Nancy Pelosi Gets Humiliated and OWNED By a Musician
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
She sounds like a stroke victim with Alzheimer. "Wsh shmeftle braut cluvin shmerft garndle.... 
"
"
I posted this, on another thread. The whole thing is utterly brilliant.
What gets me is, she totally, utterly confirms his points while acting all elite about it - that Portland and all of the other riots which destroyed SO MUCH property, killed so many others and injured far more - somehow they don't compare to the Capitol - event - (I'm repulsed by applying the term insurrection - we're talking an unarmed mob of nitwits, most of whom just waltzed in and most of whom have been charged with trespass and minor things) - and of course - the Left's OUTRAGE that Trump's insistence that the 2020 election was stolen -
And Pelosi insisting - right there in front of God and everyone - that *2016* was stolen. She cannot see that at minimum, the two are equivalent. That to the left, Trump is outrageous for insisting 2020 was stolen, but they continue to insist the SAME about 2016.
What gets me is, she totally, utterly confirms his points while acting all elite about it - that Portland and all of the other riots which destroyed SO MUCH property, killed so many others and injured far more - somehow they don't compare to the Capitol - event - (I'm repulsed by applying the term insurrection - we're talking an unarmed mob of nitwits, most of whom just waltzed in and most of whom have been charged with trespass and minor things) - and of course - the Left's OUTRAGE that Trump's insistence that the 2020 election was stolen -
And Pelosi insisting - right there in front of God and everyone - that *2016* was stolen. She cannot see that at minimum, the two are equivalent. That to the left, Trump is outrageous for insisting 2020 was stolen, but they continue to insist the SAME about 2016.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
I tried to listen to that gin-n-tonic swilling lush for a little while and it is sooo difficult knowing that every lie she spouts,...she actually believes, AND millions of raving lunatics like her also believe. That San Fransicko Jezebel is not only naive (dull witted) she is evil.
At MINIMUM an insurrection is an armed attempt - successful or not - to overthrow the government. Not "interfere" with government.
Heck, if that's the definition they want to use, insurrection happens several times a year, and MOSTLY by the left.
I'd off there is more insurrection and rebellion on campuses right now calling for
Death to America
and the end of Our Country ... all SUPPORTED By Soros and other Foreign interests
For Fox Sake .... J6'ers WERE NOT chanting DtA
You will also notice the bizarre disconnect when she disputes that they didn't "accept the results of the election" - when all she really meant was, the Left did not actively pursue the means to thwart it. Instead, they went on a three year campaign insisting that Trump was not "legitimate" - something they CONTINUE to say - and to concoct bizarre investigations that ultimately concluded -
It was all crap. The basis was - oppo research and made up stories. Which they KNEW TO BE FALSE. They weren't looking for the truth - they were looking for a reason to REMOVE the man they believed could not win. They openly declared - before he even secured the NOMINATION - that they intended to impeach him. There was about a new impeachment attempt a month once he got into office.
It's ridiculous to claim that Hillary "conceded" defeat - and see that Trump did not - and try to place Hillary on the moral high ground. All she did was give up the election, because for the past SEVEN YEARS, she's made it abundantly clear, she DOES NOT BELIEVE the election was honest and fair - that she was cheated.
**AL GORE** also - "conceded" - and has to this day, continued to refer to himself as "used to be President of the United States". NO, he didn't accept it. He didn't think he lost, fair and square. He DOES think he was cheated. EVEN JOHN KERRY believes he "won", even though Bush beat him by a few MILLION votes.
If Biden loses - the Left will AGAIN, insist that Trump cheated - and will not equate their righteous indignation with Trump's reluctance to accept defeat.
I don't know what language Nancy uses - to refuse to "accept the results" but maintain that it was a cheat - I don't get it.
It was all crap. The basis was - oppo research and made up stories. Which they KNEW TO BE FALSE. They weren't looking for the truth - they were looking for a reason to REMOVE the man they believed could not win. They openly declared - before he even secured the NOMINATION - that they intended to impeach him. There was about a new impeachment attempt a month once he got into office.
