Attempted mail bombs on liberal leadership

[wufan]

Pipe bomb placed in the mail box of George Soros. Similar devices mailed to the Clinton, Obama, and Eric Holder residence, as well as to CNN and the office of Maxine Waters. The return address on the devices was the address of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Hopefully this person gets captured soon!

[pinstripers]

According to experts, if these bombs were actually mailed using the United States Postal Service, they were likely put in the mail on or about June 10th.

[Kung Wu]

Too soon?

[ShockTalk]

Well, no one got hurt or killed (yet), but yeah.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Please explain joke.


T


...:cool:

[ShockerPrez]

Thank goodness Debbie Wasserman sucks at making bombs.

[SB Shock]

They are saying they were just fake pipe bombs - so this has to be some type of weird democratic election ploy, or Bernie Sanders trying to eliminate his rivals.

[1972Shocker]

I have heard the speculation about fake bombs but have not seen anything definitive on that. Whether fake or real and regardless of the motive this is not something that can be condoned. Hopefully, the perp or perps will be brought to account.

[Kung Wu]

Isn't this the exact type of thing Soros condones? Paying people to cause strife and discord? If they are fake, his organizations cannot be ruled out, and in fact should be high on the list for investigation.

[C0|dB|00ded]

What a great list!


T


...:cool:

[SHOCKvalue]

My guess too is a false flag exercise by the left.

[ShockerPrez]

I wanna know who it was and send them to prison for life.

[ShockerPrez]

I want the BAU to deliver their profile.

[jdshock]

This is just like that thread saying to expect violence from dems awhile back. How can you expect to have civil conversations if this is how you react? If the reaction is "it's gotta be a false flag. I don't have any evidence, but it's gotta be a democratic ploy," it just skews your perception of the other side so severely that there's no hope for actual discussion on political issues.

The items may have been sent by one person or a group. They might be a republican, they might be a democrat. Certainly, they should be thrown in jail. That's it. It doesn't need to be some broader "republicans are always out here being violent trying to kill our prior presidents" or "democrats are using this as a ploy to get out the vote in November." Whoever did this has substantial issues, and they should be thrown in jail. Period. Vote in November. Period.

But just immediately saying "democrats are so evil that they clearly faked all of this to get people to vote" or "democrats are so evil they're going to resort to violence after the election," that's a pretty low opinion of the other side. Tough to have a conversation about any meaningful issues after that.

[wufan]

This is just like that thread saying to expect violence from dems awhile back. How can you expect to have civil conversations if this is how you react? If the reaction is "it's gotta be a false flag. I don't have any evidence, but it's gotta be a democratic ploy," it just skews your perception of the other side so severely that there's no hope for actual discussion on political issues.

The items may have been sent by one person or a group. They might be a republican, they might be a democrat. Certainly, they should be thrown in jail. That's it. It doesn't need to be some broader "republicans are always out here being violent trying to kill our prior presidents" or "democrats are using this as a ploy to get out the vote in November." Whoever did this has substantial issues, and they should be thrown in jail. Period. Vote in November. Period.

But just immediately saying "democrats are so evil that they clearly faked all of this to get people to vote" or "democrats are so evil they're going to resort to violence after the election," that's a pretty low opinion of the other side. Tough to have a conversation about any meaningful issues after that.

Hit the nail on the head. Attributing the worst possible motive to a group of adversaries, without any evidence no less, will only divide. No good faith discussions can occur.

[ShockTalk]

This is just like that thread saying to expect violence from dems awhile back. How can you expect to have civil conversations if this is how you react? If the reaction is "it's gotta be a false flag. I don't have any evidence, but it's gotta be a democratic ploy," it just skews your perception of the other side so severely that there's no hope for actual discussion on political issues.

The items may have been sent by one person or a group. They might be a republican, they might be a democrat. Certainly, they should be thrown in jail. That's it. It doesn't need to be some broader "republicans are always out here being violent trying to kill our prior presidents" or "democrats are using this as a ploy to get out the vote in November." Whoever did this has substantial issues, and they should be thrown in jail. Period. Vote in November. Period.

But just immediately saying "democrats are so evil that they clearly faked all of this to get people to vote" or "democrats are so evil they're going to resort to violence after the election," that's a pretty low opinion of the other side. Tough to have a conversation about any meaningful issues after that.

