Insufficient demographic data has been released about all the victims so I don't know if that has anything to do with how the suspect is choosing them.
The first two families are black, the third hispanic.
So it could be a racist/white supremacist bomber--that cannot be ruled out at this point.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have been harassing the pastor of Sutherland Springs church (where the shooting happened only a few months ago) by claiming that the event never happened. I love a good conspiracy theory, myself, but that is simply insane.
So it could be a racist/white supremacist bomber--that cannot be ruled out at this point.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have been harassing the pastor of Sutherland Springs church (where the shooting happened only a few months ago) by claiming that the event never happened. I love a good conspiracy theory, myself, but that is simply insane.
It's the narrative that is pushed by Alex Jones after literally EVERY mass shooting. He has millions of viewers on a daily basis.
Alex Jones is routinely banned from entering the Capitol building in Austin--his protests all have to be held outside.
Right now, it isn't being made clear in news stories I can see whether the victims took the packages inside or if they exploded on the front porch. If they were taken inside first then the triggering mechanism is fairly complex and is linked to the box being opened; if they went off on the front porch then they were probably just set with a timer. Obviously, no details about the devices in question are being released at this time--this helps authorities rule out the kook callers claiming responsibility.
I suspect the real concern is that all these are test runs leading up to the actual planned event.
Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee have announced that they have found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Further, they also state that they do not believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. Apparently they intend to close down their investigation (not the Mueller investigation, but their own).
Democrats said they were not consulted or even informed of this statement before it was released. Democrats have also said that ending the investigation would be cutting it short, because the committee has yet to dig into every relevant source of information.
There's a line from the New York Times that really strongly supports that last claim:
Several witnesses thought to be central to the investigation never came before the panel, including Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; Mr. Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates; Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn; and Mr. Trump’s former campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, all of whom are under indictment by the special counsel.
If you're not even willing to interview Trump campaign officials and administration officials that are not only under suspicion but have actually been indicted, then I do not think you're making an honest attempt at an investigation. I personally don't think Trump colluded with Russia, but if House Republicans had any intention of looking for the truth, they'd at least bring these people before the panel for questioning.
I've never heard of a court case where the jury issued a verdict before every witness has testified.
I have only one explanation for why the investigation would not bother interviewing each and every one of these people: if anyone did collude with Russia, these people on the intelligence committee don't want to know.
@Balrog99: I love your posts. I think I understand the conservative perspective much better because of them.
Thank you @semiticgod. I try. It's nice to have a forum where I can explain my views without it turning into a flame war. Too bad we're all not in Washington turning out some good legislation...
@Balrog99: I love your posts. I think I understand the conservative perspective much better because of them.
Thank you @semiticgod. I try. It's nice to have a forum where I can explain my views without it turning into a flame war. Too bad we're all not in Washington turning out some good legislation...
I only really like your posts because I can't get enough of Molly Hatchet's debut album.....
@Balrog99: I love your posts. I think I understand the conservative perspective much better because of them.
Thank you @semiticgod. I try. It's nice to have a forum where I can explain my views without it turning into a flame war. Too bad we're all not in Washington turning out some good legislation...
I only really like your posts because I can't get enough of Molly Hatchet's debut album.....
Well their album covers do have a kind of Icewind Dale vibe to them. I couldn't find a good picture of a balrog when I first joined!
@Balrog99: I love your posts. I think I understand the conservative perspective much better because of them.
Thank you @semiticgod. I try. It's nice to have a forum where I can explain my views without it turning into a flame war. Too bad we're all not in Washington turning out some good legislation...
I only really like your posts because I can't get enough of Molly Hatchet's debut album.....
Well their album covers do have a kind of Icewind Dale vibe to them. I couldn't find a good picture of a balrog when I first joined!
My first concert (when I was 10 or 11) was a marathon evening that included Head East, Badfinger, Iron Butterfly, Molly Hatchet, Cheap Trick, and REO Speedwagon.
No one has yet answered exactly where the line between "sharing fake news stories on social media" and "attempting to influence the outcome of an election" may be found. If that line is "foreign nationals posting fake news stories by presenting themselves as if they were American citizens"...well, is that really a crime? My name is not really "Mathsorcerer" so am I pretending to be someone I am not? If I cite some fake news story here and some of you believe it without confirming it is that my fault, your fault, or the board's fault? When is "political speech" just political speech and when is it influence?
*************
Both UPS and FedEx have also confirmed that none of the Austin packages came through any of their facilities. This was to be expected--if you drop off a package for shipment they will scan it then call Federal authorities if they see anything suspicious.
