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.

(Twitter)   Steve Scalise wants you to be OUTRAGED that people get to vote   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, shot  
•       •       •

3555 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2021 at 11:13 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2021-03-04 11:16:52 AM  
41 votes:
Doesn't Steve have another baseball game to go to?
 
2021-03-04 11:19:44 AM  
8 votes:

TommyDeuce: But, but, those people will vote!!!

/And we'll be out of our phony-bologna jobs!


Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

/I didn't get a Harrumph outta that guy
 
2021-03-04 11:18:02 AM  
7 votes:
this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately
 
2021-03-04 11:20:22 AM  
6 votes:
OUTRAGED.

OK, now I have RAGE, and it's OUT.

So what do you want me to do with it, Steve?
 
2021-03-04 11:58:55 AM  
5 votes:

bthom37: Doesn't Steve have another baseball game to go to?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 11:43:33 AM  
5 votes:
Gentlemen!  You can't vote in here!  This is America!
 
2021-03-04 11:42:25 AM  
5 votes:
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 11:29:50 AM  
5 votes:

thehobbes: Dusk-You-n-Me: [Fark user image 680x680]

I think there is only one part I've seen that I disagree with

"In the case of informational materials for or in the interests of a foreign principal which are transmitted or caused to be transmitted by an agent of a foreign principal by posting on an online platform, the agent shall ensure that the conspicuous statement required to be placed in such materials under this subsection is placed directly with the material posted on the platform and is not accessible only through a hyperlink or other reference to another source."

It was sponsored by Spanberger (D-CIA). The intent is likely to make media sites tag foreign actors, but hypothetically anyone outside of  the US can't comment on US politics without a disclaimer. 

Hypothetically it'd effectively ban some Fark users.


What if they are using Nord VPN behind 7 proxies?
 
2021-03-04 11:28:51 AM  
5 votes:
HOW DARE Democrats vote to let people *checks notes* vote more easily in a *checks notes again*  democratic society!  The audacity of it all!
 
2021-03-04 12:31:11 PM  
4 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 12:28:05 PM  
4 votes:

Doem: Kazan: Doem: from what i read regarding things like automatic registration ect. i dont see that holding up. The trump admin. challenged how the states did some of these things (which they changed because of covid) and none of it made it through the courts. I cant really see the courts on the flipside siding with the feds when the states have established laws on these issues.

Oh... so you don't understand the laws involved. got it.

rage harder.


They sold a 19-year-old account to a 15-year old Fortnite player?
 
2021-03-04 12:09:55 PM  
4 votes:
How about w compromise, if you register as a democrat you can vote by mail without an ID.  If you register as a republican you will need to vote in person and show your ID.  We'll also close most of your polling places and limit their hours if that makes you feel better.  That way both groups get what they want.  Deal?
 
2021-03-04 12:36:43 PM  
3 votes:

austerity101: Doem: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately

How so? None of it makes voting mandatory or denies access from any specific demographic from being able to vote.

because the courts have been allowing states a lot of leeway on how they manage their voting. We can see this even with this last election where trump had all his federal cases dismissed. So i think its going to be difficult for congress to enact these kind of voting laws if they run affowl to a states voting laws

The courts may allow the states a lot of leeway to manage their voting, however this doesn't really affect how the states run their voting it's just determining that there's guidelines on what they can't deny which is constitutional since the 14th amendment section 2 was implemented, and was the basis for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It's just broadening what counts as denying a vote.

from what i read regarding things like automatic registration ect. i dont see that holding up. The trump admin. challenged how the states did some of these things (which they changed because of covid) and none of it made it through the courts. I cant really see the courts on the flipside siding with the feds when the states have established laws on these issues.

Most of those lawsuits were basically saying, "We know the state changed these laws well in advance of the election, but we didn't like that, so we decided they weren't allowed to do that because we invented a requirement that they be passed a specific way thatbthey didn't do. Because reasons." This isn't anything like that premise, because this isn't about saying "We don't like how that state passed its laws."


thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it. There wasnt any because the courts have been siding with the states on these issues for the last 10 years and everybody knows that. Justice Thomas felt there could be an opportunity to revisit but he was running up against too much precedent and the other justices probably didnt have the stomach for it in the context of this election.
 
2021-03-04 12:01:40 PM  
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: How dare they let Americans vote!


How do you know they are Americans?  No ID required.
 
2021-03-04 11:40:40 AM  
3 votes:
the gop is flailing on this issue

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 12:52:46 PM  
2 votes:

Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"


part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.
 
2021-03-04 12:32:26 PM  
2 votes:

austerity101: Doem: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately

How so? None of it makes voting mandatory or denies access from any specific demographic from being able to vote.

because the courts have been allowing states a lot of leeway on how they manage their voting. We can see this even with this last election where trump had all his federal cases dismissed. So i think its going to be difficult for congress to enact these kind of voting laws if they run affowl to a states voting laws

The courts may allow the states a lot of leeway to manage their voting, however this doesn't really affect how the states run their voting it's just determining that there's guidelines on what they can't deny which is constitutional since the 14th amendment section 2 was implemented, and was the basis for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It's just broadening what counts as denying a vote.

from what i read regarding things like automatic registration ect. i dont see that holding up. The trump admin. challenged how the states did some of these things (which they changed because of covid) and none of it made it through the courts. I cant really see the courts on the flipside siding with the feds when the states have established laws on these issues.

Most of those lawsuits were basically saying, "We know the state changed these laws well in advance of the election, but we didn't like that, so we decided they weren't allowed to do that because we invented a requirement that they be passed a specific way thatbthey didn't do. Because reasons." This isn't anything like that premise, because this isn't about saying "We don't like how that state passed its laws.

