Pelosi's Husband Attacked

[samhain]

(10-29-2022, 04:21 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: But I already said Paul Pelosi didn’t beat himself.

It's not about the guy assaulting himself it's about what people think the motivations behind the assault could have been.  Could have been any number of things.  One particular thing is most likely.  

I rather doubt that of all conspiratorial acts, having your husband assaulted by a hired goon moves the electoral needle much at all.  

[Housh]

You would hope this isn’t a hoax but i don’t trust any politician.


If this is true then it sucks ppl are so crazy they’d do this.

[Vas Deferens]

Wait…. Are people saying this didn’t happen? Honest question.

[samhain]

(10-29-2022, 11:16 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Wait….  Are people saying this didn’t happen?   Honest question.

No.  From what I can tell they are saying it happened, but was possibly orchestrated by dems to swing the election by either generating sympathy for Nancy (lol) or by painting the right as batshit crazy.  `

[Vas Deferens]

(10-29-2022, 11:33 PM)samhain Wrote: No.  From what I can tell they are saying it happened, but was possibly orchestrated by dems to swing the election by either generating sympathy for Nancy (lol) or by painting the right as batshit crazy.  `

Got it. So, Paul Pelosi is all of a sudden willing to take a hammer to the head for….

I hope anyone who believes this conspiracy does not have children. Unfortunately I know that isn’t the case. Useless POS citizens.

[hollodero]

(10-29-2022, 11:17 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: The timing is suspect, and yes, while difficult to imagine, it’s possible considering how toxic politics have become. I do struggle with the security issue as she is 2nd in line to the presidency. 

Yeah in this case the toxicity stems from your conjecture.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-29-2022, 11:33 PM)samhain Wrote: No.  From what I can tell they are saying it happened, but was possibly orchestrated by dems to swing the election by either generating sympathy for Nancy (lol) or by painting the right as batshit crazy.  `

Pretty sure they don't need to paint the right; when someone tells you who they are, you listen. And the right can't stop talking.

[CKwi88]

(10-29-2022, 11:46 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Got it.  So, Paul Pelosi is all of a sudden willing to take a hammer to the head for….  

I hope anyone who believes this conspiracy does not have children.  Unfortunately I know that isn’t the case.  Useless POS citizens.

Pshhhhhh. You think he ACTUALLY took a hammer to the head? It's clearly all orchestrated by the deep state. Everyone is in on it. The law enforcement, the doctors, EVERYONE!

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-29-2022, 10:51 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That guy looks like a very hateful person. Then he opened his mouth and showed that he is what he looks like.

This is to Dill and Dino. What in particular makes you see him as a hateful person? Not that I’m arguing against you I just want to know your reasoning. Specific to that one Twitter video anyways.

[StoneTheCrow]

(10-30-2022, 12:18 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: This is to Dill and Dino. What in particular makes you see him as a hateful person? Not that I’m arguing against you I just want to know your reasoning. Specific to that one Twitter video anyways.

The logo in the bottom left corner.

[*pally*]

(10-29-2022, 11:16 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Wait….  Are people saying this didn’t happen?   Honest question.

nope, the right-wing crazies have decided it was a dispute between Paul Pelosi and his secret male lover.  All because at 2AM Pelosi wasn't fully dressed in a suit and tie.  

[CJD]

(10-30-2022, 12:18 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: This is to Dill and Dino. What in particular makes you see him as a hateful person? Not that I’m arguing against you I just want to know your reasoning. Specific to that one Twitter video anyways.

You know what? You're right. It isn't how he looks, it's 100% what he's saying, how he's saying it and the look on his face as he's saying it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-30-2022, 12:39 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You know what? You're right. It isn't how he looks, it's 100% what he's saying, how he's saying it and the look on his face as he's saying it. 

You're putting me in the annoying place of having to defend Jessie Waters here, but I get what he's saying.  Although less true in SF now than under Boudin, the DA's in places like SF and LA County are notoriously soft on crime.  Get arrested for hitting someone in the head with a hammer, you'll get charged, most of the time, with 245(a)(1) PC: Assault with a deadly weapon.  Sounds about right, no?  Wait for it... but it's likely to be charged as a misdemeanor as the crime is what's known as a "wobbler".  The vats majority of the time it's charged as a felony.  Under the previous DA here, Jackie Lacey, I only saw it charged as a misdemeanor once, and I actually got why.  Under the current POS it's filed as a misdemeanor around 50-60% of the time, if not more.  Except, guess what?  Anytime the incident made the news, even if it was less severe than other, similar, incidents, it's always, always charged as a felony.


What Watters is saying, albeit in a snide manner, is that he wants this attacker to receive the same degree of leniency typically showed by these soft on crime DA's.  Essentially, don't be extra harsh on this guy because his victim is high profile and the incident made national news.  Treat this guy like the thousands of other such attackers that didn't make the news.  I completely agree with your take on his tone and facial expressions, but his point is absolutely a valid one

[*pally*]

(10-30-2022, 12:35 PM)pally Wrote: nope, the right-wing crazies have decided it was a dispute between Paul Pelosi and his secret male lover.  All because at 2AM Pelosi wasn't fully dressed in a suit and tie.  

