You first implied it could come from a ''member of the public'' and when i introduced you to the very likely proposition the white house security might actually check who they let in, you turn it around?
I don't known about you but all i heard is something like ''they are concerned it's coming form Biden's son Hunter'' and for the record that was coming from the democrats side also.
I really don't care if Hunter is cleared or not, it just seems he or whoever put that cocaine in there is getting away with it and that's concerning. The same with Hunter's laptop.
No. The original statement was "cocaine found at Biden's house". My alternative to the statement was "Cocaine found on Government property in a part used by visitors." There was no mention of, nor implication, that it was a member of the public. Neither did I read anything which raised concerns linking the discovery to Hunter Biden, other than from right wing media.
You're claim that it was an maga inspired thug, that he was a thug yes clearly but maga inspired we have seen little evidence of that. (which also would be an interesting question to answer in turns of his motives and/or possible contractors
a criminal, robber, drug fuelled mofo whatever or a thug, but not at face value a maga fueled thug.
I am glad you acknowledge he was a thug, rather than your earlier reference to
he was more known to be left hippie like than a far right extremist.
Although to correct the words
inspired and
fueled to which you are incorrectly attributing to me, I said he was a thug motivated by MAGA propaganda.
Nancy Pelosi has been vilified and dehumanised by Republicans for decades. They despised her as the most powerful woman in Washington. Paul Pelosi's attacker had intended to harm Nancy Pelosi. He has also been reported as dealing in conspiracy theories and is said to have gathered “names and addresses” of people he believed were “systematically and deliberately” destroying American freedom and liberty. Trump made no secret of his dislike of her, claiming she hated the Republican party and she hated the people who voted for him.
Given that since the November election, MAGA Republicans have fuelled Q Anon and other conspiracies, with hundreds if not thousands of false claims about the election, coupled with quite often vile attacks on the Biden family, surely you can see the link with MAGA propaganda?
No you misread, it's not just a victim and not just a random person, especially not if you have any evidence of your ''maga fueled claim'' my point is that the security for Peloski and her family which includes her husband should have been very high, yet this person was able to acces the compound, find and window/door to break to gain acces etc. That is the problem. Nothing to do with victim blaming every to do with questioning how the securlty levels work and if they should be much better. Peloski's husband had to call the police himself for example, if you have an not even super fancy home security system it will call them for you.
So if the state is tasked with providing your security and you are and high-risk target i don't think i'm wrong to criticize it if a thug/criminal/someone with bad intensions comes so far.
Again you are attributing to me comments I have not written. The highlighted phrase is yours not mine.
It has everything to do with you victim blaming. The Pelosis presumably had security at their home they thought was adequate for their needs.
So far as I am aware "the state", by which I assume you mean the US Government, is not tasked with providing security to members of the Government, other than to members of the executive. Members of Congress and the Senate also receive protection while they are at the Capitol. Although if I am wrong about this I am happy to be corrected.
Well it's all after the elections with all kinds of wild claims about the elections, so i wouldn't call that voter fraud as voter fraud implies he paid/misled/etc. voters into voting from him while they where actually intending on voting for something else.
It might be implicating/disturbing/frustrating he legal voting progress, but it off course remains the question in how far it was not legally allowed. It also kind of a very complicated area because so many different laws etc. exists and it isn't that clear cut.
It has nothing to with what legally took place, neither is voter fraud restricted to the highlighted text. For example:
Votes being cast which should not have been made, as with say deceased persons.
The slate of electors, (those responsible for submitting to Washington details of who actually won), claiming (say) a MAGA Republican won when actually a Democrat won.
Interference with the electronic voting equipment,
Making false claims of election fraud in order to persuade state election officials and legislators to subvert the democratic process and to change electoral votes.
