ChiGoose

I can’t find the actual order yet but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a standing issue.

Strawman arguments and sarcasm. It would be nice if you actually added anything to the conversation but I suppose that’s too much to expect. The media sucks. I’m not going to defend it. I’m not here for media criticism. Read the sworn documents filed by the DoJ. They clear things up pretty well.

Inquiring minds should try reading some time.

Again, a strawman. I never said not to question the security. I actually said the opposite of that. I never said not to inquire, I merely stated that the facts overwhelming support the prevailing conclusion. I also said that we should be open to changing our minds if the facts change. But here you are, pretending I am advocating for things I am not advocating for because it fits your narrative.

If anyone is looking for the perfect example of a Strawman argument, look no further.

Incompetence. The police are not infallible. The secret service is not infallible. People make mistakes, people are not infallible and any organization of people is therefore not infallible. It is the simplest, most likely explanation given the facts.

At this point, I'm not sure what skepticism offers to this incident. All of the evidence points in one direction. I think continued skepticism is close to wishcasting at this point. That being said, we should all reserve our right to change our minds if the facts change. If there really was some prior relationship between Pelosi and DePape, that's definitely going to come out at trial. Of course, it would contradict DePape's own statements.

The original reporting seems to have been wrong. I'm not going to weigh in on whether it was intentional, honest or otherwise because I hate TV news and I'm not going to go out of my way to defend it. But if we look at the simplest explanation I would wager there was confusion as to what happened the moment the police entered the picture. If you're told that Pelosi opened the door to greet the police, and that *after* that is when he was struck, you might wonder how the hell the assailant hit him if he was already with the police. Hence, the "he went back into the house" narrative. Reading the facts of the case in the DoJ's documents, Pelosi went to the door to open it and that's when the struggle ensued. He was able to open the door with one arm while holding the hammer in DePape's hand with the other. Whatever the original cause of the misreporting, they were right to pull it since it doesn't match the facts of the investigation.

Skepticism is good. These vague insinuations supported by shoddy reporting I'm seeing all over this thread is not skepticism, it's just being partisan hacks (not saying this is you, but there's a ton of it on this thread). We know that Pelosi was in boxers and a t-shirt, which makes sense since he was sleeping. We also know that DePape was wearing shorts, which makes sense since the police removed a bunch of items from his pockets (I don't think underwear with pockets is a very common thing...). We have two sworn documents attesting to the facts of the case: The DoJ's original criminal complaint The motion to detain DePape pending trial The facts sections of these documents are short and in plain language. Even for people who aren't lawyers, you can just skip all the legal stuff and read the couple of pages of facts. They address basically everything being thrown around in this thread. The media often gets things wrong in the immediate aftermath of these things. They're in a rush to get the info out first, they might not have a good source, the source might have heard something from someone else instead of witnessing it themselves, etc. So when you have a case like this, the best thing you can do is pull the actual complaints and read them.

There is absolutely no evidence at all about anything going on between Pelosi and DePape other than the assault, and there is plenty of evidence against it. Whoever was in charge of security at the house, however, has a lot of explaining to do.

So, one thing we could do, is take a couple of minutes to look into this and read the actual sworn court filings. That would show us that this reporting appears to be incorrect in stating the Pelosi went back inside after opening the door. That might also explain why the video was taken down: the reporter misstated the facts alleged in the case. Or we can do the whole "just asking questions" BS that pervades this board wherein we don't necessarily posit a position but we question the "official narrative" but do absolutely no work and require everyone else to disprove vague insinuations. I see you went with latter option. If you wish to act in good faith and actually try to learn what is going on with the case, I would suggest reading the recent court filing detailing the facts of the case. It's just 10 pages long, and the facts section is only about four. It's four pages dude. Just read it. Don't make me do your work for you.

The most likely scenario is that a crazy person broke into the house to harm the Speaker of the House. The Pelosi house is right on the street, it's not a heavily fortified compound. It really seems that the Capitol Police dropped the ball. Whoever was supposed to be monitoring the feed (if it is indeed supposed to be monitored 24/7) failed in their job. Maybe they were bored and distracted. Maybe they fell asleep. I'm reading the court filing and I'm not seeing where Pelosi went back into the home after opening the door. Here is the section when the police arrive (Page 6, starting at line 18) : So, DePape takes Pelosi downstairs to retrieve his backpack and tie up Pelosi. He then comes at Pelosi with the hammer, who grabs the hammer to stop him. The officers arrive and Pelosi is able to open the door with one arm. The police officers see Pelosi and DePape engaged in a struggle with the hammer, which DePape then wrests away and hits him with. This all seems pretty straightforward. Crazy guy gets lucky that security is lax (likely due to the fact that the Speaker was not at home and it was 2am), breaks in, and eventually attacks Pelosi before being stopped by the cops. I am honestly not sure what other explanation seems more likely than that.

It’s interesting to watch the craziness form in real time. From “just asking questions” to rampant speculation, to eventually solidifying into a politically useful narrative. Instead of Occam’s Razor, we have PPP’s Razor: no matter how unlikely, the real truth is whatever looks bad for people I don’t like.

One of the downsides of moving fast and breaking things is you might end up breaking the law… Twitter sued over short-notice layoffs as Elon Musk's takeover rocks company “"Twitter is now engaged in conducting mass layoffs without providing the required notice under the federal WARN Act," the lawsuit says, referring to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act that requires 60-day notice for certain plant closings or mass layoffs.”

I am not a medical expert, but what I've read from professional organizations like the AMA and APA is that while being trans itself is not a mental disorder, gender dysphoria is a psychological condition that many (but not all) transgender people experience. All medical treatments have risks and side effects. The risks of puberty blockers are grossly overstated in the media. Additionally, when considering the risks of treatment, we should also consider the risks of non-treatment. Transgender children are at very high risk for self-harm or suicide. A very small risk of a reversible treatment to prevent those outcomes is a no-brainer for a lot of families. I think that transgender issues are more akin to being gay than something like anorexia. In your example, it seems like you might think it's wrong to be accepting of gay people. I'm not sure if you hold those beliefs but I think there's room for discussion on what are things that society should be ok with and what they shouldn't. Personally, accepting kids for who they are, supporting them with love and recommended care, and working to avoid self-harm or suicide seems pretty reasonable to me. Once again, drag is not trans. I know I keep using this example, but it's the simplest way to explain it: people who dress up as a children's character for birthday entertainment are not necessarily furries. (And yes, drag performers are usually paid for their work). While there are risque drag performances, shows for kids are essentially the same as hiring a clown to perform at a children's birthday party. Some people might not like it (clowns are creepy), but it's not encouraging kids to become clowns.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) told electoral reform advocate Nick Troiano that "behind closed doors" pro-Donald Trump lawmakers admit they know accusations of a stolen 2020 presidential election aren't true and it is a continuing political stunt. They know it’s a lie, they admit it’s a lie, but they know the rubes will buy it. Few people have less respect for Republican voters than elected Republicans.

I think this is a good opportunity to take a step back from the rhetoric and the claims being made solely for the purpose of activating people and look at what is actually happening with trans children. While puberty blockers are used as treatment, surgery for minors is very rare. Puberty blockers are also temporary and reversible. They are used on non-trans kids who enter puberty too early as well. Here is some helpful reading on what is actually happening in transgender care: Mayo Clinic: Pubertal blockers for transgender and gender-diverse youth PBS: What medical treatments do transgender youth get? Statement on care for transgender youth by the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association, and American Psychiatric Association The rhetoric around transgender youth is intentionally charged and designed to elicit an emotional reaction before we stop and really think about it. What people on the left are generally advocating for is to let children who experience this issue receive the treatment recommended by the major groups of medical experts like the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, this is being intentionally spun to activate people who honestly believe that the Democratic Party is trying to help pedophiles prey on children. That's obviously ludicrous but it is sad that some actually believe it.

My point was that just because someone dresses as a mouse doesn't make them a furry. There are furries and there are people who dress as a mouse. There is overlap, but just because someone dresses as a mouse doesn't mean they are a furry. They could be Chuck E Cheese

I appreciate you making my point for me.

Drag is men dressing as women for fun. Trans is someone not believing they are the sex that they were born as. Do you think that people who dress up as Mickey Mouse actually believe that they are a mouse?

What in the world does being trans have to do with drag shows? One of the fun things about Google is that you can actually scroll down and see results beyond just the first it.

Here ya go And remember, the hill you're dying on is seeing a guy in a dress makes you think about sex.

I wonder how adding $1 billion in debt servicing costs is going to impact a company that averaged $3.5 billion in gross revenue over the last five years...

Boy, you're going to be really embarrassed when you look this one up.

I'd say both factor into Biden's approval rating. Inflation is a global issue, but we tend to blame whoever is in charge. There's not much he could have done to prevent it, but the buck stops at his desk. Same with gas prices. There are things you can do to effect them in the long term but very little to move the needle in the short term. He also doesn't have the charisma or force to drive the narrative, so the Dems seem to always be on defense than on offense. They've done a lot of good things (IRA, capping prices of some medicines, etc), but American's won't feel the benefits of those until after the election. The GOP is strongly favored to take the House. A big part of the problem is that polling is getting worse and worse. Polling response rates are terrible, so the error bars are significant. We could see a bloodbath GOP landslide to slight Dem gains and anything in between.