution than they contribute to it. . . . Don't be surprised if an army of election workers-much of it supplied by labor organizations which have managed to exempt themselves from election law restrictions-sweep through metropolitan areas scooping up otherwise apathetic voters and rushing them to the polls to keep the benefit-dispensers in power."

He added, in a newsletter column on Hatch Act reform, "The intent of the bill seems to be to convert your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat into a machine politician. After all, he does have an interest in keeping government growing"-and if successful it would "render the Republican Party as dead as the dodo bird." He dedicated a radio broadcast to what he called the most terrifying idea of all: popular election of presidents. "The very basis for our freedom is that we are a federation of sovereign states. Our constitution recognizes that certain rights belong to the states and cannot be infringed upon by the national government." John C. Calhoun had pioneered that argument in South Carolina in the 1830s, as a way to cloak attempts to preserve slavery in noble constitutional raiment.

And the party establishment soon became convinced.

Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Brock met in Los Angeles with Reagan, who subsequently told supporters that the chairman had assured him "he is opposed to the election reform package," which "might better be called the Universal Voter Fraud Bill." Brock then penned an article in the RNC magazine First Monday on the "Democratic Power Grab"; when it had been proposed he called it a "Republican idea." The RNC passed a resolution claiming that same-day registration would "endanger the integrity of the franchise and open American elections to serious threat of fraud."

https://time.com/5881305/president-ca​r​ter-election-reform/
 
2021-03-02 1:30:27 AM  

wearsmanyhats: "I want only the people who can afford to skip work and attend an insurrection to be allowed to vote."

 
2021-03-02 1:41:24 AM  

Somacandra: Ban him from voting. Forever. I'm sure he's got a felony in his background. Find it.


Why are these people allowed forums or voting rights?

They should be in Leavenworth.
 
2021-03-02 1:42:06 AM  

Superjoe: Dems need to push forward election reform in the next 2 years or they are farked.


That's where this is going. A one party state where only loyal fascist republicans will be allowed to vote.
 
2021-03-02 1:43:09 AM  
Absolutist free speech will kill this nation.
 
2021-03-02 2:40:59 AM  
Republicans have been saying this quiet part out loud for nearly ten years. They can barely contain their glee over the fact that voter ID laws and what not would disenfranchise people and turn elections.
 
2021-03-02 2:43:27 AM  

DeathBySarcasm: Democrats will now be allowed to vote on election day, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., at a polling booth located next to dumpster behind their nearest Stuckey's.


And the queue is seven hours long.
 
2021-03-02 2:46:30 AM  
Apropos of absolutely nothing, some folk could really do with a swift hook to the jaw.
 
2021-03-02 2:50:42 AM  
Bernstein then insisted that we must "raise the voting age to a minimum of 21"

And now Fark Boomers look uncomfortable as they find themselves agreeing with some of what the racist asshole said.

\any minimum voting age is discrimination
\\but discrimating against people you hold in contempt is ok!
 
2021-03-02 2:50:54 AM  
There's still a quiet part?
 
2021-03-02 2:52:35 AM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Absolutist free speech will kill this nation.


There's no such thing as "absolutist" free speech. Either we have it or we don't.

Other nations never had a Constitution which guaranteed the right to free speech at the outset; so they have managed to ban or censor certain speech without damaging their nations. America has no such protection. The Constitution was written with the idea that all speech should be free, and it remains one of the most strictly scrutinized rights left to us.

The government can kick down your door, seize all your stuff, toss you in jail, all without a warrant, and probably get away with it (at least in the short term) because of erosions in the 4th Amd., but still to this day no state actor anywhere can completely prevent you from saying what you want, where you want, when you want to.

The problem is that as it stands, with that kind of freedom, there's almost no way to restrict "this bad speech" that doesn't open the door to censor "all bad speech" with the censor being the one who decides "badness". Germany got lucky because it's easy to say "no Nazi speech" but they have less success banning ALL fascist speech. France keeps trying to ban Muslim activities and keeps running into civil rights challenges.

If you can think of a way to restrict hateful right wing speech that doesn't lead to restricting ALL speech being disagreed with this year, I'll support you 110%. But I can't think of any.
 
2021-03-02 2:56:07 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-02 2:59:36 AM  
"southern states are not red states, they are suppressed states" - Ocasio-Cortez
 
2021-03-02 3:03:30 AM  
I didn't give a fark what the tangerine-in-chief had to say so why would I care about the ramblings of some tarded podcaster?  Go suck off your leader, Bearstain, and fark off while you're at it.
 
2021-03-02 3:04:15 AM  
"I want proof of income at the polling stations," he said. "I want to see that you have skin in the game and that you are not planning on sponging off of the system.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.
 
2021-03-02 3:04:57 AM  

Ass_Master_Flash: Who?


Apparently this guy who is some sort of white supremacist

Fark user imageView Full Size


Shocking, I know! Like, if I were to ask you to picture what you might find when pulling off the hood of a KKK member you would not picture this at all!
 
2021-03-02 3:13:36 AM  
I have never heard of this guy in my life. And now I have. And now I want to erase that from my brain. I'm sad now.
 
2021-03-02 3:21:33 AM  
Fark I hate these people that have decided their main income earning activity is grifting from the least informed people of the communty.  Is there a law about abusing the mentalie defiscient?
 
2021-03-02 3:22:34 AM  

dodecahedron: syrynxx: Who the fark is this grape-headed dolt?

From his Wikipedia page: "Bernstein has advocated for the sterilization and execution of his political opponents, resulting in his ban from Youtube, Roku, and Patreon."

He seems nice.


Managing to get banned from Roku takes some dedication.
 
2021-03-02 3:26:09 AM  
This prick should be arrested as a traitor.
 
2021-03-02 3:30:52 AM  
That's not American ... at all.
 
2021-03-02 3:33:57 AM  
I was wrong, someone needs to just kill this prick and dump him a deep grave that no one ever finds.

I am ever so angry that these coonts make me more and more willing to do evil things.
 
2021-03-02 3:38:29 AM  
Uncle Vlad would be proud.
 
2021-03-02 3:40:20 AM  

TorpedoOrca: Ass_Master_Flash: Who?

Apparently this guy who is some sort of white supremacist

[Fark user image 400x225]

Shocking, I know! Like, if I were to ask you to picture what you might find when pulling off the hood of a KKK member you would not picture this at all!


What a dickhead.
 
2021-03-02 3:43:09 AM  

Gyrfalcon: still to this day no state actor anywhere can completely prevent you from saying what you want, where you want, when you want to.


There are no laws against copyright infringement, false advertising, fraud, slander, defamation, libel, armed robbery[1], incitement, or conspiracy?

Even America has limits on freedom of speech. The argument is only where the line is drawn.

[1] A guy who points a gun at random person is an asshole; a guy who points a gun at a random person and says 'give me all your cash' is a robber.
 
2021-03-02 3:48:26 AM  

HighOnCraic: On March 22, 1977, newly-elected president Jimmy Carter sent a letter to Congress recommending a package of electoral reforms. The president was concerned that America ranked twenty-first in voter participation among the world's democracies. He argued that the problem was not voter apathy but that "millions of Americans are prevented or discouraged from voting in every election by antiquated and overly restrictive voter registration laws"-a fact proven by the record rates of participation in 1976 in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota that let voters register on Election Day. Carter recommended same-day registration be adopted universally-tempering concerns that such measures might increase opportunities for fraud by increasing penalties against it to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


It was among the most sweeping political reform proposals in U.S. history-and soon afterward, legislators from both parties stood together at a news briefing to endorse all or most of it. The bill for universal registration, which RNC chairman Brock called "a Republican concept," was cosponsored by four Republicans. Senator Baker suggested going even further by making Election Day a national holiday, keeping polls open twenty-four hours, and instituting automatic registration. House minority leader John Rhodes, the conservative disciple of Barry Goldwater, predicted the proposal would pass "in substantially the same form with a lot of Republican support, including my own."

More democracy: who could object?

The answer was: the New Right, which took their lessons about "electoral reform" from legends of Kennedy beating Nixon via votes received from the cemeteries of Chicago.

