Well, if he is an infected anal fissure, then he needs to do more than to deny the content he left on Facebook, Twitter, etc. He needs to get some sanitary wipes and clean up his mess.
Might be a good time for him to change out his bandages and clean out the pus that’s been leaking too. Can’t hurt. Maybe someday he’ll heal up and have only one rectal hole.
Maybe someday he’ll find a way to deliver policy from his mouth instead…
Dear Paul: Nobody cares about your Youtube content. Nobody ever cared. Sincerely, Everybody.
Quick Question:
If you poured Hydrogen Peroxide on both ends of Rand Paul, which end would fizz the loudest?
It looks like Rumble is a go-to destination if you want to spread antivax lunacy and generalized medical misinformation.
“When we started to see the removal of conspiracy content and particularly anti-vax content from YouTube in a more concerted way, there was a corresponding increase in community sharing of links to Rumble,” said Melanie Smith, the head of analysis at the social media analysis company Graphika. “Just looking at links that have been shared by the anti-vaxxers that we’re monitoring, Rumble is number one.” Smith added that Rumble seems to have risen to this top spot among anti-vaxxers within the last month."
Rand Paul joins antivax luminaries like Sherri Tenpenny and Del Bigtree. A veritable honor roll of dangerous dingbats.
I suppose this is as good a place as any to drop this recent turd from his twitter feed.
He claims that it’s stealing an election to
I have referred to him as a merkin-coiffed buffoon.
It almost seems sarcastic. Why would he be stating that the ballots were completed in a “legally valid way” when claiming the election was stolen? Or maybe he meant “invalid” and it was a typo? It makes no sense.
I’m shocked by this unexpected turn of events.
Probably because their plan is to start “legally” stealing elections by changing the rules in the states that let elected GOP officials just overturn whatever elections they don’t like the results of. Then they’ll claim that both sides try to “legally steal” elections, and therefore them overturning results is ok.
Hmm, that makes a weird sort of sense. “If I don’t call what they’re doing illegal, they can’t call what I’m doing illegal.”
He’s quoting a passage from the article linked in his Tweet.
That article doesn’t quite accuse Democrats and Mark Zuckerberg of stealing the 2020 election. It describes what seems to be a perfectly traditional get-out-the-vote campaign, but does so in highly colored, sinister terms.
The thrust of the article seems to be that Mark Zuckerberg “laundered” his money through two election-related non-profits, which then exploited loopholes in election laws to “buy” Wisconsin’s electoral votes. It’s presented as being technically legal, but vaguely nefarious.
I personally think it’s part and parcel of a genuine* but inchoate belief among many Republicans that the “wrong people” are voting. I don’t think that they consciously think in racist terms, that too many Blacks and Hispanics are voting, but they seem to have a nebulous idea that there’s something fundamentally wrong with campaigns to get “them” to vote, that it’s somehow unfair or underhanded. Of course, get-out-the-vote campaigns among White conservatives are completely different…
*By “genuine”, I mean that many Republicans honestly and truly believe this, not that their beliefs have a valid basis.
Yep. This coincides with their belief that certain people (the non-main-street types) are not real Americans and should not have civil rights or even some human rights.
As best as I can tell, the viewpoint isn’t so much that it’s dirty, unfair or underhanded per-se, but more that voting should be something that you should make happen, and that if you’re not willing to put in the effort, you probably shouldn’t be voting. And that it’s somehow an abdication of civic responsibility if you either are one of the people that needs to have the skids greased and be prodded/asked to vote, or if you are the party doing the greasing/prodding/asking. There’s a definite panem et circes type view of that sort of thing- like it’s pandering or something.
I mostly agree with that assessment, but there do seem to me to be accusatory undertones that go beyond that - c.f. the claim that Mark Zuckerberg is “laundering” (their term) his money by giving to the Center for Technology and Civic Life, which engages in voter outreach.
I don’t know how criminals are going to profit if they’re laundering their money by giving it away to non-profit organizations.
“So here’s what we do fellas. this here cash we got from the heist, it’s way too hot. Feds’ll be all over us if we try to take it to a bank or spend it on the streets. We gotta lay low. And as for the money, I say we give about half of it to the Red Cross for relief efforts. Maybe 10 percent can go to UNICEF. And Jimmy, you said something about saving baby tigers? Let’s give the rest to that outfit. That’ll keep the fuzz off of us. We got it made, we’ll be in the clear in no time boys!”
To be completely fair, I think what The American Conservative writer is saying is that Mark Zuckerberg purchased an election, and thus political influence, but by funneling his money through non-profits, he attempted to concealed his actions. It’s “money laundering” in the sense of concealing the origins of the money that was used for electioneering. That’s more commonly referred to as “dark money” in discussing political campaign financing, but I don’t think it’s completely off-base to call it “money laundering” - but the connotation of organized crime is certainly not coincidental.
“Yeah, yeah, good thinking. Make sure you save the receipts for taxes. I wouldn’t want anything bad to happen that would… jeopardize our filing.”
Anal fissures request an apology for comparing them to Rand.
I think that that is basically it. The impression that they are trying to give is that Zuckerberg grabbed a bunch of people off the street gave them ballots and told them how to fill them in (and who to vote for) and then sent them in to be counted. The idea is that the voters filling in these ballots have no agency and are just doing what they are told and so shouldn’t really be counted as votes. The subtext being that African Americans are just too dumb and gullible to be allowed to vote.
The reason he needs to say this is that you can’t argue that voter suppression legislation is the solution to election security if the problem was Bamboo ballots and Venezuelan hacked thermostats . In order to guarantee GOP victories in the real world you need to pass legislation to prevent the Dems from doing what they actually did do to win in 2020, namely mobolize voters and get them to the polls, and the first step is to paint it as nefarious and unfair.
In fairness, I hold an identical view about Republicans.