It's ridiculous to claim that Hillary "conceded" defeat - and see that Trump did not - and try to place Hillary on the moral high ground. All she did was give up the election, because for the past SEVEN YEARS, she's made it abundantly clear, she DOES NOT BELIEVE the election was honest and fair - that she was cheated.
**AL GORE** also - "conceded" - and has to this day, continued to refer to himself as "used to be President of the United States". NO, he didn't accept it. He didn't think he lost, fair and square. He DOES think he was cheated. EVEN JOHN KERRY believes he "won", even though Bush beat him by a few MILLION votes.
If Biden loses - the Left will AGAIN, insist that Trump cheated - and will not equate their righteous indignation with Trump's reluctance to accept defeat.
I don't know what language Nancy uses - to refuse to "accept the results" but maintain that it was a cheat - I don't get it.
I think what I DIDN'T know - was just how often Trump, once it began - had tweets asking people to calm down, remain reaceful, respect the police. I had not read about those. I did know he told the crowds to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices known - and I guess those words were some kind of dog whistle or secret code meaning "charge in a take over" - but I didn't know he subsequently told them to calm down.
I did know that people left the Capitol once he said "go home". The police weren't going to get them to leave - but Trump told them to stop, and they listened. I suppose to the Left, they believe that means they BEGAN their behavior at his direction also.
What do I think? I think there was a massive crowd of angry people who had not done a damned thing until the Capitol police started to get abusive - pushing people downstairs, stomping and beating people - and they incited a riot. I think there were agitators in the crowd who got the mob moving in. I think a portion of that crowd went pouring in but originally had no intention of doing that. Why? Because they were unarmed. MOST of the ones who entered did so with the help of the cops who held the door open. Tucker's airing of those videos WITHHELD from the public for two years confirmed that. Hitherto, the popular narrative was a dangerous mob swarmed in, smashing, burning and destroying - when reality for the most part looked like a typical day of tourists.
It was SO FAR from the narrative on the media it prompted Naomi Wolf - by NO MEANS a right-winger - to write an "apology" to the right -
Dear Conservatives, I Apologize
My "Team" was Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda
naomiwolf.substack.com
- because - she believed the image being sent across the airwaves.
Right, but Democrats don't care if you call them hypocrites or liars. You can point their hypocrisy out plainly and every single one of them are like, "So?"
It's not that they don't realize they're being lying hypocrites - nobody has that little self-awareness - it's that they don't care. Contrast that to the Republicans who submissive pee if some snarling Leftist calls them mean..... Except for Trump - he tells them to **** off and retaliates. Then of course everyone starts fainting in the streets.
In my sociological endeavors I got interested in why people stand behind bullies. We've all seen it, a bully with a posse of dipshit clingons going, "Yeah!" Every school in America has one. And also why the occasional lone wolf refuses to be bullied and will stand up to their tormentor and his gang. It's interesting, the human nature of it all, and doesn't say positive things about us as a species.
I think what I DIDN'T know - was just how often Trump, once it began - had tweets asking people to calm down, remain reaceful, respect the police. I had not read about those. I did know he told the crowds to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices known - and I guess those words were some kind of dog whistle or secret code meaning "charge in a take over" - but I didn't know he subsequently told them to calm down.
I did know that people left the Capitol once he said "go home". The police weren't going to get them to leave - but Trump told them to stop, and they listened. I suppose to the Left, they believe that means they BEGAN their behavior at his direction also.
What do I think? I think there was a massive crowd of angry people who had not done a damned thing until the Capitol police started to get abusive - pushing people downstairs, stomping and beating people - and they incited a riot. I think there were agitators in the crowd who got the mob moving in. I think a portion of that crowd went pouring in but originally had no intention of doing that. Why? Because they were unarmed. MOST of the ones who entered did so with the help of the cops who held the door open. Tucker's airing of those videos WITHHELD from the public for two years confirmed that. Hitherto, the popular narrative was a dangerous mob swarmed in, smashing, burning and destroying - when reality for the most part looked like a typical day of tourists.
It was SO FAR from the narrative on the media it prompted Naomi Wolf - by NO MEANS a right-winger - to write an "apology" to the right -
Dear Conservatives, I Apologize
My "Team" was Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda
- because - she believed the image being sent across the airwaves.
And it DOES play out exactly as in "The Christmas Story" when Scott Farkus gets the sht kicked out of him - the toadies learn their bully friend can't protect them - and they flee. We've seen THAT, too.
But I think some people DO believe their own bullsht. They've told it to themselves so often, they believe it. They've concocted SO MANY arguments in their mind, convincing themselves they're right that they've lost the capacity to see what is OBVIOUS to everyone else.
The rest, I think you are right, they don't care if they're hypocritical, because they're not concerned about that - they are convinced their side is RIGHT, so everything else is irrelevant. It's an extension of the argument Gore promotes in "Earth in the Balance" where you don't give equal footing to flat earthers as opposed to the Earth being round, because even though there are two choices, their claims to the truth are not equal - hence -
You don't have to listen to the other side, it's crap. Hence, their dismissal of free speech. They don't believe "wrong speech" has any right to be allowed.
To give an idea - many of us are dismissive of terms like "racist" because most of the charges are utter crap - when MATH is racist, KILLING Nazis in video games, wearing latex gloves, the ECLIPSE, no fries at Taco Bell, the Winter Olympics, words like "chief" and "clan", dogs, babies -
We're going to see a future where racist will be bereft of meaning, if that hasn't happened already.
And I actually KNOW PEOPLE who believe that a thing isn't violent if stuff is burned, destroyed, vandalized so long as no one gets hurt.
That it is NOT violence to BLOW UP YOUR HOME if you're not in it when it happens.
This is the kind of mindset we need to confront.
A ton of people got injured and killed in those riots. WAY more than on J6. So your friends don't get to go, "Oh, no one was hurt..." because many people were in fact hurt.
So what do you say to them when they relay those beliefs to you?
(shrug) I'm not trying to persuade or enlighten them. Once we engage - if we do - they will reach a point of outrage where you could tell them the house was on fire, and they've tuned out. J6 - and other things - are triggers that set them off. Most of the time, they're as "normal" as anyone else you'd meet.
Because the news items do what you'd expect them to - mash up the numbers in a way that suggests otherwise.
For example - to my knowledge, the protest in Lafayette Square on Trump's inauguration saw a limo set on fire, but no injuries. So - "not" violent.
And the papers do something you'd expect them to do, if they want to whitewash the BLM protests - you see, there were over 7000 protests across the nation that year, and most of them were brief marches that lasted an hour or so with a few hundred - or less - participants. THOSE - were peaceful.
BUT - there were also MASSIVE PROTESTS involving thousands, and they were full blown riots. To a dishonest statistician - that's ONE EVENT. ONE event that causes tens of millions of dollars damaged and a few lives - well that's just ONE. So in their minds if you have 7000 protests - and at thirty of them, two billion in property damage, over two dozen killed and hundreds hospitalized ----
Oh well - it just PALES in comparison to the 6670 protests held where nothing happened. SOMEHOW this passes as logic.
I admit - I get SOME of it. I had friends who taught at what was considered one of the most violent high schools in the nation - one of my friends stopped a knife fight while it was happening. Estimates were that out of 1200 students, about 50 were extremely violent.
Or about 4% of the school. So - in some people's minds - it was 96% "peaceful". Even though extremely violent acts were a daily thing. By that measure, cities like Chicago are extremely SAFE.
The worst articles I read went on about "number of arrests" per protest - and how the protests were NOT uneventful. "See! See! Thousands were arrested, mostly for violating curfew". Right. Meaning, they were grabbed and released without so much as a FINE. Big deal. How many are still doing time? Zero?
My favorite line from his speech:
"Populism isn't a threat to democracy. Populism IS democracy."
"Populism isn't a threat to democracy. Populism IS democracy."
It IS - so long as you don't redefine the word, which somehow - once relinquishing the description to Trump - they've somehow repurposed it to mean "racist".
Previously, when I heard the word, the WORST that could be said of a populist was that he appealed to what the masses wanted - a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. Jobs for all! And so forth.
Democrats have somehow revealed their elitist roots by contorting it to mean - what the base, crass, vulgar masses want - the deplorables. Truth be told, they hate democracy, because they'd have to listen to the rabble they so despise.
