Proof of fakeness: In 2016 the big GOP debates led to Trump as the nominee.

So now the Democratic Party wants to do it the same way? Insanity is doing the same thing and hoping for a different result. (At least that's one famous definition, though I'm dubious about the attributions.

My specific suggestion is small debates (in the Lincoln-Douglas style), but given the past null reactions here, I'm not motivated to spend a lot of time writing it up here, so here's what I'm going to do. I'm posting this short comment as an intro to the topic and hoping you have a better idea, but I will also reply to my own thread with a copy of my letter to one of the minor candidates (whose policies I especially like).

Actually, I'm hoping this already exists and someone can URL me some videos to laugh it. However, this form of the idea only came to me after I met a couple of impersonators yesterday. One guy was imitating Trump, and it was kind of frightening, but the other guy looked exactly like Kim Jong-Un, and he was terrifying... But he gave me this newish idea:

I want to see a comedy show where part of it is Trump leading the audience in a mock rally. Another part of the show would involve Big Kim (because he was taller than the real dictator) doing voice-overs to reveal what Trump is really thinking. The Trump would say something crazy or apparently inexplicable, and then freeze while Big Kim does the voice-over of what's going on in the punkin' orange head. Three categories there: (1) How whatever he said will make money for himself, (2) How the words will destroy his enemies, (3) Flashes of contempt for the suckers who believe him.

For the kicker, after some "jokes" about child separation, they would start the mock rally. Trump would lead the audience in a mob chant of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" The audience would find a Trump mask under their seats. It could be as simple as a piece of paper with an angry Trump face and a mouth hole. The mob would be a bunch of angry little Trumps led by the big Trump.

Of course (at least it's obvious to me) the real idea is to show how horrible Trump's angry chanting mobs are. Concretely, in the form of a short viral video of trying to lock up innocent children. I'm imagining about 30 seconds with a crescendo of angry unison in the middle gradually shifting to inchoate screams of rage. I know it's not likely that Trumpists can think, but maybe a few of them will see the video and actually think "Do I want to be part of that?"

Like I said, I'm eager to see the video, though I'd even be glad to buy a ticket to support the cause and to participate as part of the travesty of Trump and everything he stands for.

What I was most interested in and could not find in an earlier discussion on Democratic Underground, in the original article, nor in the Wikipedia article (where half of the history of Oberlin College in the 21st century is about this story) is an explanation of how this got ramped up to $11 million.

Talk about extreme escalation. This started with a couple of kids trying to get some booze. I think there probably was some profiling going on, but most likely it was for youngsters who had no legal business gathering in the alcohol section.

So on the one hand I have a question plus some related personal reminisces, but on the other hand, I really doubt that DU is a suitable venue for such a discussion... Here goes anyway?

(1) My main question is "Were any rightwing extremists behind the escalation?" Was this minor incident seen as a golden opportunity to attack the liberals? Was there any baiting or triggering used to goad students, staff, and even falculty into getting involved? As the incident escalated, where did the lawyers come from? In particular I'd like to know about the bakery's lawyers and who funded their efforts.

(2) Personal memory #1 is of how kids got booze in my youth, which was usually by asking an older person to buy it. Has that path been blocked? Perhaps under Ohio law it's a major crime now?

(3) Memory #2 is about how, in 2016, under the emotional stress of the Trump election, I made an extremely bad purchase decision. I didn't go all the way to the five-finger discount, but I bought a piece of garbage from a company that I already knew to be a source of bad products... Yet another aspect of the divisive insanity that is destroying America?

(4) Memory #3 is actually a series of encounters with Trumpists. In several cases they are people I have known for years and who used to seem sane, but who now eagerly defend insane beliefs. I had such a run in just a few days ago. This case was someone I hadn't met since 2016, but we both remembered each other from repeated meetings and social discussions more than 10 years ago. After a couple of minutes I decided there was something odd, so I probed a bit and his brainwashed Hillary hatred exploded like a land mine. (If Hillary was 1/10th as evil and the deep state was 1/10th as powerful as he thinks, then how can he possibly explain their failure to "handle" the election of 2016?)

I promised a friend that I would contact some Senators about the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. For brevity, I will refer to him as BMK after this. It took me a while to formulate my objections clearly enough, but here are the notes of my analyses (to use in phone calls to the Senators).