The Envoy: Doem: Kazan: Doem: from what i read regarding things like automatic registration ect. i dont see that holding up. The trump admin. challenged how the states did some of these things (which they changed because of covid) and none of it made it through the courts. I cant really see the courts on the flipside siding with the feds when the states have established laws on these issues.

Oh... so you don't understand the laws involved. got it.

rage harder.

They sold a 19-year-old account to a 15-year old Fortnite player?


fark is funny. "i dont like what this person says so im going to check his profile and see how old his account is"
 
2021-03-04 12:12:13 PM  
2 votes:

TomDooley: Doem: this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately

Just like requiring the minimum drinking age to be 21 was found to be unconstitutional.


false equivalency
 
2021-03-04 11:28:01 AM  
2 votes:
I feel bad that he got shot.....and recovered.
 
2021-03-04 11:23:35 AM  
2 votes:
What is he afraid of? He's got his seat gerrymandered; it's not like it's in danger.
 
2021-03-04 11:16:47 AM  
2 votes:
They're really concerned about the voting laws that Republicans keep breaking.
 
2021-03-04 10:53:43 AM  
2 votes:
Does this mean paying bills by mail is bad too?
 
2021-03-04 10:48:15 AM  
2 votes:
But, but, those people will vote!!!

/And we'll be out of our phony-bologna jobs!
 
2021-03-04 3:42:55 PM  
1 vote:

Latinwolf: Great_Milenko: Anybody remember when people felt sympathy for Scalise because some gun nut almost mowed him down?

Me neither,

But I do remember Fark Conservatives whining about how violence is wrong and gunfire should never be used as a way to resolve disputes, said by the same people who for years had said that we need guns to fight against tyranny.


So what's the right answer here?
 
2021-03-04 3:13:36 PM  
1 vote:

bthom37: Doesn't Steve have another baseball game to go to?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 1:05:55 PM  
1 vote:

Kazan: It's hard for someone to make sure their ID is up to date when it's a 90 minute drive each way, 3-4 hour wait at the DMV, etc to update their ID. All on a work day. that they cannot afford to miss.


Its once every 5 years and you can renew online most of the time.
 
2021-03-04 12:56:41 PM  
1 vote:

Doem: Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"

part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.


oh, so you're a Qanon-trumpist moron. got it
 
2021-03-04 12:53:09 PM  
1 vote:
The big push for voter id is strange to me. For one, it seems like a non-issue due to the extremely low rate of voter fraud. But even as a voter suppression tactic it doesn't make sense.

Who the fark are these people anyway? The kind of person who can get along without a photo ID and can't be assed to go to a DoL with $30 once every 5 years, doesn't strike me a first in line of voting day.
 
2021-03-04 12:51:31 PM  
1 vote:

Doem: fark is funny. "i dont like what this person says so im going to check his profile and see how old his account is"


Rage harder.
 
2021-03-04 12:47:22 PM  
1 vote:

Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.


The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"
 
2021-03-04 12:44:58 PM  
1 vote:
I'm all for voter ID.  And to make it uniform let's have a national ID card. I'm sure the Republicans will be all for that.
 
2021-03-04 12:32:31 PM  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 12:21:17 PM  
1 vote:

Doem: from what i read regarding things like automatic registration ect. i dont see that holding up. The trump admin. challenged how the states did some of these things (which they changed because of covid) and none of it made it through the courts. I cant really see the courts on the flipside siding with the feds when the states have established laws on these issues.


Oh... so you don't understand the laws involved. got it.
 
2021-03-04 12:07:26 PM  
1 vote:

Cat Food Sandwiches: Marcus Aurelius: How dare they let Americans vote!

How do you know they are Americans?  No ID required.


Well, it depends.  Are they white?
 
2021-03-04 11:58:04 AM  
1 vote:

gilgigamesh: OUTRAGED.

OK, now I have RAGE, and it's OUT.

So what do you want me to do with it, Steve?


Donate to his PAC and help support him and his loved ones.
 
2021-03-04 11:57:17 AM  
1 vote:

Lumbar Puncture: Doem: this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately

How so? None of it makes voting mandatory or denies access from any specific demographic from being able to vote.


because the courts have been allowing states a lot of leeway on how they manage their voting. We can see this even with this last election where trump had all his federal cases dismissed. So i think its going to be difficult for congress to enact these kind of voting laws if they run affowl to a states voting laws
 
2021-03-04 11:49:07 AM  
1 vote:

Nah'mean: For years, when people would try to go BSAB on me, my response has been that one party (D) encourages people to participate in the electoral process while the other (R) wants to suppress the vote as much as possible - specifically along racial lines. So, you tell me which party believes more in liberty, freedom and democracy itself.


True. One party tells you straight up that if you don't give them some substantial coin, you can fark off and die.

The other party tells you they're gonna fight really hard to stop the former party mentioned, but in truth, if you don't give them some substantial coin, you can fark off and die.
 
2021-03-04 11:48:56 AM  
1 vote:

Doem: this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately


On what basis?
 
2021-03-04 11:45:29 AM  
1 vote:

fsbilly: bthom37: Doesn't Steve have another baseball game to go to?

Too bad the shooter wasn't in the Air Force.


Be careful. Ze Fuhrer's mods have vays of making your comments disappear.
 
2021-03-04 11:21:01 AM  
1 vote:
Nj is enacting early machine voting this year. More OT for me :/
 
2021-03-04 11:18:02 AM  
1 vote:
Anybody remember when people felt sympathy for Scalise because some gun nut almost mowed him down?

Me neither,
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

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.