Explosive Devices Sent to Clintons, Obama and CNN

a reply to: seagull

And what you just described is America.

I've known more people who may not like you for your convictions, but they sure as hell admire it more than having none.

In places like we talk about, it's rare you even have to ask for help. I bet he didn't. Doesn't matter if we disagree, we know when we're needed.

a reply to: narrator

I think the odds are good it was something of both.

None of which answers the who, or the why.

a reply to: CynConcepts
I have one that holds an 80 count and measured it it's around 4.5 inches in diameter. the bomb looks to be a tad larger than the diameter of the bottle in the picture, which is why i said around 4.5 to 6 inches. or whatever I guessed.

a reply to: network dude

I totally get that both sides do stupid things. But if you can't see, or won't see that the leadership of the left has become uncivil and called for the same, you are only fooling yourself. Hillary did it and Holder walked it back after he did it.

What exactly am I looking for in this article that is supposed to refute what I posted?

Eric Holder did not call for violence. He used a metaphor and then he clarified his point later in his speech. Did he not? It's not like he said "when they go low, we kick them" (which again, is clearly a metaphor) and then days later, after taking flack for it, walked it back. He made a point of clarifying his statement at the time.

As for HRC's comment. From the interview she did with Christiane Amanpour, the line that was repeated ad nauseam was this:

You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.

That's all that was included in for example, the Washington Examiner article, Hillary Clinton cheers the end of civility.

So what did she mean? Well clearly she's saying "you" (somebody) cannot be civil with Republicans. I took it as meaning her fellow Democrats, particularly in Congress. And "cannot being civil" does not translate to "commit acts of violence." There seems to be some confusion about what the word "civil" means because it's been repeatedly referenced in connection with acts of violence, like how the Scalise shooting had people talking about civility. The word civility means formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.

So what she's actually saying is that *somebody* (I take it to be Dem pols in Congress) needs to set aside being polite and courteous to their Republican counterparts in debate until the Democrats have regained some control in Congress.

Now, what else did she say that could put this in context? From the CNN transcript of the interview:

So first, the question she was asked was about civility:

And secondly, do you see any way, even a conservative who I was speaking of yesterday said the only way to repair America is try to get back to some civility and to try to make it that even if we have political disagreements, we're not going to war with each other, we're not trying to destroy each other.

Here's her full response:

CLINTON: Well, certainly, I would love to see us return to civility. Listening to one another, working out our differences. That is not the Republican party that exists today, and that is certainly not the administration that we have in power right now.

When the Republican Senate denied the right of President Obama to have his nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, heard --

AMANPOUR: I think you even wrote that they stole a justice from the Democratic party.

CLINTON: Well, I think they did. I mean, to keep a Supreme Court seat open for a year, to deny a distinguished jurist, they could have voted him down. They could have said, "Well, for ideological reasons, philosophical reasons, we're not going to vote for him." But no, they stonewalled. And that was such a breach of Senate ethics and the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to advice and consent on nominations, that you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.

That's why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.

And you heard how the Republican members, led by Mitch McConnell, the president, really demeaned the confirmation process, insulted and attacked not only Dr. Ford but women who were speaking out. You know, look, I remember Republican operatives shutting down the voting in Florida in 2000.

I remember the swift voting of John Kerry. I remember the things that even the Republican party did to John McCain in 2000. I remember what they did to me for 25 years, the falsehood, the lies, which, unfortunately, people believed because the Republicans have put a lot of time, money and effort in promoting them.

So when you're dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interest who want a government that does its bidding, it's hard -- you can be civil but you can't overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections.

And so, the answer to everything is to get back to a balance, to get back to what is called regular order. They don't even have committee processes. They -- the idea that they wouldn't seek and obtain all of the written record from Kavanaugh, that they would not have done a full investigation, that is not the way that they treat Democrats.

And so, unless we win and we say to the people of our country, "Look, we need to protect the rule of law. We need to protect processes that are in place in the Congress and the government to protect you, to protect what you care about." So, this should go both ways, and that's what I'm hoping for.

Was she calling for violence? No. Not at all.

We don't need some guy's opinion piece in WaPo to look at either of these instances and see that in neither case were these two encouraging anyone to be violent.

What I would say to you is that people on the Right have been persuaded to believe that "Democratic leaders are calling for all out assaults on Republicans" and the fact that they're being persuaded to believe this is in of itself a dangerous sort of conditioning. By painting people on the Left as being one big violent mob, they're providing a justification for people on the Right to be violent.

False Flag

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Kryties

Desperate humans do stupid things. I think we can all agree with that.

Just one question... Why do you think "Trump supporters" are desperate?

I never said anything about "desperation". You did.

Why are you trying to manufacture a comment I never made?

I didn't say you did, so I'll just break this down into simpler terms for you.

You say Trump supporters did this. I said desperate humans will do stupid things. This was/is a stupid thing. Why do you think Trump supporters would be desperate enough to do something this stupid?

I see what you're trying to do.

Thing is mate, I don't know that I agree that it is an "act of desperation". Hence why I haven't said it.

But feel free to continue to manufacture the conversation and tailor it toward your point of view.

*sigh*

Ok. When you're already ahead in the game with the final seconds closing in, what would you gain by giving the ball to your opponent?

I don't claim to understand the way crazy people's minds think.

originally posted by: T3mp0ra1Pri50n3r
False Flag

That's becoming more obvious every hour. For instance, how can a Return to Sender package arrived at Debbie Schultz's place on the same day that the others are delivered to where they're supposed to go? Return to Sender takes longer to be returned.

a reply to: theantediluvian

the also brought up the "resistance" movement as referring to violence, but guess what the motto of alex jones has been...
"We are the Resistance"

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow, you are actually peddling some real snip there. I admire the tough sale you've taken on - Democrats haven't been calling for violence... lol. Tough sale indeed. I guess if Democrats are on a mission to try and flip reality (as is often the case) they need a lot of foot soldiers to peddle this one.
I like how you analyse context when it suits, though. I wonder if you do the same for Republicans?

im gonna break with the bulk of posters on each side ,i dont think this was the left or the right ,or even isis, if it was ISIS the bombs would have gone off , if it was weather underground type left they would have gone off,if it was crazy right wing fringe one of them would have gone off. so my theory is an anarchist who hates the right and the left and is attempting to use isis as a scape goat .what say you ats?

edit to add some one that wanted to increase the division of right and left and cause a snipstorm right before the election and increase the allready tense political division in america

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: T3mp0ra1Pri50n3r
False Flag

That's becoming more obvious every hour. For instance, how can a Return to Sender package arrived at Debbie Schultz's place on the same day that the others are delivered to where they're supposed to go? Return to Sender takes longer to be returned.

I don't disagree, but devil's advocate - Soros's bomb was found Monday. Two days is technically long enough to return to sender. Unlikely, but possible.

a reply to: headorheart

How many of the packages were mailed and how many were hand-delivered? The one sent to CNN had no postmark or cancellation stamps showing that it had been in the mail system at all.

a reply to: jimmyx

motive is not irrelevant..

If motive is irrelevant than its ridiculous to try and tie it to Trump, because there would be no proof of that without, you guessed it MOTIVE......

circle talk someone else im wise to it

deuces

a reply to: CynConcepts

Another thing that strikes me as odd. The clock does show 11:35 and the wires are still attached. that means the device is intact.

I doubt anyone would be approaching or much less photographing a bomb that hasn’t been disarmed . Sounds like a fake to me.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: T3mp0ra1Pri50n3r
False Flag

That's becoming more obvious every hour. For instance, how can a Return to Sender package arrived at Debbie Schultz's place on the same day that the others are delivered to where they're supposed to go? Return to Sender takes longer to be returned.

Occam's Razor:
Why couldn't it have just been mailed earlier? Soros got a package 2 days ago. It could've been mailed/returned to sender at the same time as his.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CynConcepts

Another thing that strikes me as odd. The clock does show 11:35 and the wires are still attached. that means the device is intact.

I doubt anyone would be approaching or much less photographing a bomb that hasn’t been disarmed . Sounds like a fake to me.

Yup, common sense.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Kryties

Desperate humans do stupid things. I think we can all agree with that.

Just one question... Why do you think "Trump supporters" are desperate?

I never said anything about "desperation". You did.

Why are you trying to manufacture a comment I never made?

I didn't say you did, so I'll just break this down into simpler terms for you.

You say Trump supporters did this. I said desperate humans will do stupid things. This was/is a stupid thing. Why do you think Trump supporters would be desperate enough to do something this stupid?

I see what you're trying to do.

Thing is mate, I don't know that I agree that it is an "act of desperation". Hence why I haven't said it.

But feel free to continue to manufacture the conversation and tailor it toward your point of view.

*sigh*

Ok. When you're already ahead in the game with the final seconds closing in, what would you gain by giving the ball to your opponent?

I don't claim to understand the way crazy people's minds think.

Lol, your first post in here says different.

SMH.

Trump, right wing nutters, yea you don't claim anything.

a reply to: carewemust

LOL. Yeah, we have packages sent to DC, Florida, Maryland, New York, Virginia and of course the Return to Sender in Florida, all arriving simultaneously!?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

oh, I can think of a motive at least a couple groups that have allied with the right might have...

after all, those white separatists and militias have been training for a way for quite some time now!!!

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CynConcepts

Another thing that strikes me as odd. The clock does show 11:35 and the wires are still attached. that means the device is intact.

I doubt anyone would be approaching or much less photographing a bomb that hasn’t been disarmed . Sounds like a fake to me.

Also the stamps in the picture are 6 First Class forever stamps. Thats about $3.00 - $350 not enuf for a package that weight
Also the stamps are not canceled indicating it was not mailed
I also agree no one would take it out, pose it next to bottle of sani wipes. I would get out of there ASAP