HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mc Mike » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

Mc Mike

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2011, 05:50 PM
Number of posts: 1,610

Journal Archives

Her piece on a 'little bird' analysis of TRumpf's nazi retweets was great.

She said he's been caught making retweets of neo nazis on social media more times than anyone else, and the only person who's come close is one of his 2 children. And his campaign CEO Bannon said he wanted to make Breitbart the home of the 'alt-right', and that even before Bannon came there, Breitbart made it's name going after Shirley Sherrod, going after ACORN, with lying racist smears.

And Breitbart went after Shirley Sherrod at the exact time the NAACP was saying that the Tea Party was racists. Just a few months before the 2010 mid terms, right after the NAACP questioned the teabags for their alt right nazi connections and leanings, Breitbart ginned up a lying scandal about Sherrod's speech to the NAACP, so the big story about the 'NAACP and racism' was a story about Sherrod and the NAACP being racists, and not about the NAACP's factual charge that Breitbart's teabag friends were racists, alt right, nazis.

It was interesting to me to see the simultaneous alt-right attacks on GQ reporter

Julia Ioffe because she wrote something dRumpf fans didn't like about Mel dRumpf. And it was interesting to watch the dRumpf's refuse to condemn THOSE alt righties, who used their echoes program to target the reporter. Same exact hate filled and murderous and slanderous attacks against the reporter.

Wonder if they're involved with Steve Bannon, like Milo is. Even if they're separate groups who just hate women, Blacks, Jews, and think like nazis, they all like and are backing dRumpf, openly.

I like when he refers to himself as Trump.

"What do you have to lose, by giving (the august, storied, super successful and wonderful institution that is known as) Trump a chance?"

Nazi dead enders who may or may not have technical proficiency with computer stuff. r, nt.

In addition to this post by Thor,

here's a couple of facts, fiscal year end dates, and dollar amount of debt:


09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00


09/30/2015 18,150,617,666,484.33
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Now look at the numbers, Raygun single handedly tripled the national debt, combined with his one term successor, they quadrupled the debt. Every other president in history spent under 1 trillion, all combined, Raygun took 900 billion and made it 2.7 trillion, and if you want to call every other president in history's combined debt 1 trillion, after Raygun and Poppy were done, it was 4 trillion.

You can make the argument that Clinton, in 8 years, added 1.7 trillion, by the end of his last fiscal year budget. Of course, he had a 5 trillion dollar projected 10 year SURPLUS, and that projection was taken as gospel truth by republicans to get little bush's tax cuts pushed through. Still, the score is 'every president in history up through Carter-1 trillion, Clinton-1.7 trillion, and 2 republicans-3 trillion added to the debt.

Then that clown little bush came in, and turned the entire 5.7 trillion from everyone into 11.9 trillion by the end of his last fiscal year budget. Ignoring the unpaid for liabilities, he single handedly outspent every president in history. Total score, last 3 republican presidents-9 trillion, every other president-2.7 trillion added to the debt.

Now talk about the cost drivers for Obama's 'reckless spending binge' on little bush's unpaid for liabilities: the cost of the Iraq war, budgeted at zero dollars by the bush admin, the cost of winding down 2 disastrous wars prosecuted by bush, the cost of a massive influx of injured war vets who need care now, the cost of dealing with massive destabilization in the mid east caused by bush's foreign policy fiascos, the cost of the unfunded disastrous massive non-competitive priced give away to bush's friends in big Pharma through the Medicare Part D drug expansion, the cost of foregone tax revenue caused by bush's supremely-tilted-toward-the-rich tax cuts, enacted while a war was going on, the cost of half of the 1.5 trillion dollar bailout to wall street caused by bush's massive deregulation driven financial collapse, and trillions more needed afterward to fix that collapse.

The argument could be made that Obama spent 8 trillion dollars. It isn't an honest argument. Another argument could be made that the last 3 republican fiscal hero presidents spent 10 trillion, every other president spent 2.7 trillion combined, and Obama spent 7 trillion, or he spent a bit more than a third of the total existing debt. And this occurred after their last 3 presidents tripled / quadrupled, then doubled the entire debt of all other administrations, combined. If he had made the national debt 25 trillion, he would have performed as badly as little bush did, if he made it 37.5 trillion he'd be like saint raygun, but of course little bush was dealing with a 5 trillion dollar surplus, and Prez O was dealing with a little bush sponsored economic collapse. And you should understand that we have actually spent more than 2 trillion dollars on interest payments --for debt service caused by the republicans' national debt -- we've spent more than 2 trillion dollars in the last 8 years on that ALONE.

If you look at the debt numbers as of the end of each prez admin's last budgets, fiscal year end standings, and look at all the unfunded mandates little bush forced on Obama, you can easily destroy any republican attempt at appearing to be upset by out of control spending and debt. They try to spend the US into bankruptcy, and try to leave the bill for their Dem successors, try to make sure the cupboards are bare when a Dem is coming into office, then their partisans try to cry crocodile tears about how much the debt upsets them. Prez O's performance on the budget and economy has been heroic, and he was hamstrung by the constant debt default brinksmanship and fillibustering by the 'loyal' opposition. He should have been able to spend more to help the economy recover from the republican crash, more jobs money would have helped American citizens instead of Wall St enjoying and hogging the huge benefits from the recovery.

dRumpf mastering the art of going in polar opposite directions, simultaneously.

1) It's not actually fooling anyone around here, but this tactical phenom has been manifested in a pronounced way since the 'Amplification of slash expansion of slash contraction of' his Muslim ban in late July:

"Donald Trump said his latest proposal to stop immigration "from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism" is an "expansion" of his blanket ban on Muslims, in an interview aired Sunday.

"I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion," Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I'm looking now at territory. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm OK with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim." " From TomCaDems's 7/24 o.p.


He and his merry band of campaign surrogate mutants take both sides of the issue. He wants credit for not being insane and unconstitutional, and wants to tell the people who love him for being insane and unconstitutional that he's still on their side, is as crazy and anti-democracy as ever before.

2) Does he ever apologize, or feel like he needs to apologize? Yes. And No. He's stated frequently that he never has, never will, and doesn't think he has anything to apologize for. He tells it like it is, blunt unvarnished truth. His fans love it. Then he apologized on the campaign stage, to a generic anyone (everyone) who feels offended by any of the zillion sheisskopfian things he's said. He's winking and nodding at the fans who love his take no prisoners approach, while neither he or his campaign can think of one particular example that he feels bad about. He 'apologized' and not one of his campaign mutants will admit to one single thing he did wrong that the apologizing is about, hours of tv discussion with zero clue offered by any surrogate as to where l'il donnie thinks he stepped a bit over the line. He'll never apologize, and he made a total complete blanket apology, about nothing -- at the exact same time. He's running on never apologizing and his fans want him to have credit for apologizing, simultaneously. Sure to sway the independents, right?

3) He's on the record as saying that Putin will never go into Ukraine, believe him, write it down. And they're already in Ukraine, in Crimea, he definitely already knows that, it's horrible and it's all Obama's fault, because the dems're horrible. And he's in favor of Russia taking over Ukraine, because that's what the people want, so the Crimean annexation is great. And he loves Putin, and doesn't know him at all. He's fake rattling his saber at Russia while parroting Putin pravda talking points, simultaneously.

4) He loves Putin, and runs on wanting to attack the entire world, his followers are on board with the second part, aquiescent about the first part. He has a ton of opaque relationships with Putin, and has issued tons of belligerent hyper aggressive statements about a dRumpf foreign policy for everywhere except for Russia, North Korea, killers from Chinese Tiananman Square, and the now dead Saddam Hussein. But now, SIMULTANEOUSLY, we get to hear that the real danger is Clinton's financial ties to Putin, his opponent is besties with Putin, not him, though, he doesn't trust Putin, doesn't want Putin's influence exerted inside our government. Nevertheless, we're getting to also hear SIMULTANEOUSLY about the extreme danger Clinton's belligerent anti-russian stance is to world peace, he's got a kinder gentler foreign policy, diplomacy is always best, and she's going to start a war with Russia due to her overheated cold war rhetoric, but she's weak, don't forget THAT. She's going to start a nuclear war, sez the guy who wants to give Japan and Saudi Arabia nukes, and who wants to know why we can't use them if we have them. Russia is good when it's with him, it's evil when it influences Clinton, Clinton is bad because she's too strong on foreign policy, but she's bad because she's too weak on foreign policy. Her diplomacy is bad, her lack of diplomacy is bad. Her financial ties make her a pawn of Putin, who dRumpf thinks is the greatest thing since sliced wonder bread, and also he's fully within his rights to have hundreds of hinky financial connections to Putin's russia, that he won't disclose. He's sticking to his guns on that.

