'Explosive Devices' sent to CNN NY office, Soros home, Obama, Clintons

Your intital reply to this thread didn’t even soft-peddle this as “could be a possibility”, but a certainty. I didn’t see any waffling or hedging in your replies. Do you entertain the most likely notion that this is indeed just a lone rightwing nut?

1 Like

Of course, very much so. But Democrats of late have been pulling dirty tricks, the fact I almost posted the day before saying “now is the time for the October surprise” did I admit leave my initial posting with the “oh c’mon” kind of tone that there might not be another explanation.

I hope I am proven wrong, if it’s a nut job, lets hope they catch him quick and restore what little faith I have in the Democrats to not sink to ever increasing lows.

No one on the Internet has ever meant this when they’re arguing a point.

1 Like

Believe me when I say with 100% sincerity, no one wants the Democrats and the left in general to be thought of as above such dirty tactics more than I.

Of course it would be a first reaction.

I keep hearing that the most likely scenario is a right winger sent these. There’s certainly a very high possibility of this but I’m having trouble understanding why it’s the most likely.?

Say we have two main motives :
A) right winger wanted to kill these people
B) left winger wanted to scare people from the right just before midterms.

Both options have about the same risk. Life is fucked forever prison sentence.

But the reward? Option A is highly highly unlikely to actually succeed for two reasons.

  1. What politician actually personally checks their mail now days? If you wanted to actually take one out I think this would be the last thing to try as its extremely ineffective.
  2. Taking out one or even a few of these people wouldn’t do anything big picture wise. (not every murder needs a big picture but it’s certainly something to consider) the DNC is far too vast to actually be truly truly affected by this.

If anything they’d just become martyrs.

Which leads to option B)

Option B has the chance of swaying a midterm election in a parties favor in an extremely, extremely polarised political atmosphere. For many people they see GOP/Trump controlling all 3 branches as defcom 5 end of the world scenario. (as do some on the right in regards to Hillary, etc)

I think anything is possible here but whether one is more likely? Ehhhh Idk. Personally I wouldn’t see this as a far right stance as many people like to claim.

2 Likes

anyone remember the rubber bullet affair on election eve of 2004? a closeeeeeeee election that swayed some votes to CSB

Besides, no one from the right actually wants to kill Obama Clinton or whoever from the left.

Put on trial and locked up yes, but that’s another thing.

Also, all the targets (so far) are has-beens or at no real risk of harm. CNN, nobody watches it in the US, has-been. Clinton does more harm to the Democrat party than good these days. Same with Maxine Waters.

Obama is retired and, as always, above the fray. Soros is at zero risk because nobody with his wealth comes within a mile of his mail until it’s been opened and sorted for him. Neither of these men nor their families open their own mail. Maybe none of the targets open their own mail, in fact.

No part of the Democrat party has been put at real risk. If these pipe bombs went out to Alexandra Occasional-Cortex or Liz Warren or Cory Booker or Kamala Harris or Kirstin Gillibrand or Bernie Sanders - those would be real losses to the Democrats.

Ok, I am not arguing that therefore the terrrorist is a Democrat. Could be a Trump supporter who has a lot of anger and poor political judgment. No idea as of yet.

I just wanted to point out that Occam’s razor does not necessarily imply it was a Republican, and that I agree with @IulusGrun that the risk/reward seems a better argument for an anti-Trumper than a pro-Trumper.

If you’re dealing with someone fucked up enough to send a bomb to someone (let alone multiple people), the whole concept of risk/reward has zero baring on their actions.

The same argument was made by those who supported Dr Christine Ford who claimed she had nothing to gain from coming forward and everything to lose. It’s a fallacious argument.

You’re assuming that the bombs were sent to do actual bodily harm. That’s a big assumption.

2 Likes

Then it’s all about the reward. You seem to be saying that such a person wouldn’t care about the risk.

Assume you’re correct. There is still little reward for doing harm to the list of recipients. They are well-known Democrats, but they would not be a real loss.

If it’s all about the reward, then in this case the reward is no real loss to the Democrats but the GOP takes a huge loss in popularity (or so their thinking might go). I don’t think it makes it more likely the terrorist is pro-Trump.

Pretty much what the International Politics forum should be renamed to, if you ask me. Fallacious Arguments.

From the people who are assuming the bombs are a false flag to influence elections?

This place is so ridiculous, it’s not funny.

Correct, that is discussing events as we know the facts, as of now. If one of these devices actually went off or hurt anyone, then everything changes.

I thought you were keeping an open mind. This statement seems more like a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

No, it’s a response to the insane right wing echo chamber of this forum. If it looks and acts like a spade, it’s probably a spade. There is a chance it’s not, but without any further information to suggest otherwise … nah fuck it, DEMOCRATS SUUUUUUCK!

Maybe, but I prefer to think it’s a place where boilerplate Democrat logic is not the default narrative, and where posters tend to think for themselves rather than swallow the party line without thinking.

I have no love for the democrats in general, but I’m not going to demonize them immediately whenever something happens just because ‘mah Trump.’

Everybody’s welcome to present their views, but you seem to be getting a little overexcited.

Fair enough, I’ll bow out.