First, the problem is that most everyone's take, both sides, is that they look at wacko extremists and call them republican or democrats. Neither is true. It really burns me when the left associates skinheads as republicans. The skinheads may think so, but that doesn't make them one. I don't even see how one can call them "conservatives". What's conservative about being a Nazi?

Both parties need to distance themselves, verbally and often, from these types. The Antifa should be denounced by the left. Anyone covering their face is not up to anything good.

Second, dems chumming up to Socialists or Socialists-Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors either as it allows the right to label them all Socialists. If that's what you want to be, come out and say so. But of course, they wouldn't want to loose the middle left in doing so. I think it is these connections that did make me think that it was possible all this was a stunt by the left because no one got hurt.

I've always denounced Trump's mouth and this was a big reason I couldn't vote for him. That mouth is dangerous even if the rest of him isn't.

I've heard a lot of crap out of the mouths of democratic leaders as well. But the ones who really get me upset are the Hollywood types (yes, I would include a lot of news persons in that group because that's who many chum up with). We are bombarded with it, morning, noon, and night. They have a forum that no other occupation has and use it all the *u*king time. They also may associate less with the everyday man or woman than most all other occupations. Yet they came off thinking they know so much more about things and, unfortunately, so many people are enamored with them.

There is a deep divide in America today and both sides better start working much harder to solve it instead of inflaming it.

[SHOCKvalue]

This operation was carried out by someone of BSC inclinations either on the political left or the political right. Mutually exclusive. I’m simply saying that with this being so close to the mid-terms, the left’s lost ground recently on the so-called blue wave, coupled with these packages seemingly being benign and inert, would combined indicate to me this could have reasonably originated from an insane person on the left in order to inflict PR pain on the right. In this particular case, as in there are very certainly insane people of the right capable of this nonsense as well.

Not sure why that is such a scandalous take. If someone wants to state the opposite I’m certainly not going to lose my mind or act like you are painting everyone of my political ilk with the same brush. Someone from one political stripe created this; I’m just hedging my bet on the angle that makes most sense to me.

[jdshock]

I think the issue is that, if you are right, it's not an "operation by the left." It's an operation by an individual for political purposes.

Let's say it's a false, false flag. It's all too obvious, this person has laid the breadcrumbs for us to realize it's a person on the left doing it for political purposes. A false flag, inception style. That's not an "operation by the right." That's an operation by a dude who isn't thinking straight. And maybe he's been emboldened by political rhetoric on their side, but it's not an operation by a political party.

[jdshock]

First, the problem is that most everyone's take, both sides, is that they look at wacko extremists and call them republican or democrats. Neither is true. It really burns me when the left associates skinheads as republicans. The skinheads may think so, but that doesn't make them one. I don't even see how one can call them "conservatives". What's conservative about being a Nazi?

Both parties need to distance themselves, verbally and often, from these types. The Antifa should be denounced by the left. Anyone covering their face is not up to anything good.

Second, dems chumming up to Socialists or Socialists-Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors either as it allows the right to label them all Socialists. If that's what you want to be, come out and say so. But of course, they wouldn't want to loose the middle left in doing so. I think it is these connections that did make me think that it was possible all this was a stunt by the left because no one got hurt.

I've always denounced Trump's mouth and this was a big reason I couldn't vote for him. That mouth is dangerous even if the rest of him isn't.

I've heard a lot of crap out of the mouths of democratic leaders as well. But the ones who really get me upset are the Hollywood types (yes, I would include a lot of news persons in that group because that's who many chum up with). We are bombarded with it, morning, noon, and night. They have a forum that no other occupation has and use it all the *u*king time. They also may associate less with the everyday man or woman than most all other occupations. Yet they came off thinking they know so much more about things and, unfortunately, so many people are enamored with them.

There is a deep divide in America today and both sides better start working much harder to solve it instead of inflaming it.

Certainly no arguments from me that both sides do this. There were many democrats immediately saying "dems are getting sent bombs and we're the party of mobs?" And, look, it's really tempting to say that. When you see normal people, people on here, saying dems are a violent party, it's tempting to respond by saying that. But that's not how dems should respond. And I didn't see any (of the two?) dems on this board doing that.

The skinhead thing is mostly true, but that is where lines start to blur. Obviously, folks out there in white hoods have been denounced by both sides. But Trump said Charlottesville had good people on both sides. Charlottesville was a racist rally. People on here were quick to say "well, it is really about federalism" or whatever, but it was organized by an alt-right racist. And if you start saying "well, they're not hurting anyone," it's hard not to view them as a "republican." The same is true of violent groups on the left. I'm 100% in favor of antifa's free speech rights (and in favor of the kkk's free speech rights for the record), but the moment they start harming property or people, they've obviously gone too far. And if dems are supportive of violent groups on the left, that's certainly a disappointment. I'm not going to come to their defense.

