🚨 🤡 🌎 🚨
(i.redd.it)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
I'd say there's a vast difference between speculation about hypothesis to fit the facts vs. just making shit up and passing it off as unquestionable reality.
This is not presented as a hypothesis. This is just stuff that's made up, as far as I can see, and presented as fact.
It’s also, as far as you or anyone else can see, a plausible explanation for the known facts:
-The Pelosis are great friends with long time meth-abuser and callboy-murderer Ed Buck
-This man, despite any logically present security, was able to enter the house of the third in line to the president = odd, he was allowed in is a logical assumption
-A third unnamed man opened the door (from the INSIDE) for the police. Who tf is this third person? Bodyguard who was told to take a walk while his boss got freaky? = odd, instantly suspicious
-during a “home invasion”, the victim was allowed to “go to the bathroom, where he called police from his phone... which was charging in the bathroom... which he had been allowed to enter”... odd
-initial reports were that upon being admitted to the house, police found both the “assailant” and the “victim” in their underwear, this is now being memory holed... odd
Why is it so unimaginable that some rando in the SFPD leaked this after interrogation began?
Anyway, I guess we’ll see.
It is not presented as a 'plausible explanation', but as something that is established. If it were presented as speculation, alright, I'd rather not potentially smear someone who was just the victim of a violent crime unless I had rock-hard evidence, but fair enough.
For literally anyone in politics you can find similar connections, simply because they know a lot of people.
Yes, that is pretty odd. That said, odd facts do not establish some sort of crazy counter-narrative, which is what this post does claim. That depends on the evidence.
Is it 'imaginable'? Sure it is. Is there even a speck of evidence for it? No.
Not everything that is 'imaginable' is true.
See, that's the best attitude.
But right-wingers are so paranoid that they immediately want to call everything a fake or a false flag or whatever. Call out people who try to use this for political gain without making crazy, unevidenced claims of your own. Is that so hard.
I’m not a “right winger”, I’m a “get the fucking freaks out of positions of power, and devise strategies to keep them out”