[Developing] Nancy Pelosi's husband violently beaten with hammer

Two millionaires were attacked this week only one survived, Paul.
Rip Takeoff
@VanityHalfBlack
@pgabriel

 

Please leave @FranchiseBlade alone.

 

Atw is just trying his hardest to deny that this lunatic got influenced by GQP propaganda and finally decided to confront the GQP boogeyman in Nancy Pelosi.

Even to this moment it's still to be determined for ATW.

Ask yourself this the g2y theory was debunked. Why would a lunatic b looking to harm Pelosi with a hammer? It's already been show that his motive was political via his statements, yet ATW is still resistant to the idea that this lunatic was right winged.

Try using common sense.

What liberal influenced fanatic would go breaking in the middle of the night looking to harm one of the most influential person representing their views? That's like saying a MAGA fanatic would go attack Ivanka Trump.


In a 2 party state if it aint left, it's right.

ATW really reminds me of the idiots who believes that Jan 6 was orchestrated by the left Antifa, BLM folks dressing up as MAGA folks to make Trump and the conservatives look bad.

Man is acting stupid and struggling to identify this person political stance, which is ironic where he literally made a thread having fun guessing https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/guess-this-ladys-political-preference.317084/

How about you guess this lunatic's political preference and stop dancing around.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/11/01/alleged-pelosi-attacker-david-depape-pleads-not-guilty-in-court/

 

My guess is that the guy has drug-induced paranoia and mental illness, like many of the homeless guys in San Francisco.

 

Or like anyone who believes things in the NY Post?

Public Enemy should have taught you that a long time ago.

 

[side derail]

"just" isn't so. Congress has underfunded the immigration system for decades. Congress has politicized immigration for as long if not longer, never reaching any compromised solution. Much harder than finding and funding a solution is getting over the politic of it - as long as it's useful politics, it is not likely to ever get any meaningful reform.

But assume no politics...

What exception would you make, if any? Folks that were brought here as kids? Long-time "illegal" that has been been working with zero criminal incidents? "Illegal" that are serving or have served in the US military? "Illegal" that has a family here that needs parental support? .... (there are moral social economic implications in all these choices that you would want to deal with and not "just" let it be).

 

Then why post this?

It doesn't take much effort for someone like me to keep a few leftist morons triggered and busy.

Sounds like you are trolling since you are keeping "morons" triggered and busy.

 

That's the effect, but not the motivation.

I am surprised myself at the degree of anger and hostility just because someone doesn't immediately conform to the desired narrative and instead asks questions and does research.

But if you look at the history of the mindset behind Stalinism, the KP in China etc., it's actually not that surprising. It's the same mindset that's behind the previous concerted efforts to censor people on Twitter unless they conform to the desired narrative.

Psychologists have analyzed this type of behaviour.

 

I think you are ignoring why "illegal" get jobs in the first place. If it was just so easy to replace their labor with domestic labor we wouldn't have had this issue ot begin with.

Also given that there are millions of them here and many with a vested interest both personal and economic in keeping many of them here. It would take a very heavy handed LE to forcibly remove them.

 

Yes there is healthy skepticism but there is also unhealthy skepticism when it comes to pushing a line of questioning that is answered and no longer supported by facts. Again using 911 continuing to push a line of questioning for things that have long been answered, such as "why did steel buildings fall in a fire?" which anyone who knows construction knows that steel can lose structural integrity in a fire, is less about conforming to a desired narrative but denialism.

 

I am glad that you took time from your busy schedule and blamed the victim.

 

Who gets to decide what skepticism is "unhealthy" and do you think "unhealthy skepticism" should be prohibited?

In this case here, what I observe, and I don't even really have a bone in this fight, is that the Left desperately wants the narrative that this guy is MAGA so that they can blame their political opponent. And they get really angry when someone asks questions which do not fit into that narrative.

At the same time, the Right doesn't want that narrative and some jumped to conclusions that the two men were gay lovers or whatever.

But I don't see the Right getting angry the way the Left does.

I think it seems very clear that the theory that they were gay lovers or something is not true.

But what exactly the motivation of the attacker was isn't fully clear yet. He seems to have a few screws loose, I think most can agree on that.

The main basis of the allegation that he is also a "right wing" person are alleged blog and social media posts attributed to him. None of these can be found online (anymore?). The two blogs that were attributed to him appear to have been uploaded on the day of the attack and disappeared a day later. Alleged 4chan posts cannot be found (anymore?). Alleged Facebook posts cannot be found (anymore?).

Yes, he broke into the house and attacked the spouse of a politician from the party left of center. But is that conclusive evidence that he is a "right-wing" person?

The police says they don't know - and yet, the Left is DESPERATE to make that the official party line nobody must even question or they will be branded a Nazi or conspiracy theorist.

That, my friend, is "unhealthy".

 

Have you considered that your generalization is wrong?

 

I have considered it and have come to the conclusion that it is correct.

 

Thre is none so blind as he who will not see. The attacker stated his motivation. He specifically said he wanted to find Nancy and make her tell the truth. She was the leader of pack of lies told by the Democratic Party. He wanted to use Nancy to lure someone else to the house. That name hasn't been released yet. The motivations are out in the public. You refuse to see that. However, if the guy said "Paul and I were hooking up" you would say "See! End of story!"

 

People have a right to express unhealthy and unfounded skepticism. We still have many 911 Truthers. As in the case of Alex Jones though profiting off of unhealthy skepticism, even when you know its not true, and where it leads to harrassment of others yes is a problem.

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems like the Right is pretty angry too.

Sure there are questions that aren't answered the evidence though seems pretty clear that he was expressing Right wing rhetoric. Where and how he became influenced by it is not clear but his own words and actions are inline with Rightwing rhetoric. That isn't a matter of desperation to fit a party line that is established facts. That he is likely mentally unhinged isn't mutually exclusive.

Continuing though to claim that he isn't at least someone who is a Rightwing sympathizer doesn't fit with the facts as we know them. Further arguments such as that he lived in Berkeley so he can't be Rightwing seemed strained at best. I would say those are being in denial.

Also I see you're using the de-escalation technique of calling someone you don't agree with "friend" good. So I see that that would expliain why Paul Pelosi called "friend."

 

Is this a general statement about our society, or you are referring to this news item?

 

I don’t know if this guy is a registered Republican or not, and I don’t think that should matter all that much. There is a movement to (in some cases literally) demonize Democratic Party officials and especially it’s leaders like Nancy Pelosi. All sorts of people will be attracted to this movement, including the mentally ill. Right-wing populists within the Republican Party have tried to exploit this movement to their political advantage by adding fuel to the fire, often using extreme, violent, and conspiratorial rhetoric. They refer to Democrats as baby murderers, child-sex groomers, and implementers of a 1984-style thought-police state. And that’s the more mainstream among them. Apparently the Qanon stuff gets really wild. Republicans have a responsibility to denounce this stuff, but are reluctant to defend Democrats in any way. Hence, all the death threats, which seems to especially target women.

 

This is not meant as an attack on you.

To me, you are projecting your conviction to the "left" (not just this but in general on many topics in this forum).