Prognostication

I rarely make predictions, because I'm rarely correct when I predict things.  So, this is more about examining possibilities than really making a prediction.

Back in 2016 one of the worst people to ever run for president in the history of American Presidents, somehow managed to defeat an absurdly large number of primary opponents and become the GOP candidate.   The response from the DFL was to run someone who is arguably another of the worst people to ever run for president.  Given a truly horrible pair of options, Trump managed to win the election.

Fast forward to 2019.  The DFL has decided that having a legion of primary candidates worked so well for the GOP that they should try that again.   So far there seems to be a rush toward the left from virtually everyone in the race.   There is literally no one in the field who can really be identified as "center left".   Two years ago I would have said that Booker was, and he would have been a difficult challenger to any GOP candidate.   

Now, Trump's politics are weird.  On some things he's pretty conservative, on others he's not particularly conservative.  But, by and large, many of the things that affect people's vote are doing pretty well ("It's the economy, stupid.").   

So, you'd think that a winning strategy for the DFL would be to run a candidate that is center/center-left.  Someone who runs on maintaining the economic direction, isn't rabidly pro-abortion, who can craft an immigration policy that is compassionate/fair/just, yet respects the need for border security.   Someone who realizes that working across the aisle in the interest of American citizens is a good thing.   Think Truman or Kennedy.  Hell, find a Bill Clinton without the moral baggage.   You'd think that someone like that could beat one of the worst human beings to ever hold the office, wouldn't you?

Instead, I think we'll see political fratricide, a rush to out liberal/socialist the others.  Personal attacks, character flaws, and some general weirdness.  

I know that many on the left see Trump as an "extreme, radical, fringe" conservative.  Someone on the extreme right side of the political spectrum.  Personally, I don't see that, but for the purpose of discussion I'll grant the point.

The conventional wisdom has always been that you have 25ish% of the electorate at the extremes and 50ish% in the middle and able to be persuaded, if that's true why wouldn't it make sense to run a candidate that will appeal to that 50% that can be persuaded?  Or does it make sense to fight someone at one extreme with someone at the other.

So, my prediction.  If the DFL can find a candidate that appeals to the middle, the circular firing squad will see Trump preparing for a second term.

This raises the questions, "Can the DFL actually do this?   Is calling large numbers of that persuadable 50% names a good strategy to get their vote?  Is casting your opponents as "evil" going to convince those in the middle to join your movement?"

I don't know.  But as someone who's committed not to vote for Trump, it's going to be interesting to watch.

NOTE.

This scenario assumes that Trump isn't assassinated, defeated in the primary, or that a strong centrist movement doesn't field an attractive independent candidate,

Not that surprising

Abby Johnson, the woman who's story is told in the movie Unplanned, was part of a group that delivered almost $200,000 worth of cash and supplies to a respite center in McAllen TX recently.    I applaud these (mostly) women for their effort and the generosity of the people who donated the cash and supplies.

Coincidentally, they arrived just as a CODEL was at the center passing out toys, delaying the arrival of the truck, and being "too busy" to help unload. 

This is a great example of a story that doesn't fit the prevailing narrative and that isn't getting a ton of coverage.    

I'm here to say, thank you.  I'm also here to say that y'all need to publicize this better because I'd be happy to donate.





https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life-women-deliver-semi-truck-full-of-supplies-72000-to-the-border-79366?fbclid=IwAR20oYDSg6AjN_eObL58tEDfwkhC2hwVfzsEhlSO72MMbhO5hBzxxC05UIo

The best evidence

So far given the best evidence our local, in the tank for the DFL, media has found it looks like Omar did marry her brother and committed tax fraud and immigration fraud.   There’s also reports that the brother is gay, I personally doubt that because it’s just too perfect and we know how the R.O.P. treats gays.

What does it say about the voters that elected her and the party that supports her that this and her anti-Semitism get a pass?

What if?

Sometimes I wonder how history would have turned out had certain events happened differently.

For example,  would Haiti have developed into a more stable and economically viable country had Napoleon not vindictively killed Toussaint L'Overture?   Had he been allowed to implement his plans as opposed to Dessalines simply slaughtering his enemies.

Who knows what reconstruction would have looked like had Lincoln not been killed?   Does that mean that reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the institutional racism of southern Democrats was Boothe's fault and responsibility?

The one that has me thinking recently is what would have happened had the founding period of the US happened differently.

Had the delegates to the constitutional congress actually abolished slavery, and the southern colonies not joined the US, how would North America have developed differently?

Had Great Britain won, would the colonies have been allowed to develop in a way that would have allowed the US to have (among other things) led in the defeat of the Axis in WW2?

I'm sure there are multiple other questions, but I think the slavery one is the most interesting.  

The fact that there was a realization that the founding of the US was so important that the compromise on slavery was considered worthwhile by those opposed to slavery, and that they built in a mechanism to limit the expansion of slavery as the country expanded.   Think about how radical this compromise was in a world where slavery was virtually the norm.  

Obviously, this exercise is kind of pointless and futile.  Things happened and we're stuck with the results.   But maybe it'll give some of us pause to contemplate the ramifications or our current actions on future generations.

USA! USA!

We've all been following the USWNT as they dominated the Women's World Cup recently.  From their less than classy demolishing of Thailand and the over the top goal celebrations, to their ultimate triumph against The Netherlands.

But what's gotten the most attention is the non soccer stuff.

The "equal pay" discussion has been dealt with many places (the women get 13% of World Cup revenues, the men get 9%), especially when Rapino made it clear that if people spent more money, they players would get paid more.

The "we hate Trump" facet has also been covered plenty. 

What I've been thinking about is the peer pressure/bullying aspect.  

For example, one of the best defenders in the entire world was left off of the team.   We don't know why, but could her strong Christian faith and refusal to wear a particular jersey be part of the reason?

We really have absolutely no idea where the team (outside of Rapinoe) stands on visiting the White House.  Could that be because one really loud and vocal member of the team has spoken for everyone else?  

I find it interesting that we now not only protect certain classes of people, we give some of those protected classes a license to pretty much do anything they want without fear of consequences.

It seems statistically unlikely that everyone involved with the USWNT is in political lockstep.  It seems statistically likely that there are some people who understand that being invited to the White House is an honor and would like to have that experience regardless of their feelings about a particular president.   (I've heard from members of an athletic team that they chose to go as a group and decided to be mature enough to put politics aside for one day, so I know it's possible.)

This looks like a case of the loudest and most forceful voice simply drowning out any disagreement to selfishly make a political point.

Who has more credibility?

“El Salvador President refused to shift the blame on Trump. “We can blame any other country but what about our blame? What country did they flee? Did they flee the United States? They fled El Salvador, they fled our country. It is our fault.”

“As the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Rodriguez has advised Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump on immigration before. In a press briefing on Monday, he refuted the claims that detained immigrants are being mistreated after seeing the situation firsthand.

"I read the reports, saw the news clips. I just wanted to see what was actually happening in order to better enable our efforts to find a fair and a just solution to our broken immigration system," Rodriguez said. "To my surprise, I saw something drastically different from the stories I’ve been hearing in our national discourse. Even as a veteran of immigration advocacy in the U.S., I was shocked at the misinformation of the crisis at the border."

"We found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions, and no lack of basic necessities," Rodriguez declared.”

“Rodriguez was not alone in his praise of the federal immigration agents and the humane conditions of the migrant detention centers. Joining him was Pastor Carlos Moran, an immigrant himself, who called upon political leaders to stop employing heated rhetoric and to actually solve the underlying problem.

"We as evangelical leaders that serve in different segments, are very committed to helping children regardless of their status and we commend those officers that are trying their very best to serve and fulfill their duty at the border," said Moran. "However, we do call on our political leaders to set aside their personal agendas and begin focusing on resolving this immigration crisis."

Speaking of lack of trust, AOC has been weeping and tearing her hair out (and hurling verbal abuse) down along the border.   What she hasn't been doing (par for the DFL) is actually legislating.   The house passed a bill that included funding that should be used to address the issues she's concerned about, but AOC apparently felt like it was more important to have the suffering immigrants as a campaign issue, than to pass legislation to ameliorate the situation.    Some might say that the bill that passed was a GOP bill (although it had bipartisan support), I'd say where is AOC's better legislative option?   She's a legislator now, why haven't we seen legislation?

Good, if vulgar and poorly grammared question

“how the actual fuck did gay pride events become pro palestine anti israel congregations especially since the state they’re supporting would murder queer people and the one that they want to destroy is the only place in the middle east they could exist”