HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mike 03 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 55 Next »

Mike 03

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Modesto California
Home country: United States
Current location: Arizona
Member since: Mon Oct 27, 2008, 06:14 PM
Number of posts: 13,490

Journal Archives

I don't think so.

Reading the book A WARNING, it seems to be someone with a background possibly in history and international relations and someone who works in one of the agencies, like DHS. Anonymous might already be out in the public eye, just not saying he/she is Anonymous. This sounds bad, but I don't think Conway is smart enough to write a book like "A WARNING." (I'll apologize if she turns out to be Anonymous)

Miles Taylor is a possibility. Like Anonymous, he claims to speak for a small group of "Others" who will come forward.

It's possible Anonymous has come forward, but just hasn't announced that he/she is Anonymous.

Someone else came forward this week too from DHS, a woman whose name I can't recall.

Some people think it's Kirstjen Nielsen. I was leaning towards Dan Coats, but now I'm having doubts.

EDIT: It's not necessarily "White House staff"; it's an official in the administration.

In the Second Volume of 'Hitler,' How a Dictator Invited His Own Downfall (Timely book review)

New York Times
By Jennifer Szalai
Aug. 26, 2020

The impulsiveness and grandiosity, the bullying and vulgarity, were obvious from the beginning; if anything, they accounted for Adolf Hitler’s anti-establishment appeal. For Germany’s unpopular conservative elites, Hitler’s energy and theatrics made him an enticing partner when they appointed him chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933.

But anyone who thought the Nazis would be content with their share — that Hitler would rise to the occasion or be hemmed in by it, becoming a dignified statesman who sought compromise — was summarily purged from the system that conservatives assumed they controlled. An utter impossibility had become the indomitable reality. The Weimar Republic had become the Third Reich. It would take another world war, a genocide and millions of dead before the dictatorship finally collapsed in 1945, a full 12 years after Hitler was invited into power.

In the second and final volume of his biography of Hitler, Volker Ullrich argues that the very qualities that accounted for the dictator’s astonishing rise were also what brought about his ultimate ruin. “Hitler: Downfall, 1939-1945” arrives in English four years after the publication of “Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939.” It’s a biographical project that consumed eight years of Ullrich’s life and “took a definite psychological toll,” he writes in his introduction to the second volume. Like the British historian Ian Kershaw, who divided his own two-volume biography of Hitler into “Hubris” and “Nemesis,” Ullrich suggests that the Hitlerian regime was capable of only two registers: euphoria and despair. Hitler was shrewd about seizing power, but he was too restless and reckless to govern. A Third Reich that cultivated peaceful stability was simply unfathomable.


Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/books/review-hitler-downfall-volker-ullrich.html

Some quotes from the review:

At first, Hitler’s standard approach — lying, blaming others and launching surprise attacks — made for a successful wartime strategy.


The military commanders who voiced no objections to the Polish invasion balked when Hitler decided to go to war with the West, reassuring one another that they were determined to “put the brakes” on any disaster that was unfolding. But they were all intention and no action.


To read “Downfall” is to see up close how Hitler lashed out — compulsively, destructively — whenever he felt boxed in. He had the instinct of a crude social-Darwinist who also liked to gamble, experiencing the world only in terms of winning and losing.


Hitler was a scattershot, undisciplined leader, prone to tardiness and meandering monologues, but the one unwavering constant was his virulent, fanatical anti-Semitism.


He doubled down on his own pitilessness, even toward his own people, saying that if they didn’t fight “they deserve to die out.”


Following Hitler’s lead, Goebbels treated the Germans like chumps to be duped. “There are so many lies that truth and swindle can scarcely be distinguished,” he noted


And on and on. I hope you understand why I posted this in GD.

The book:

Hitler: Downfall, 1939-1945
By Volker Ullrich
Translated by Jefferson Chase
Illustrated. 838 pages. Alfred A. Knopf. $40.



Others have characterized Russia as a gas station with nuclear weapons.

Or, as I prefer, a third world gas station with nuclear weapons.

I agree that first world countries embarrass themselves by treating Russia as a serious international player. But nations need to cooperate to put Putin back in his box. He remains dangerous because his only purpose is to destroy other democracies to deter his own citizens from an uprising.

Kyle Rittenhouse, IMO, belongs grouped with these three people:

Dylan Roof
Cesar Sayoc Jr.
Robert D. Bowers

30 years ago this week: Gainesville university students terrorized by a serial killer (GRAPHIC)

I remember these crimes vividly. It was so shocking at the time. Police thought they had a good suspect at one point but he turned out to be completely innocent. The person who committed these heinous crimes, Danny Rolling, definitely met the definition of a serial killer, but what was strange about his spree was how compressed it was in time, with no so-called "cooling off period" between killings. It was like Ted Bundy's final attack on a sorority, almost like the killer was burning out and wanted to be captured. So sometimes I think of Rolling as a spree killer rather than a serial killer, because of this outrageous burst of activity. He mutilated and posed his victims in such a way that the scenes would horrify and traumatize even hardened detectives. In other cases, like the Hillside Stranglers, over time they became more bold and provocative. Rolling just exploded suddenly, going full-on lunatic. I don't know if there was a triggering event in his life prior to these killings.

The poignant mural/memorial that was put up right after these murders, honoring the victims, is still there.

In August 1990, Rolling murdered five students (one student from Santa Fe College and four from the University of Florida) during a burglary and robbery spree in Gainesville, Florida. He mutilated his victims' bodies, decapitating one. He then posed them, sometimes using mirrors.

In the early morning hours of Friday, August 24, Rolling broke into the apartment shared by 17-year-old university freshmen Sonja Larson and Christina Powell. Finding Powell asleep on the downstairs couch, he stood over her briefly but did not wake her up, choosing instead to explore the upstairs bedroom where Larson was also asleep. Rolling murdered Larson, first taping her mouth shut to stifle her screams and then stabbing her to death. She died while trying to fend him off.[3]

Rolling then went back downstairs, taped Powell's mouth shut, bound her wrists together behind her back and threatened her with a knife as he cut her clothes off of her. He then raped her and forced her face-down onto the floor, where he stabbed her five times in the back. Rolling posed the bodies in sexually provocative positions. He took a shower before leaving the apartment.[3]

A day later, on Saturday, August 25, Rolling broke into the apartment of 18-year-old Christa Hoyt, prying open a sliding glass door with a KA-BAR knife and a screwdriver. Finding she was not home, he waited in the living room for her to return. At 11 a.m., Hoyt entered the apartment and Rolling surprised her from behind, placing her in a chokehold. After she had been subdued, he taped her mouth shut, bound her wrists together and led her into the bedroom, where he cut the clothes from her body and raped her. As in the Powell murder, he forced her face-down and stabbed her in the back, rupturing her heart. He then decapitated the body and posed her head on a shelf facing the corpse, adding to the shock of whoever discovered her.[3]

By now the murders had attracted widespread media attention and many students were taking extra precautions, such as changing their daily routines and sleeping together in groups. Because the spree was happening so early in the fall semester, some students withdrew their enrollment or transferred to other schools. Tracy Paules, who was 23 years old, was living with Manny Taboada, also 23, her roommate. On Monday, August 27, Rolling broke into the apartment by prying open the sliding glass door with the same tools he had used previously. Rolling found Taboada asleep in one of the bedrooms and, after a struggle with the young man, eventually killed him.[3]

Hearing the commotion, Paules went down the hall to Taboada's bedroom and saw Rolling. She attempted to barricade herself in her bedroom, but Rolling broke through the door. Rolling taped her mouth and wrists, cut off her clothing and raped her, before turning her over and stabbing her three times in the back. Rolling posed Paules' body but left Taboada's in the same position in which he had died.[3]

With the exception of Taboada, all of the victims were petite Caucasian brunettes with brown eyes. Although law enforcement initially had very few leads, police did identify two suspects; one a University of Florida student (Edward Humphrey) who had a history of mental illness and bore numerous scars on his face from a car accident, making him an ideal image when discussing news about the investigation. His photo was shown repeatedly by media outlets. Authorities publicly cleared him of all charges after Rolling's arrest. The other suspect was also later cleared.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Rolling

Bite mark evidence has been dubious in many trials.

Animal activity can mimic bite marks, as can marks made by things like belts, ligatures and tools. The West Memphis Three case is the most infamous example of bad bite mark evidence, but disputed bite marks have occurred in other trials as well. Forensic odontology is far from worthless--bite mark evidence helped to put Ted Bundy away. It seems it has also been used to falsely convict, and then exonerate people:

One of the most notable exonerations involving bite mark evidence is the Ray Krone case. In 1992, Krone was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death. There was no physical evidence linking Krone to the crime except for a unique bite mark found on the victim’s body. At trial, a bite mark expert testified that Krone’s teeth matched the bite mark on the victim. Upon further investigation, several experts told Krone’s attorneys that the trial testimony was unreliable and the analysis was done incorrectly. Eventually, DNA evidence proved Krone’s innocence and he was released from prison in 2002.


https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/bite-mark-evidence/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20notable,found%20on%20the%20victim's%20body.

That Spencer endorsement is suspicious as hell and it made me very uncomfortable.

Something about the way he presented it just seemed off. Then yesterday a DUer posted a link to a story about white supremacist militias planning violence on November 4. These people scare the crap out of me. I can't tell if these are just incels in a basement blowing smoke or whether they present a lethal threat.

Then there's what happened in Kenosha.

Former GOP operative Stuart Stevens on Michelangelo Signorile's program (short transcript)

From yesterday's program. Stevens is the author of the new book It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump. He is discussing his epiphany that the Republican party is easily mutable and not a party of strongly-held values, ideals and sincere beliefs.

I went through a period where I said, This isn't really the Republican party, but I don't really know how you sustain that when (Trump) is head of the Republican party and he's wildly popular in the Republican party, and it's a true statement that the Republican party is the party that endorses Roy Moore and attacks John Bolton.

<snip>

What I really had to come to grips with is, How do you abandon deeply held beliefs in three or four years? And the only conclusion that I could come to is that the majority didn't believe this. Because I don't really think that you abandon beliefs. I just think it means that you didn't deeply hold them. And now, with Trump, it's not that we've sort of forgotten these things; we're actively against these things. We're the Character Doesn't Count party. We're the pro-Putin party. We're the anti-Free Trade party. We're the anti-personal responsibility party. And I just don't think we've seen anything like it in our modern politics: a total moral and issue collapse, a policy collapse, of a party like this.

And look, I finished this book about a year ago, and it's a pretty bleak portrait of the Republican party, but I would have to conclude today that I was overly optimistic. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that the Republican Party platform would be to support Donald Trump on whatever he believes, and that's what they've done.


Trump is a gangster, and the party has gone along with this and has become a party that is in the service of a gangster mentality. And I think the period that we are entering now is the most dangerous period in American Democracy since the Civil War. Trump will do anything to hold onto power. Anything. And I'm the most anti-Conspiracy theory person in the world. But he's tested the Republican party to see if they would stand up to him and I think the conclusion he's come to is that he can pretty much do anything if he can give them power. And I think it's going to be a very, very tumultuous and dangerous period between now and when hopefully Trump loses.


It's a dark interview. I feel there is a bit of self-delusion on his part when he romanticizes the Republican party of the 90s, but I welcome his passionate criticism of Trumpism and repudiation of what the party has become.

Remember when Gore debated Quayle and Stockdale?

A good comeback for ridiculing someone for taking credit for someone else's accomplishment:

Gore: (I can't recall exactly, but it was something like this: ) Your administration taking credit for the fall of the Soviet Union is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

I always loved that one.

You could fill it in like this: Trump taking credit for the Obama economy is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

Steven Hassan writes in his book "The Cult of Trump" that one of the best

ways to get cult members to have "insight" about their delusions and entrapment is to ask them questions, ask them to explain who they are and what they believe.

I'm not suggesting this caller had a flash of insight, but it is interesting to wonder why he couldn't get the words out.

Because it is so ridiculous?

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 55 Next »