This idea was helped along into viraldom by none other than the owner of Twitter

Just to be clear, the man who just bought Twitter is out here on a Sunday morning retweeting gross misinformation about the Pelosi attack

I'm honestly in a state of shock over how bad things are getting so fast pic.twitter.com/jXkWDIBlb8

— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) October 30, 2022

  

[Arturo Bandini]

Finally the 1st amendment is just saying what fits your interests and narrative point.

[Dill]

(10-30-2022, 12:18 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: This is to Dill and Dino. What in particular makes you see him as a hateful person? Not that I’m arguing against you I just want to know your reasoning. Specific to that one Twitter video anyways.

Normally I am happy to answer a question like this.

But I can't find any post on this thread on which I saw anyone as a hateful person.

If you are asking about the Pelosi attacker, I think he is mentally disturbed, probably
paranoid schizophrenic.  

So I don't think of him as a normal person who is "hateful," but as someone who goes in and out of
psychotic states. The conspiracies help him to make sense of his fragmented world and explain
his impotence.  

So he's definitely soaking up right wing conspiracy theories, and they set his target for him.
But he is not especially representative of what right wing conspiracies "do" to a person. I think
his madness may be largely chemical.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-30-2022, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're putting me in the annoying place of having to defend Jessie Waters here, but I get what he's saying.  Although less true in SF now than under Boudin, the DA's in places like SF and LA County are notoriously soft on crime.  Get arrested for hitting someone in the head with a hammer, you'll get charged, most of the time, with 245(a)(1) PC: Assault with a deadly weapon.  Sounds about right, no?  Wait for it... but it's likely to be charged as a misdemeanor as the crime is what's known as a "wobbler".  The vats majority of the time it's charged as a felony.  Under the previous DA here, Jackie Lacey, I only saw it charged as a misdemeanor once, and I actually got why.  Under the current POS it's filed as a misdemeanor around 50-60% of the time, if not more.  Except, guess what?  Anytime the incident made the news, even if it was less severe than other, similar, incidents, it's always, always charged as a felony.


What Watters is saying, albeit in a snide manner, is that he wants this attacker to receive the same degree of leniency typically showed by these soft on crime DA's.  Essentially, don't be extra harsh on this guy because his victim is high profile and the incident made national news.  Treat this guy like the thousands of other such attackers that didn't make the news.  I completely agree with your take on his tone and facial expressions, but his point is absolutely a valid one

Thousands of home invasions and assaults with hammers? I’m kind of stunned. I would have never known. Are California gun laws working?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-31-2022, 03:57 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Thousands of home invasions and assaults with hammers? I’m kind of stunned. I would have never known. Are California gun laws working?

Don't be facetious.  Not only does it address nothing it puts you in the same boat as Waters.

[*Nately120*]

Between this, jan 6th and the regular hazards that come with being 80+ I have to hand it to Nancy, she sure can dodge the reaper.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

For those who advocate for waiting for the whole story, I say bravo. I don't have any more information than you do on this case (which is odd by itself), but there are definitely some odd things that raise questions. I will list some of them, along with possible explanations.

1. Who was the third guy who opened the door for police? This one is especially odd as the media is now walking this bit back. It is certainly possible that this was just wrong information that has since been removed from the story. But that would be a rather significant thing to get wrong.

2. Why were Pelosi and his attacker in their underwear? Pelosi being in his underwear could obviously be that he was sleeping and was awoken by the intruder. The attacker being in his underwear could be the result of mental illness, drug use, or both. It is very common for people on PCP to get naked, as the drug makes them feel intensely overheated. That's why one of the street terms for it is "butt naked".

3. Why did the attacker let Pelosi go into the bathroom, allowing him to call 911? This one is the most odd, but is explainable by the attacker being mentally ill, high or both. That being said, it is absolutely the most incongruent part of the story.

4. Why did Pelosi refer to the attacker as "a friend" in the 911 call, while simultaneously stating he didn't know who the attacker was? This one is also very odd, but could be explained away by Pelosi fearing that the attacker might be eavesdropping and calling him "a friend" may mollify the attacker. But, again, this one is also very odd.

The rest are things I've only heard from unverified sources, such as Pelosi not allowing access to their home security cam footage. Or that both Pelosi and the attacker had hammers. That being the case I didn't bother addressing them above. At the end of the day this is an Strange case and there are a lot of unknowns or contradictory information. Could this attack be the result of rhetoric from the GOP, possibly. Just as the Kavanaugh would be assassin could have absolutely been motivated by Dem statements on the SCOTUS being "illegitimate" and a "threat to our democracy". Best to wait for all the facts to be in the open before making the claim though, especially this close to the election.