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

Bomb? Looks more like a watch dog to me. :sunglasses:

1 Like

To: Blonald Drumpf
From; not chuck skoomer

:rofl:

You need to get off 4chan before it causes permanent brain damage. :grin:

download%20(9)

No one really cared!

Rather than:ā€œno one caredā€, iā€™d say:ā€œNo one considered the act of what was probably a lone tard to be something to be used against the opposing political partyā€.

While fake bombs sent to cnn and some dems seem to somehow be much more relevant.

Umā€¦I donā€™t think anyone here is trying to ā€œproveā€ that this was a dirty trick. Weā€™re all waiting for the facts to come in.

And thatā€™s not what I said either. However, Mick claimed that you people had ā€œestablishedā€ that it was a possibility. I was merely pointing out that no one had ā€œestablishedā€ anything.

Establish

  1. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.

I agree, waiting for the facts would be far more sensible.

The pipe bomb sent to CNNā€™s Midtown headquarters Wednesday had an ISIS parody flag reading ā€œGet ā€˜Er Doneā€ on it, a high-ranking police source told The Post.

The mock flag appears to be one that has been lurking on the right-wing corners of the internet as a meme since 2014

Ah that settles it. I had never seen that mock ISIS flag before, apparently it exists on right wing corners of the internet. Proof it was sent by a right winger. Or someone trying a bit too hard to make it look like an Alt-right white supremacist. Take your pick.

Did the bomb also have a miniature Maga hat on top of it?

bomb

those alt-righters, manā€¦ they get more and more subtle

The timer was a mobile phone? Maybe it still had some contact numbers in it?

Well the question is always how much of a possibility something is.

But the answer is the same: to say something is possible, there needs to be some kind of evidence. And correlation is not causation.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all. Anything is possible.

1 Like

I believe the phrase you are looking for is ā€œcorrelation does not imply causationā€. The nuance is that very often when things start to correlate you do start to see the causation, the phrase is meant to imply, this is not always true.

People tend to do that. For example, Dr Christine Ford claims of sexual harassment, then several others came forward. Did you say to yourself ā€œcorrelation does not imply causationā€, or did you say to yourself ā€œah ha, proof he did itā€?

Some peoples brains are just wired in such a way, that only one outcome is allowed. Iā€™ve already stated the possibility it was a right wing nut is high, so, I have no problem with many possibilities existing simultaneously. Some people, not so much. The Russia collusion with Trump is one example. I have seen impressive lists people have formed, all the correlating points that MUST mean Trump colluded with Russia and their brain canā€™t handle the idea, perhaps they are wrong and search for more and more points to correlate becoming ever increasingly frustrated that other people canā€™t see what they see. Thatā€™s cognitive dissonance.

Remaining open to possibilities, within reason, I think is healthy.

Maybe Joe felt left out. He is prepping for 2020.

He has the stink of vice president on himā€¦I donā€™t think a bomb will be enough.

1 Like

The #Metoo time bomb is probably enough to keep creepy Joe out of the main mainstream.

I donā€™t know about that. Instead of kissing babies, he can smell little girlsā€™ hair. :sunglasses:

I donā€™t know, but this:

1540472660712

reminded me a lot of this:

1 Like

Is that a real still from CNN?

They seriously referred to themselves in the third person? Lol