No one has yet answered exactly where the line between "sharing fake news stories on social media" and "attempting to influence the outcome of an election" may be found. If that line is "foreign nationals posting fake news stories by presenting themselves as if they were American citizens"...well, is that really a crime? My name is not really "Mathsorcerer" so am I pretending to be someone I am not? If I cite some fake news story here and some of you believe it without confirming it is that my fault, your fault, or the board's fault? When is "political speech" just political speech and when is it influence?
*************
Both UPS and FedEx have also confirmed that none of the Austin packages came through any of their facilities. This was to be expected--if you drop off a package for shipment they will scan it then call Federal authorities if they see anything suspicious.
What, you're name isn't Mathsorcerer? Next you'll be telling me you're not really a sorcerer at all!
I really am a balrog. I just had to add the 99 because somebody already stole my name...
No one has yet answered exactly where the line between "sharing fake news stories on social media" and "attempting to influence the outcome of an election" may be found. If that line is "foreign nationals posting fake news stories by presenting themselves as if they were American citizens"...well, is that really a crime? My name is not really "Mathsorcerer" so am I pretending to be someone I am not? If I cite some fake news story here and some of you believe it without confirming it is that my fault, your fault, or the board's fault? When is "political speech" just political speech and when is it influence?
*************
Both UPS and FedEx have also confirmed that none of the Austin packages came through any of their facilities. This was to be expected--if you drop off a package for shipment they will scan it then call Federal authorities if they see anything suspicious.
Inevitably, the people spreading that information were working for someone, and in all likelihood, the money to pay them came from Russia, and if all of it didn't, at least SOME of it did. Mueller's charge against them at this point isn't really because they will ever be brought to justice. It's to drive home the fact that, yes, Russia was absolutely involved in very explicit tactics to shape the narrative of the campaign. My question has always been this: how would a group of Russian trolls and bots had sophisticated enough knowledge about party and regional politics, not to mention demographic trends, to know EXACTLY where to target the false information on social media?? The answer is, they wouldn't have. Someone in the US was absolutely feeding them that information, because that information only comes from people involved in campaign data.
Also, call me crazy, but Mueller doesn't strike me as someone dumb enough to just start throwing out unsubstantiated charges with the eyes of the world scrutinizing him. But if he finds something within the letter of the law that has been violated in any way, he is going to charge it. I think he is well aware he has to come across as beyond reproach for any of this to stick. Also, there are next to NO leaks from his team. In contrast, Ken Starr's office was infamous for their leaks to the press in the 90s.
One day after Rex Tillerson is willing to say out loud Russia was responsible for the nerve-agent attack in Britain, Trump shows him the door. Amazing how these coincidences keep piling up.
Also, call me crazy, but Mueller doesn't strike me as someone dumb enough to just start throwing out unsubstantiated charges with the eyes of the world scrutinizing him.
Does Mueller peddling the lies about WMD's in Iraq count?
Also, call me crazy, but Mueller doesn't strike me as someone dumb enough to just start throwing out unsubstantiated charges with the eyes of the world scrutinizing him.
Does Mueller peddling the lies about WMD's in Iraq count?
I don't know. From all the actors in the post 9/11 era, Mueller strikes me as one who displayed the highest level of integrity:
Barred FBI from using "enhanced interrogation" techniques
Preventing further erosion of civil liberties by standing up against TSP without court warrant
Withstood pressure to make more arrests of possible terrorists without good evidence
With regards to the alleged WMD I think in his statement on that he referred to the Powell & the CIA director. Since the FBI is a domestic agency, he can hardly be blamed for that particular bit of misinformation or for not having the FBI follow up and verify.
Also, call me crazy, but Mueller doesn't strike me as someone dumb enough to just start throwing out unsubstantiated charges with the eyes of the world scrutinizing him.
Does Mueller peddling the lies about WMD's in Iraq count?
I don't know. From all the actors in the post 9/11 era, Mueller strikes me as one who displayed the highest level of integrity:
Barred FBI from using "enhanced interrogation" techniques
Preventing further erosion of civil liberties by standing up against TSP without court warrant
Withstood pressure to make more arrests of possible terrorists without good evidence
With regards to the alleged WMD I think in his statement on that he referred to the Powell & the CIA director. Since the FBI is a domestic agency, he can hardly be blamed for that particular bit of misinformation or for not having the FBI follow up and verify.
Everyone was referring to Powell back then, which is why the Bush Administration had him give the presentation at the UN. He was the only one with the credibility to make the case (because it was flimsy from the beginning). No one assumed he was in the midst of sacrificing all his personal integrity to do the dirty work of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld (well, I did, but I can understand why alot of people in DC didn't).
Prevented erosion of civil liberties? Like his abuse of national security letters to obtain metadata information on citizens, complete with gag orders? Mueller's department handled some of the worst post-911 abuses, the worst time in recent memory for civil liberties, so the very idea of him as a guardian of civil liberties is something hard for me to wrap my head around.