5) Campaign expansion, or Manafort out? How about both. How bout we give you a woman campaign manager, who spends all her time attacking womens' rights? Tax returns released? Yes. And No, never. Debates? He can hardly wait, and might just skip them. He wants the Black and Hispanic vote, while doing everything possible to reassure his 'aryan' base simultaneously.

I could dredge some more of these up from the recesses of my memory, but the concept is solid enough without more examples. He wants to present a rorschach image for his flunky followers where they can see exactly what they want when they look at him and his statements, and simultaneously wants to betray everything his followers love about him, to reassure extremely low info independents, so they can look at rorschach donnie and see what they need to see to back him, too.

The schroedinger's cat campaign, from the uncertainty-principled politician. Gee, he sucks. And so do they.

Yeah, but dRumpf is a dirty hippy.

Think about it.

Constantly bad mouths our country.

Encourages violence and lawlessness in the streets.

Is out to destroy America.

Has close connections to communist Russia.

Associated with the worst underground/underworld elements in the nation.

Non-standard hairdo.

Made love not war during Vietnam.

Appears to be on a wide variety of mind altering drugs.

Looks physically dirty. That orange coloration is possibly from brick dust floating around whatever Manhattan tenement he's currently squatting in without paying rent.

Face it, he's one pair of daisy-patched jeans away from being the fourth fabulous furry freak brother.

It's like Chief Wiggum says: 'It's time for a good old fashioned hippy bashing.'

(By the way, the Beach Boys recorded a Manson song, entitled 'Cease to Exist', the Boys called it 'Never Learn Not to Love'. The Boys covering his song was significant, because Manson styled himself a musician, so getting a song of his published by them helped him confirm his self-styling.)

I've just been itching to get into the physiological psychology he was displaying.

I've seen some crooked mouthed repug mouthpieces before. Larry Speakes comes to mind, or Dick Morris' / Dick Cheney's Burgess Meredith like Penguin impersonations. But looking at Mickey's performance with Ms. Keilar on Blitzer, several times, I was really struck by how his mouth was always dropping down to his right, and his left shoulder would come up as his head shrugged to the left. Like his courtroom style is that he's used to truculently shrugging off inconvenient pieces of reality based evidence.

It was fascinating in a way, because I found myself using body english hoping his mouth, head and shoulder would all straighten out to be facing the American public head on. Willing his mouth to straighten out, then it would, but only because his head and shoulder went crooked to his left. Willing his head and shoulder back into normal line, then watching disheartened as his mouth dropped hard to the lower right. It was especially disconcerting watching his body motions as he shared a split screen with Briana Keilar. Who knows how to sit on camera, and how to verbalize without looking like a mutant.

The Scots had a surname that describes the Cohen phenomenom -- camp bell.


He's running on a 'jobs campaign'. Naturally, he goes to a depressed rustbelt area and talks about

foreign policy, instead. Because he is promising those ignorant yahoo fans of his exactly zero on jobs.

And the line 'while we can't choose our friends' is a great starting point for a repug foreign policy pronouncement. Sounds vaguely folksy, like an old Mark Twain saying or something. Then you look at it for two more seconds and think 'that's the stupidest f--ing statement I ever heard. Mind numbingly stupid.' And transparently false. He's picking his friends -- Putin's Russia, Russian and Chinese communist state capitalists, wiseguys and white supremacists in the US -- and choosing to un-friend NATO.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »