SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Three Explosive Devices Sent to Clintons, Obama and CNN Offices
Explosive devices were sent to former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as to CNN's offices in New York, sparking an intense investigation on Wednesday into whether a bomber is going after targets that have often been the subject of right-wing ire.
A law enforcement official said the three devices were similar to one found Monday at the home of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and liberal donor.
[...] The device sent to CNN was contained in a manila envelope addressed to John Brennan, who was the C.I.A. director in the Obama administration and is a harsh critic of Mr. Trump. The president revoked Mr. Brennan's security clearance in what was seen as an act of retribution. The return address bore the name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who formerly headed the Democratic National Committee.
In a statement, the White House condemned "the attempted violent attacks."
Update 1: The explosive devices have been described as pipe bombs. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says that a device was also sent to his office.
Update 2:
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's spokesman has identified the device sent to his office, originally believed to be suspicious, as a thumb drive containing files on the far right group Proud Boys. It does not appear to be related to the explosive devices.
[...] Another suspicious package has been intercepted at a Congressional mail screening facility in Capitol Heights, Maryland, according to CNN. [...] ABC News reported the package was addressed to Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday October 25 2018, @04:27PM
I didn't respond to Runaway directly for a reason, I don't think anything I could say would help him, don't feel like I need to address his per se ridiculous idea to an audience, and I have no desire to engage him directly. Which is why I was confused by your response about violence to my refutation of a call for censorship.
I called him names as a demonstration that he wasn't even worth engaging seriously, I didn't even take the time to come up with a witty insult, I went as generic as possible. That isn't something I do often, and I didn't do it in the hopes of hurting Runaway, I did it to display that a counterpoint, however valueless, isn't in danger of censorship here either. Perhaps I didn't chose the most elegant or effective way of doing that, as evidenced by the fact I find myself having to explain, ohh well, I tried.
I did respond to Dublet, who was upset that we aren't censoring unpopular opinions. I am much more worried about people getting pissy and starting a row calling for censorship on our tiny little site than I am about trading assassinations with a troll on the internet. It is true we seem to be very clear on the censorship issue, but I have seen that change before, and I would rather not lose this place.
I agree that violence is ineffective, but I also don't think that responding logically to people with violent ideas is "particularly helpful" either. You do as you see fit, I hope from the bottom of my shallow little soul that it works, I am rooting for you.
I agree that taking the lead out of gas has been a huge win, but pinning credit for crime rates on it seems hard to justify. Unless you have some data showing violent criminals have statistically significant blood lead levels or something up your sleeve, I am not going to give it much credence, though if you do you should share that shit it would be a good read. I could argue very similarly that Roe v Wade was responsible, or (my pet theory) that Mr. Rogers was.