The next issue of Human Events, a conservative newspaper, was bannered, "ELECTION 'REFORM' PACKAGE: EUTHANASIA FOR THE GOP." It argued that the current electoral system had never disenfranchised a single citizen-at least "no citizen who cares enough to make the minimal effort." So why was C ...


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-02 3:52:26 AM  
Fta: "Bernstein then insisted that we must "raise the voting age to a minimum of 21" and that every voter must provide "proof of income" at the polling place."

We get it.

Republicans realize that voter suppression is their only way forward.

Also they are racist AF.
 
2021-03-02 3:53:36 AM  

erik-k: HighOnCraic: On March 22, 1977, newly-elected president Jimmy Carter sent a letter to Congress recommending a package of electoral reforms. The president was concerned that America ranked twenty-first in voter participation among the world's democracies. He argued that the problem was not voter apathy but that "millions of Americans are prevented or discouraged from voting in every election by antiquated and overly restrictive voter registration laws"-a fact proven by the record rates of participation in 1976 in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota that let voters register on Election Day. Carter recommended same-day registration be adopted universally-tempering concerns that such measures might increase opportunities for fraud by increasing penalties against it to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


It was among the most sweeping political reform proposals in U.S. history-and soon afterward, legislators from both parties stood together at a news briefing to endorse all or most of it. The bill for universal registration, which RNC chairman Brock called "a Republican concept," was cosponsored by four Republicans. Senator Baker suggested going even further by making Election Day a national holiday, keeping polls open twenty-four hours, and instituting automatic registration. House minority leader John Rhodes, the conservative disciple of Barry Goldwater, predicted the proposal would pass "in substantially the same form with a lot of Republican support, including my own."

More democracy: who could object?

The answer was: the New Right, which took their lessons about "electoral reform" from legends of Kennedy beating Nixon via votes received from the cemeteries of Chicago.

The next issue of Human Events, a conservative newspaper, was bannered, "ELECTION 'REFORM' PACKAGE: EUTHANASIA FOR THE GOP." It argued that the current electoral system had never disenfranchised a single citizen-at least "no citizen who cares enough to make the minimal effort." ...


I don't understand why that dog is barking.  I can't hear anything...
 
2021-03-02 3:59:19 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Absolutist free speech will kill this nation.

There's no such thing as "absolutist" free speech. Either we have it or we don't.

Other nations never had a Constitution which guaranteed the right to free speech at the outset; so they have managed to ban or censor certain speech without damaging their nations. America has no such protection. The Constitution was written with the idea that all speech should be free, and it remains one of the most strictly scrutinized rights left to us.

The government can kick down your door, seize all your stuff, toss you in jail, all without a warrant, and probably get away with it (at least in the short term) because of erosions in the 4th Amd., but still to this day no state actor anywhere can completely prevent you from saying what you want, where you want, when you want to.



The USA does not have, and never had, absolute freedom of speech. You have never had the right to say anything you want, anywhere you want, any time you want. The state can and does restrict time, place and manner of expression, and can and does prohibit certain content. Strict scrutiny doesn't mean that no infringement passes scrutiny.

/but that doesn't mean that mere hateful speech can or should be banned
 
2021-03-02 4:14:19 AM  
Bernstein misses the fact that everyone living in the US has skin in the game already. We are all affected by the laws and policies implemented by our leaders. "Skin in the game" doesn't have to mean money - it just means we have an invested interest.
 
2021-03-02 4:18:39 AM  
Oh, you mean the guy from Sin City? If only he could end up like the character in the movie did, because I'm betting their personalities are quite similar.
Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-02 4:29:47 AM  
He looks like a potato.
 
2021-03-02 4:36:32 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-02 4:36:52 AM  

philodough: He looks like a potato.


So many of these people look like potatoes we are going to end up with an entirely new definition of po-faced.
 
2021-03-02 4:47:59 AM  
"Proof of income"?
But I thought conservatives wanted women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen to preserve "traditional family values".
How would they ever vo...
Ahhh, I get it now.
 
2021-03-02 4:48:08 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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.