The case against BMK for the Supreme Court:

1. BMK says Congress should give the president special protected legal status, essentially putting the president above all normal laws.

2. BMK must believe the Supreme Court would not declare that new special legal status of the president to be unconstitutional, and on the Supreme Court he must intend to vote in support of his position.

3. It is absolutely clear that the original authors of the Constitution did NOT want to make the president into a king of any sort. What BMK is advocating is an absolutely clear violation of the Constitution and nothing less than the total destruction of the Constitutional separation of powers.

4. Even if BMK repudiated his current position, it would be meaningless since he used to be on the opposite side when he was working to use the laws against President Clinton. He can always change his mind again.

As a nominee, BMK is basically similar to the other candidates on the "official" list (of judicial extremists) EXCEPT for BMK's especially extreme perspective on presidential power. It is almost certain that this is the special reason that Trump nominated him, which is a clear conflict of interests.

Now the argument for invoking the "McConnell Rule" against approving a Supreme Court nominee close to an election:

1. By your Senate vote in favor of Neil Gorsuch, you have accepted and endorsed the McConnell Rule.

2. If there is ANY validity in the McConnell Rule, then the proximity of the election MUST be considered before confirming any Supreme Court nominee.

3. The next election is MUCH closer and more proximate than in the case of Merrick Garland.

4. Therefore you must postpone consideration of this vacancy until after the voters have spoken. Or you are a lying hypocrite and SoS.

Just for the Senator's information, I am also circulating these 4-point arguments as widely as I can on social media. I do not know if either of them will "go viral", as they say, but I sincerely believe they are true and that truth will win in the end. Lies don't last and hypocrites will lose, but the truth will prevail among honest people.

I was going to write more on why this Supreme Court nomination is a national issue that should transcend the borders of the states, but I think what I've written already is going to overflow the time I have available, which is only about 5 minutes with the VoIP software I'm using. Now to the phone...

My three thoughts about Trump's latest blunders and how Putin climbed all over him:

(1) I think Putin has recordings of their "private" meeting, possibly even video from the wired translator. (BTW, I'm pretty sure Putin has little need for an English-Russian translator, but he wanted a witness in case he couldn't believe his own ears.)

(2) I'm sure Putin played Trump like a toy drum. Whatever Putin wanted Trump to say, Trump said it, and some more besides. Trump probably revealed top secret information or worse, and Putin has proof. ("I can't believe my ears. Did Trump REALLY just give me the name of the top CIA covert asset in Syria?" )

(3) Trump had already started to realize how badly he had been pwned and that's why he was so flustered in the post-meeting presser.

As it works now, my (optional) avatar and name are linked to the information I provided, basically a representation of myself as I am willing to be viewed in public. However this does not really provide sufficient basis to assess my reputation.

I think it would be more helpful if there were two icons for each person. One should be the self-representation, and the other should be a reflection of public reputation. The self-icon is basically what DU has now (and would link (as now) to the same data), but the other-icon would be a standardized representation of how other people see me (or you), mostly based on their reactions to the public comments. The link from the other-icon would lead to the detailed analysis of the numbers and also to links to the actual data. By analyzing the actual data it would be possible to detect such problems as circles of sock puppets trying to raise each other's reputation.

The underlying reason for this suggestion is really to save time. It should be possible to quickly and easily figure out whose comments are most worth reading. I actually think there are many dimensions of public reputation and people should be able to filter or favor various dimensions, but let me use an extremely simple dimension as an example: Age. The older an account is, the more likely that it is not a fresh sock puppet, and therefore I would like the option to say that any excessively young accounts will not be visible to me.

This can be coupled with a system to help the trolls discredit themselves. Again I confess that my objective is to save my own time. I think that some of the trolls are actually paid to use their time to waste mine. Lots more details of this suggestion available upon polite request, though I'm not expecting many such requests (and even though I'd be willing to chip in some money to help implement such features).

Another and broader suggestion would be related to funding based on helping to solve various problems. However, right now I think Democratic Underground isn't worth the efforts of typing up that suggestion. Part of that assessment is related to the troll problems my main suggestion is intended to help address.

The Boss should update "Born to Run [Away]" to cover the suicide pact between #PresidentTweety and the #BolshevikRepublicans.

I'm sure there are some Bruce Springsteen fans around here. His fans are everywhere, but does anyone have an actual channel for suggestions to the Boss? Unlike the Donald, the Boss actually cares about America and he's also done some great songs about our political problems. Boy, have we got problems now!

I better add a bit more context, eh? Woke up thinking that the fake tax reform is a suicide pact (okay, not a "rap" ) between #PresidentTweety and the #BolshevikRepublicans. Maybe I'm stupid, but I believe in justice and I think the voters are going to judge them REALLY harshly in less than a year. The REAL Republican Party is already dead, but it's going to get completely buried next year.

So why did they do it? Obviously they are taking our money and running away.

Which brings me to yet another Constitutional Amendment we need. There are already two places where the Constitution talks about NOT increasing their "emoluments" during their term of office. The one in Section I, Section 6 covers Congress, and in II, 1, 7 it says basically the same thing about the President. The Founders were pretty smart and part of the proof is that they deliberately used the broad term "emoluments" to cover ANY form of loot, and it OBVIOUSLY should include tax reforms that provide YUGE profits for the congress-critters and the so-called president.

Given what lying lawyerly bastards these professional politicians are, I think it would need to be worded in two parts. (1) NO congress-critter can vote on any tax bill until its financial impact has been estimated and reported to the public, and (2) NO favorable changes in tax laws can apply to the congress-critters who voted for them, but they must continue paying their OWN taxes under the tax laws that were in effect at the time of their election. For LIFE. Just to block them from the quick retirement route to profit after gutting the government.

I was going to suggest that the congress-critters should merely be required to disclose the personal effects on themselves of their changes to tax legislation BEFORE they voted on any tax laws, but... I realized that could only work if they had a sense of shame and today's so-called Republicans have NO shame or even the vaguest sense of what shame might be.

Seriously wondering if the #BolshevikRepublicans will impeach #PresidentTweety next year.

Then their 2018 campaign slogan will be "We impeached Trump!"

#TrumpSinking #PutinLaughing #Me2Sad

Satire of the sharpest bite. Hard to laugh when it cuts too close to the truth.

Background reality: Nixon's Southern Strategy is alive and sicker than ever. However #PresidentTweety has "special reasons" to hate female victims of sexual predators, even if his own reputation as a "successful" "ladies' man" is YUGELY inflated. Yeah, I think the Hollywood Access tape really happened and he said it, but he was lying (again and as always) and in reality Trump is a YUGE coward and fell far short of the sexual predations of such REAL monsters as extremely ex-judge Roy Moore and no-longer-funny Bill Cosby.

The Donald is still quite sincere in wanting Moore. It will help keep the #BolshevikRepublicans in line and convince them that Trump's brand of anti-American fascism is a "winner" in the voting booths. (If you call what they do in Alabama voting.)

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nazis-feeling-neglected-after-republicans-embrace-of-child-molesters

What if the google blacklisted you?

Point the zeroeth: "With great power comes great responsibility", but the google is a "properly" programmed soulless corporation of the most inhuman sort. All the google anthropomorphically "wants" is all the money in the universe, and damn the responsibility.

Point the first: I strongly believe that I have been blacklisted by the google in the past. As a result, I was unable to use certain services for various periods of time. The longest "outage" lasted for years. (DAUPR. But why do you care?) There are certain google services that seem to work badly now. Just bugs or "negative personalization" for an "enemy of the state of the google"? Maybe I'm just too stupid (and paranoid?) to figure out how to use the google properly? (Or maybe you're next?)

Point the second: How can you or I tell the difference between being deliberately blacklisted and "bugs" in the "personalization" of your Google account? Maybe some of your email is just being incorrectly filtered as spam? Or maybe the google has "decided" you shouldn't be talking to certain people? Perhaps the google is trying to prevent the use of google services by criminals and you just got swept up in the net by a programming flaw? Or maybe the google machine "suspects" you of the ultimate crime, acting so as to reduce the google's profits?

Point the third: I like freedom too much. The thing I most dislike about the google is how hard they work to eliminate any non-google choices for the sake of profit maximization and cancerous growth. Cancer always kills its host. (Perhaps that's what happened (or is happening) to America?)

Point the fourth: How would you know? Perhaps by comparing notes with other people, but "true friends" of the google might not tell you the truth (the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) about how the google truly works. (Compare to Apple fanbois?)