As for preventing arrests without good evidence it deserves to be mentioned he targeted two men, one who eventually won damages in court and one who killed himself. The first one was completely innocent. Almost nobody at the time believed the second one to be guilty, including senators, the press, and the findings of National Academy of Sciences disputed the evidence. But that is neither here nor there.
I followed the opposition to the Iraq War from a left-wing media perspective on a daily basis for 5 years, and I doubt the name Robert Mueller came up more than a handful of times. He and Comey both threatened Bush with resignation unless the domestic surveillance program was restructured:
On the one hand Tillerson deserves to be fired because he's not a diplomat and he's been destroying US credibility across the globe. On the other hand, he was doing so at Trump's orders and Trump is going to appoint the next guy to do the same thing or worse. As Howard Dean succinctly put it when talking about Devos, Trump's cabinet is full of incompetent doofuses but it's more than that they aren't just incompetent they are intentionally destructive to the United States.
Minor correction/splitting hairs: while Tillerson was SecState he was a diplomat even if he might not have been very diplomatic. Still...he got fired solely for not toeing Trump's line. That happens a lot these days in the White House.
edit/add: I did not realize that Tillerson got fired *by tweet*. That is as ridiculous as a couple of 15-year-olds breaking up by text.
On my other board I just had to lock a thread because two children couldn't stop sniping at each other and it started to become *personal*. The complaints that that sub-forum leans too far to the right/libertarian/conservative and that it is mostly populated by white males are accurate...but those are the only people who kept showing up after the last time that forum had a huge meltdown and a lot of people left, resulting in my taking over as mod.
I know it is probably a faux pas on my part but any of you who are left-leaning and would like to counterbalance an overly-conservative forum are welcome to show up. Please and thank you.
I followed the opposition to the Iraq War from a left-wing media perspective on a daily basis for 5 years, and I doubt the name Robert Mueller came up more than a handful of times. He and Comey both threatened Bush with resignation unless the domestic surveillance program was restructured:
To be clear: I do not think this was an outright lie, but just a huge intelligence community flustercuck
If you're catching these folk in outright lies they aren't doing their job right. The WMD story itself is a lie but it's almost impossible to lay the blame at the feet of any particular individual. The intelligence community has never been a bastion of "ethical leadership" that Comey likes to endlessly tweet about and none of these figures deserve uncritical praise. Heavy skepticism is a better option considering the power they wield, the secrecy in which they operate, and their history that ranges from deception to incompetence, depending on how you want to look at it.
When Chuck Schumer said that if you go after the intelligence community, they have a hundred ways of getting back at you, that suggested to me a very unhealthy relationship between government officials and the intelligence community where the latter can intimidate the former with the powers they have. I dont know how that could be interpreted any other way.
The complaints that that sub-forum leans too far to the right/libertarian/conservative and that it is mostly populated by white males are accurate
If you are complaining that there are too many whites males it's hard for me to describe you as anything but a racist (not you, the complainers). Sadly, this decribes an ever increasing subset of the left.
They aren't my complaints--I am the mod--but I actually agree with that complaint because the board needs a little more balance. *shrug* It is what it is.
Yeah, sorry, I edited my comment for clarification because I realize it came off as me accusing you when it wasn't about you.
Balance is why I post here, in a left leaning group, rather than any number of conservative echo chambers I could use. That, and I like being the only one in the room to believe something and be challenged on all sides. Keeps the mind sharp.
It's worth pointing out that Secretary of State is not a job people just do for one year, for obvious reasons. Each of the last 3 Administrations had exactly two, essentially one for each term.
That, and I like being the only one in the room to believe something and be challenged on all sides. Keeps the mind sharp.
I think this is essential, and an area where our universities are failing us. I was lucky to go to an undergraduate university and a law school that were very open to competing ideas, but many students, particularly liberal students, don't get the same exposure. This leaves them at a disadvantage, where they are unprepared to experience strong idea articulated by thoughtful people who disagree with them.
In the broader picture, I think it is very sad that people often seek out echo chambers. You can see this by someone's choice of news source. Cable news, with Fox and MSNBC, is the most obvious example, but it could be even worse with online sources. When people have biases about the framing of information, this leaves them susceptible to manipulation, as the Russian government is well aware.
At the end of the day it comes down to people valuing comfort over contemplation, and I'm afraid too many people prefer the former.
So the Right-wing media finally found the dirt on Mueller and it is that he quoted CIA sources about WMD that Iraq might have had, the same news they peddled to the public without question even though every other country besides Britain sniffed it out as misleading garbage?
The same media and party who deemed Freedom Fries a good enough protest against France for not following the US blindly.
That is what has been circled back to, and they are only angry about Mueller's role in it, and not everyone else's role which literally happened a decade ago?
Comments
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have been harassing the pastor of Sutherland Springs church (where the shooting happened only a few months ago) by claiming that the event never happened. I love a good conspiracy theory, myself, but that is simply insane.
15,000 posts!
134,200 views!
Yaaaaay!
Right now, it isn't being made clear in news stories I can see whether the victims took the packages inside or if they exploded on the front porch. If they were taken inside first then the triggering mechanism is fairly complex and is linked to the box being opened; if they went off on the front porch then they were probably just set with a timer. Obviously, no details about the devices in question are being released at this time--this helps authorities rule out the kook callers claiming responsibility.
I suspect the real concern is that all these are test runs leading up to the actual planned event.
Democrats said they were not consulted or even informed of this statement before it was released. Democrats have also said that ending the investigation would be cutting it short, because the committee has yet to dig into every relevant source of information.
There's a line from the New York Times that really strongly supports that last claim: If you're not even willing to interview Trump campaign officials and administration officials that are not only under suspicion but have actually been indicted, then I do not think you're making an honest attempt at an investigation. I personally don't think Trump colluded with Russia, but if House Republicans had any intention of looking for the truth, they'd at least bring these people before the panel for questioning.
I've never heard of a court case where the jury issued a verdict before every witness has testified.
I have only one explanation for why the investigation would not bother interviewing each and every one of these people: if anyone did collude with Russia, these people on the intelligence committee don't want to know.
*************
Both UPS and FedEx have also confirmed that none of the Austin packages came through any of their facilities. This was to be expected--if you drop off a package for shipment they will scan it then call Federal authorities if they see anything suspicious.
I really am a balrog. I just had to add the 99 because somebody already stole my name...
Also, call me crazy, but Mueller doesn't strike me as someone dumb enough to just start throwing out unsubstantiated charges with the eyes of the world scrutinizing him. But if he finds something within the letter of the law that has been violated in any way, he is going to charge it. I think he is well aware he has to come across as beyond reproach for any of this to stick. Also, there are next to NO leaks from his team. In contrast, Ken Starr's office was infamous for their leaks to the press in the 90s.
- Barred FBI from using "enhanced interrogation" techniques
- Preventing further erosion of civil liberties by standing up against TSP without court warrant
- Withstood pressure to make more arrests of possible terrorists without good evidence
With regards to the alleged WMD I think in his statement on that he referred to the Powell & the CIA director. Since the FBI is a domestic agency, he can hardly be blamed for that particular bit of misinformation or for not having the FBI follow up and verify.As for preventing arrests without good evidence it deserves to be mentioned he targeted two men, one who eventually won damages in court and one who killed himself. The first one was completely innocent. Almost nobody at the time believed the second one to be guilty, including senators, the press, and the findings of National Academy of Sciences disputed the evidence. But that is neither here nor there.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-comey-ashcroft-domestic-surveillance-20170517-story.html
edit/add: I did not realize that Tillerson got fired *by tweet*. That is as ridiculous as a couple of 15-year-olds breaking up by text.
On my other board I just had to lock a thread because two children couldn't stop sniping at each other and it started to become *personal*. The complaints that that sub-forum leans too far to the right/libertarian/conservative and that it is mostly populated by white males are accurate...but those are the only people who kept showing up after the last time that forum had a huge meltdown and a lot of people left, resulting in my taking over as mod.
I know it is probably a faux pas on my part but any of you who are left-leaning and would like to counterbalance an overly-conservative forum are welcome to show up. Please and thank you.
When Chuck Schumer said that if you go after the intelligence community, they have a hundred ways of getting back at you, that suggested to me a very unhealthy relationship between government officials and the intelligence community where the latter can intimidate the former with the powers they have. I dont know how that could be interpreted any other way.
Balance is why I post here, in a left leaning group, rather than any number of conservative echo chambers I could use. That, and I like being the only one in the room to believe something and be challenged on all sides. Keeps the mind sharp.
In the broader picture, I think it is very sad that people often seek out echo chambers. You can see this by someone's choice of news source. Cable news, with Fox and MSNBC, is the most obvious example, but it could be even worse with online sources. When people have biases about the framing of information, this leaves them susceptible to manipulation, as the Russian government is well aware.
At the end of the day it comes down to people valuing comfort over contemplation, and I'm afraid too many people prefer the former.
The same media and party who deemed Freedom Fries a good enough protest against France for not following the US blindly.
That is what has been circled back to, and they are only angry about Mueller's role in it, and not everyone else's role which literally happened a decade ago?