NEW Stupid Republican Idea of the Day (Part 1)

Aaron Rupar is doing a running commentary of Trump’s Georgia rally (going on tonight):

https://twitter.com/atrupar?lang=en

But in re Stupid Republican Idea news, we have Newsmax anchors selling, hard, the idea that GA Governor Brian Kemp is solely responsible for Biden winning the Presidency:

Stochastic terrorism: your local cable company is a Proud Sponsor!!!

A big chunk of expense in that audit was the decertification of all the voting equipment that will now need to be replaced. (What, they can’t just inspect the hardware and wipe and re-program the firmware?) Who will pay for that? Should be the CyNinjas, I sez.

Must be one of those “stolen election” shitheads.

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-lt-gov-dan-patricks-232000876.html

So, I go to that link and that one paragraph is all there is. I want details! Specifically, do you still get the million dollars if you have evidence of Republican voter fraud that results in a conviction?

The Lt Governor of PA has already asked that

Nope. John Fetterman, the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania, sent Patrick proof of two separate individuals who committed voter fraud in PA, and he didn’t get a dime.

Yeah, they were Republicans. One tried to cast a vote for his dead by the election day father, because “that’s how he would have voted,” and the other tried to steal his Biden-supporting son’s vote for Trump. There may have been a couple other cases, but it was a clean election in PA despite the Republican legislature’s attempts to paint it as unsafe.

ETA: Damnit, @Andy_L!

Yeah, but do you know how much it costs to insert the bamboo chips that change votes to Biden?

“Let’s talk about who the Democrats really are. They’re communists, and they’re forcing their communism through the corporations, the big corporations…”

WTF is that woman’s PROBLEM?? :exploding_head:

She’s raising lots and lots of money – which she apparently doesn’t see as a PROBLEM. :skull_and_crossbones:

You already know this and I’m sure your question was rhetorical, but whenever you’re casting about for a motive, look no further than the grift. It will always be the answer.

I once met someone that was convinced that Michael Bloomberg was a radical socialist, and they could not be convinced otherwise.

“Socialist” today is like the “Communist” label during the Cold War – someone doing something they don’t like.

A while ago one of my Facebook “friends” who’s a raging Trumpite posted something about how the Democrats are the modern-day Nazi party. Apparently they are anti-Semites, anti-2nd Amendment, pre-hate, and pro-eugenics.

“Forcing communism through corporations”

uh-huh

that always works

Conservatives are just making it more and more clear that they (or at least the constituencies that they’re attempting to hornswoggle) simply have no idea what either communism or corporations actually are.

I know! That’s the line that stood out to me…corporations are communistic now. :roll_eyes:

Corporations are so well known for allowing workers to control the means of production, after all.

Not to mention their renowned rejection of private ownership and hierarchical relations between capital and labor.

Ha! Yes.

Well, corporations are people, and communists are people, so the math is actually pretty easy…

Among others, vocabulary issues if she thinks that for-profit corporations are a feature of communism.

To be completely fair, one could argue that corporations are anti-capitalist, in the strictest interpretation of “capitalism”. In the original conceptualization and application, a corporation was a transitory pooling of resources that allowed a major task to be accomplished, a task such was well above and beyond the capabilities of the individual parties involved, after which, on completion of the chartered objective, the corporation was dissolved.

In a sense, the primal type of corporation might be seen as in apposition to the competitive ethos of competition, which, in theory, underlies capitalist dogma, at least as we understand it. When that is added to the concept of persistent corporations, one can, in theory, perceive them as being in significant conflict with glibertatarian/capitalist ideals.

However, to suggest that Ms. Wharrgarbl’s shelled-sunflower-seed-sized gray matter could possibly be capable of reasoning on that level is patently absurd. Clearly she is aware of widespread distrust/animosity toward corporate misbehavior and is attempting to leverage those feeling by tacking wharrgarbl on top of it.