HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mc Mike » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

Mc Mike

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2011, 04:50 PM
Number of posts: 7,933

Journal Archives

Her opponent has nothing but weaknesses and failures.

He knows nothing, about anything. He didn't even know that Tom Kean was the New Jersey Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman, though he had done business in New Jersey for decades, and claimed he saw thousands of Moslems celebrating 9/11 in NJ while the attacks were occurring. That's why he got Tim Kaine confused with Tom Kean, he just didn't know Anything, even while he was running on 'trumpublican Americans were attacked on 9/11'.

She knows nearly everything, about everything. All she needs is to relax and breathe. 'Say Hi to fishbonehead1 for me, the next time yer tweeting, donnie.'

I saw Burns appear opposite Rep. Cleaver on Joy Reid.

His proof that tRump helps Black people and cares about them was that tRump met a Black woman (who's name Burns isn't going to give out while he uses her for 'proof'), who isn't from this country, who is a 'prophetess', and tRump wrote her a check for $50,000 dollars to aid in her ministries, right on the spot.

He's a typical televangelist.

Their glorious leader's coming to Pittsburgh this month (Sep), again. Lawrence Convention center.

To turn out all the righties from 3 states and 15 counties, to show 'there's something going on here.' It's funny that what's going on is he's losing, bungling every day, trying to simultaneously appeal to Minorities and nazis.

It's also funny that his rallying cry is 'look at this crowd, there's really something going on'. And at the same time, he thinks Prez O. is head of a 'Moslem take over the US' conspiracy -- about 3 high profile shootings (out of hundreds) make trump think 'there's something going on.' It's not that the Prez is weak or inept, maybe 'there's something else going on here'.

What kind of something going on is he going to use on those rubes? Build the wall, or let them stay? Is he going to tell the old white crowd with a few paid Minorities that he really cares about the poor Blacks in the Hill District, a 15 minute walk, from the Convention center, away? Will he talk about how much he loves the Blacks and say that the top cops could solve all the crime in the neighborhood if they could just be allowed a bit more leeway to ignore civil rights and legal police procedure?

I saw Chicago PD's brass on another o.p. today say 'give us your secret master crime plan, please, Mr Republican Nominee, sir.' He's pure unvarnished orange bull hockey, piled up in a blubbery snowman form.

I don't know what his motivations could be.

I'm signed up to be a election protection poll watcher again, here. I've been a poll worker, as a majority inspector of elections in my area quite a few times before, too, so I got to saw things from the inside.

I saw a man from the ACLU being interviewed on some national tv show(Rachel or Joy, can't remember which, sorry), and he said that every voter has a right to a provisional ballot, at minimum. But that option should be a last ditch one, because they threw a ton of those out in past elections. A determined voter can and should follow that provisional ballot up all the way, doggedly, if they get denied a regular ballot.

The League of Women Voters Vote411 site would be a good resource for anyone who is worried they might not be on the eligible voter list, and the 866 OUR VOTE (PFAW, NAACP, etc.) and the 866 MY VOTE 1 (Urban League) numbers should be given to any voter who might need protection, beforehand. In my opinion, it is a key get out the vote mobilizing tool. If you tell people their legal right to vote might be stolen or denied, it makes them more determined to vote. And the more people who are talking about voter protection and voter's rights, the more the bad guys are going to be afraid to steal it. They'll replay in their heads past footage they remember of crooked repug elections officials being perp walked.

Big turnout is key to keeping them from stealing it, but big turnout won't help if there are hours long lines to vote. Big turnouts are only good if the turned out people actually get to vote. Campaigning by giving people those numbers is a way to get them energized, mobilized, and prepared to do something about republican trump rove sproul skulduggery. I'd inform people of Vote411, OURVOTE and MYVOTE1 and tell them to contact all 3 if they have problems.

The Nation magazine was engaged in some voter protection efforts with Color of Change in '12, they just sent me an online article via e-mail on tRump's poll 'watcher' threats:
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-is-encouraging-intimidation-and-racial-profiling-at-the-polls/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=daily

There are 2 good links in the article, one is about the '82 Consent Decree, forbidding any republican party officials, organizations, or agents or servants of the same, from engaging in any kind of ballot security or ballot integrity efforts, without prior court consent, especially in any areas where racial or ethnic makeup could be considered a reason for the activities. That's nationwide. The '82 consent decree:
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85289

The other one is PA specific, because dRump said that he was going to send the police in to watch the polling places in those (dog whistle) areas where people are voting too many times. He wants to send racist rightwing trump supporting cops to watch Black and Hispanic polls. PA Title 25, Sec 3047 specifically states that the uniformed or plainclothes police aren't allowed within 100' of a polling place, unless voting, or called to preserve the peace. In no event are they to prevent any elector from voting or influence or overawe them or restrain their freedom of choice. PA election law against polling place 'policing':
https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/NB1EA7150D0A011DEA63ECFA39685C638?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

I had a young Black guy at one of my east city polls in 2012 come in and say that the machines were rigged, he had just got an election day phone text info blast that said 'Don't vote straight ticket, only vote for the President, if you vote straight ticket, the vote for the President won't show up.' I told him that in past elections, voting straight ticket HAD in some cases caused an inexplicable absence of the top Democratic candidate, and a bunch of unfunded downballot races wound up having a higher vote total than the well-funded top ticket Dem did. But the way around it was to vote each race one at a time, choosing the candidate from whichever party you like one at a time. It doesn't take a lot of time, even if you have a 5-6 page ballot like we have sometimes. And we have a review screen at the end before you push the final 'vote' button. I reported the sudden (Rove induced, in my opinion) rumor to the higher ups in election protection. The young guy seemed honest and outraged, but the rumor was very sudden and just would have depressed turnout for down ballot races, that the Prez wanted to go Democratic, too.

They're going to try to cheat, suppress, and steal, however they can, because their candidate is such a nauseatingly unappealing and nazified pile of droppings. So we have to be on our toes, like usual.

Nazi dead-enders. They attacked Julia Ioffe from GQ, Andrew Weinstein, Leslie Jones.

Simultaneously trying to hide from sight and brag about how famous Hillary made them.

Dipsos. Im sorry to hear they got onto you, personally.

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:

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

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

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

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.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »