Happy Birthday DAISY, Delyn, Digger, faithfulness, leelee, lilyana, Petitechou, and RuthieSW!
Christopher Marlowe - Sorry, I was composing an essay to wolfguard. *g*
lostinamerica, wolfguard - Let us not forget the kerfuffle about "hanging chads" and wanting to figure out what the voters intended from the way the ballot was punched, and the infamous butterfly ballot. I seem to recall speculation that a lot of the voters were of an older generation who would have tended to deliberately push the second hole, which was the libertarian, no matter how much Gore wanted their votes, vs the more entertaining (to me) speculation that the older folks were coached to push in the second hole by the Democrats bussing them to the polls from their assisted living, and the coaches were themselves undone by the butterfly ballot. I think what made the Democrats so angry about the whole thing was that Bush wouldn't listen to their blandishments to "spare the country" and "do the gentlemanly thing", and kept fighting. Not that Gore was prepared to "spare the country" or "do the gentlemanly thing", in the event.
I never saw any hypothetical recounts that came out in Gore's favor, but that could easily have been my choice of reading. I'm not hung up on it. *g*
lostinamerica(2) Justify might not have been ready as a two year old. His development might have been uneven. He changed trainers in there as well. That might have messed up race entries. But really, racing at two is like putting a tween into gymnastics. A lot of things get stressed.
I saw the speculation about the other horse. But it seemed to me that the other horse came up and saved himself by staying just off the lead, ready to try and take it at the end when Justify would presumably be tired. I think it's a common and perfectly valid racing strategy. It's just that Justify didn't tire.
wolfguard, Christopher Marlowe (2) With respect to the differing treatment of Trudeau and Kim, I think you make a mistake only looking at four days in June. Trump never called Trudeau "little rocket man", moved a carrier group to the Canadian coast (unless it happened for R&R or a friendly ceremony), or threatened Canada with his bigger red button. He also never tried to choke Canada with legal sanctions, or casually mentioned to a Canadian ally that he'd fired 59 tomahawk missiles into Syria over chocolate cake. Trudeau, for his part, never fired missiles over Long Island or threatened nuclear war. Instead they are sparring over tariffs and trade, and the negotiations are a long way from over. It may not seem amicable, because neither is currently getting what he wants, but there's no reason why Trump can't give as good as Trudeau is prepared to give in terms of manners. It might be that if Trump had more time as a politician, he would be more tolerant of having Trudeau say one thing to him and then adopt a different tone to his constituents in a press conference. It was clumsy of Trudeau, in this age of the internet, where everyone sees almost everything, and could just be seen as double-dealing all around, but it's what politicians have done.
wolfguard(3) - Yes, the left is as sincere in thinking that Trump will damage their agenda for the country as much as the right knew that Obama (and Hillary) would damage theirs. I don't think either side is wrong about that. How much the country will really be damaged is where I think that things become murky. I don't agree that the politicians, especially on the left, are only doing what their constituents want. Those constituents have been conditioned by educators, barraged by almost all of the media, and had "proper" behavior drummed in by Hollywood and social media. It's not being driven by the constituents. Oh, sure, there's a whole spectrum. There are those who really study and research, and make their own conclusions, and those who drift and skim headlines, and everything in between. It's absolutely the same thing on the right, but the right has less support from the education system, the media, Hollywood, or social media.
The party political machines were confounded in the past as well. I read somewhere that when Teddy Roosevelt was nominated for Vice President, someone said in horror "Do you realize that there's only one life between that madman and the Presidency?" oops. *g* But the country survived. Heck, we got national parks and pack trips from him. Alas, his even more progressive city-dwelling successors want to ban the horsies because they leave tracks and other stuff on the trails and eat the grass.
Trump will occasionally say things that make me flinch, but I'm not certain that he's totally wrong. One might argue that he is incompetent, but one might also argue quite the reverse. He hasn't handled people in the way that they expected to be handled in a political environment. He's after results, not process, which can be quite annoying to bureaucrats. On the other hand, he was elected to get results. And he hasnt always been bad with people. Did you see the union leaders he invited to the White House saying that Obama had never invited them? *g*
Of course I judge the Economist by where I stand, but I started reading it over 50 years ago. I found it quite satisfying and sane. I took a rather long break, and then I found it jarring. OK, I ran head first into articles passionately pushing Hillary for president and arguing that Trump would destroy the economy, the country, and hinting that he'd destroy western civilization. At the time I was for anyone who was Not Hillary, even if it was Trump. *g* But I've been saddened by the British. This was the country of Hyde Park corner, the Magna Carta, and common law. Now they have laws against hate speech which is pretty much defined as anything that offends anyone else. I'd rather allow the KKK to have their ugly little parades than hate speech laws. Come to think of it, we have universities pushing campus regulations against "hate speech". *shiver*
I think I'm getting more verbose, and too tired to filter. But I've composed this, I'll post it. *sigh*