I think the socialism thing is a radically different topic and doesn't actually apply here. There is nothing inherently violent about a socialist. Socialism to mainstream democrats is the same as tea-party folks to mainstream republicans. There are a ton of people in between true blue socialists and someone who just wants universal healthcare, and they run a full spectrum. Nothing about being a socialist should prevent you from having an intelligent conversation with them.

Lastly, I generally agree with the Hollywood stuff. I don't care if LeBron or De Niro or whoever wants to get political with their platform. Good for them. I wish more people were willing to take the endorsement from LeBron or De Niro or whoever as an invitation to research an issue as opposed to the definitive stance we must adopt. Again, I don't think it really should affect general civility. Kanye being a Trump fan hasn't made it harder for me to talk to you about political issues with conservatives.

[ShockTalk]

To be clear, I was making NO reference to "the two?" on this board.

As far as what Trump meant, even I took it to mean what Doc and jdmee have pointed out. It is a farce of an issue and there are much, much better targets that have come out of his mouth than this.

I didn't care for the tea-partiers either and probably why I've moved somewhat closer to the center. However, I doubt you are ever going to get me to view the Tea-Partiers as an equal opposite to Socialism. Nazism - The political principles of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Communism - an extreme form of socialism. Excuse me if I gag at the word Socialist/Socialism.

I do care if "Hollywood" gets poitical with their platform. I don't care when they do it at a rally or away from my TV. Just keep it out of my "entertainment zone".

Interestingly enough, during the Republican Presidential primary here in Wichita, I stood in line, for a long time, with two black women who amazed me with their staunchness for Trump. They countered my vote for Rubio, 2 to 1.

[jdshock]

ShockTalk - the quote jdmee posted, the one where he says "The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people: neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest." That is false. It was a racist rally. It was set up with the intention of being a white nationalist, alt-right event.

Socialism =/= nazism. Just like "nationalism" doesn't equal nazism. If Bernie says he's a socialist, you can't assume he's a nazi. Trump literally just said he's a nationalist this week, can I assume he's a nazi? Nazism is a different breed of political movement than socialism. This isn't a question. This isn't a subjective, we'll agree to disagree, type thing. Socialism does not equal nazism.

[ShockTalk]

Of course it was a neo-Nazi racist march. However, they were not the only people who didn't want statues torn down. I think you saw a backlash of indiscriminate tearing down of those statues when within those days a confederate soldier's statue was pulled down in another city. We just have different interpretation of what Trump meant in that statement. Never did I think he directed the "good people" comment to the racists.

I also totally agree that Socialism does not equal Nazism or Communism. But Socialism is a path that has basis in forms of government I do not America to ever go down. I strongly believe it can easily lead to a form of government that can make people dependent on that government and thus, its control over them. Sorry if I gave you the wrong idea I was trying to convey, but for me, Socialism has bad connotations.

[WuDrWu]

But Trump said Charlottesville had good people on both sides. Charlottesville was a racist rally.

I'm so tired of hearing this. You hate the President so you're going to live off this quote just like the Democratic leadership and a strong majority of the mainstream media. Anyone fair minded knows what he was talking about. There are good people on both sides of the argument to tear down these statues about the Civil War. There are good people making the argument that they should come down, and there are good people making the argument that they should stay up. That's what he said. I know, you know. But you're going to continue to try and tie him to skinheads.

And we're the problem...……..smh.

[jdmee]

Trump: OK, good. Well, are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So, you know what? It's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture and you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned, totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You got a lot of bad people in the other group, too.

So what part of this "But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly." Makes you think he was talking about the trouble makers, the neo-Nazis and white nationalists in the park when referring to the "fine people"?

[jdmee]

or maybe this makes you think so

Reporter: Who was treated unfairly? Sir, I'm sorry I don't understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don't understand what you were saying.

Trump: No. No. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before. If you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people: neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest — and very legally protest, because you know- I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So, I only tell you this. There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. Does anybody have a final- does anybody- you have an infrastructure question.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Taking quotes out of context and editing time stamps. Strong Fake News Kung Fu on this one. After **** went down Trump said there were bad people on both sides and he is 100% correct.


T


...:cool: