#hostorical events

[selkies-world]

OK, history buffs of tumblr, it's time to flex!

I'm writing an article on how we (as humans) have always projected our fears onto others- other groups, other people, etc,.

I need sources for / examples of:

Historic events where Group A existed within their own culture or subculture with little to no issues with the outside world or society, until Group B showed up & persecuted Group A - but to justify it, Group B convinced themselves & Group C that Group A were doing specific terrible things to Group B and Group C, so really Group B We're being the heroes by obliviating Group A. Meanwhile, Group A never did those things, and it was actually Group B doing those exact things to Group A, while claiming they were simultaneously the heroes and the victims.

Times Group 1 were aware that certain crimes were being committed within their society, but they couldn't fathom one of their own doing it, and wouldn't acknowledge that most people in Group 2 were capable of it, so Group 1 invented an urban legend creature to blame the crimes on, but based it entirely on their nightmare version of Group 2.

[findafight]

*sighs* You had to say “Seabiscuit”, didn’t you?

Okay, so every now and then, Charles puts a flat cap on ad tells the kids they’re going for a drive (Sue giving him a flat stare every time because it’s been Years, Charles, I know you’re going to the horse track, you don’t have to go through this song and dance every time). He genuinely has fun just watching the races, talking with other people, working out the odds, but *very* rarely makes bets, and when he does they’re pathetically small - one of the bookies used to jokingly ask if he was placing bets for the kids. (The closest either kid has come is when they were *very* small and he’d get them too choose names that they liked the sound of).

When they’re kids, it makes Lucas feel grown up (especially thinking like it’s a secret that they’re trusted to keep from Sue) and Erica likes the horses.

(She absolutely gets the Horse Girl gene from Charles - Sue had a bad experience with them as a kid and it’s part of the reason that Erica doesn’t go horse riding)

Anyway, at one point Steve gets invited (dragged) along. Lucas is apologetic because, yeah, he likes spending time with his Dad and it’s kind of their tradition, but it’s a little boring these days. Erica, still very much a Horse Girl, but also recognising an opportunity and laying groundwork, is not.

This is how the Sinclairs learn that Steve is actually pretty good at math when the has the motivation. Or at least, mental arithmetic and statistics. Which makes sense when Lucas thinks about some of the conversations that they’ve had about basketball.

This being said, Steve follows Charles’ example and doesn’t really make bets. Except sometimes for beer/wine (with Charles) or brownies (Erica - who copes with losing by reminding Steve that he *still* owes her ice cream, and really, she should be getting the brownies anyway).

Hehehe

Charles pretending it's a secret and I'm just imagining that episode of Malcom in the Middle where Hal takes the boys to Nascar (and wears the visor and gets Nascar sunburnt on his forehead. Iconic hal looks.) Like it's CLEAR Sue knows where they're going but also knows part of the fun for them is thinking she doesn't.

They go to watch the horses and chat and maybe Charles or Steve is able to sweet talk someone to let Erica pet some of them! She is woman enough to admit that it was super cool and she got to feed one a carrot. Betting with each other and maybe like max five bucks once in a blue moon if they're feeling particularly lucky and Steve's figured good odds on a horse.

Do you think they like show jumping? I think they could really get into that too. Maybe Lucas likes that more because there more happening and more turning and jumping etc? Maybe when she was little Erica was so so so upset she wasn't allowed to ride horses (both safety concern wise and money wise) because she desperately wanted to be an equestrian jumper.

Sue gets to do the same by sneaking them to college basketball games maybe.

[shadowbunnydragon]

To Renato:

Is it true that your girlfriend Lily is the author of The Bayou Dragons Rise?

Renato: "Yes. I was surprised myself by how complex, yet fun, a magical world she was able to dream up, as well as how she was able to turn it into a book! And from that book came a sequel, and then another, and then another. In fact, The Bayou Dragons Rise is actually the fourth book in the series, coming out this spring. Books five and six, The Dragon Riders of the Storm and The High Noon Dragons, have both been written and edited, and she's currently working on number seven, which doesn't have a title yet. And you should see her office. There's different cork boards with hand drawn maps of her fantasy land of Nuveria, and character descriptions and hostorical events and plots and schemes, all with different colored strings of yarn pinned to them, connecting them all! She is very passionate about her writing, and I'd like to think the popularity of her books reflects that."

[megacircuit9universe]

Lichtman’s Keys

SAT OCT 19 2019

Political Historian Allan Lichtman made the news back in early 2017 for having called the Trump Victory in November of 2016, at a time when anybody who had a brain assumed he would lose.  

His prediction was based on his, “13 Keys to the White House” which he developed over decades of hostorical study, and used to call other very close elections before they’d happened.

Interestingly, he also published a book after the 2016 election predicting that Trump would be impeached in his first term... another prediction that has now come true... based not so much on history, as on the native criminality of Trump himself.

So, when thinking about the 2020 elections, it’s worth taking some time to look at Lichtman’s 13 keys, and his game rules... to get a better idea of what his previously successful prediction tool suggests might happen next year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The 13 Keys to the White House The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

 Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, according to Lichtman, five or fewer of the above listed statements need to be false.  If six or more are false... Trump is toast.

Below is my current assesment of the truth, falsehood, or open status of each. 

1: FALSE - The Republican party was trounced in the house, in the 2018 midterms.

2: OPEN - There are Republican candidates out there attempting to primary Trump right now.  How serious this challenge becomes next year is still not known.

3: TRUE - Trump is the incumbent. 

4: OPEN - We have no idea at the moment whether there will be a third party spoiler in 2020, or which party’s voters they will attract.

5: OPEN - We have no idea what the economy will be doing next summer and fall yet... but there have been some scares already in 2019 (inverted yield curve, tariff’s hurting farmers and manufacturers).

6: TRUE - long term economy has not varied from how things were before Trump took office.

7: TRUE* - There have been major changes in national policy.  *But they have all been negative...  caging asylum seekers at the border and separating parents from children, never to reunite them... antagonizing our first world allies and abandoning our allies in troubled regions... abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement, and our Nuclear deal with Iran... legitimizing Kim Jong Un... etc.

8: FALSE - There had been nothing but social unrest during Trump’s first term including mass shooters and mail bombers who openly worship Trump.

9: FALSE - Comey firing scandal, Mueller investigation imprisonment of Trump cronies, Sessions firing scanal, current Ukraine scanal which has lead to official impeachment inquiry.

10: FALSE - Pulling out of Syria has proved to be a catastrophic military failure that cannot be undone.

11: FALSE - Trump has had zero foreign or military success.

12: OPEN - Trump was previously seen as being charismatic, but his shtick was becoming old-hat by the end of the Mueller probe, and post Ukraine Whistle Blower, he is seen as increasingly more unhinged. 

13: OPEN - Certain Democratic candidates could seem more charismatic or heroic than Trump by fall of 2020, but for now, Speaker Pelosi does seem to be edging him out.   

So, by my assesment, that is, at present, 5 FALSE, 3 TRUE, and 5 OPEN.

Now, of the three which are currently true, one of them has that asterisk... meaning it is negatively true.  Policy has changed... for the worse, in most people’s assessment.

Still, Lichtman’s model doesn’t care how many statements are true.  It only cares how many are definitively false.  And for Trump to lose in 2020, six or more of the 13 have to be definitively false.

This means, that of the five statements currently open... only one has to become definitively false in the coming year (assuming, as we should, that the currently false five remain false).

So, of these five open, the three most likely to go false are:

Short term economy. Those tariffs could very well cause more panic or doubt at just the wrong moment.

Trump’s loss of charisma, as he transitions from the boisterous but charming asshole who seemed to be telling it like it is, into the ranting lunatic spewing ignorant, self defensive hatred of the constitution and everybody who loves it.

Facing a challenger who is, by comparison, more charismatic, which might only mean, more sane, and able to brush off an attack with the subtlest trace of shade (Pelosi’s already been doing this really well all year.

So, according to my own current assessment, according to Lichtman’s model, Trump is right now... borderline re-electable.

However... Lichtman’s model cannot account for impeachment happening in the first term... as that has never happened before in history, but does not seem like a point in the incumbent’s favor when the mid-term loss was predicated upon holding him accountable, and current polls show that a majority of voters want him not only impeached but removed.

Also, that pesky “policy change” key, I think is important, because Lichtman never imagined that such policy change, and indeed the ONLY policy change, would be to alienate our allies, and embrace dictators such as Putin and Kim Jong Un.

I would submit that Trump, in three years, has fairly well broken this political historian’s model of the universe... and that Lichtman’s model, for as well as it can still be applied to current events... does more to condemn Trump’s chances, than to hold out any hope.

But hey!  We will revisit this again from time to time, as 2020 gets rolling. :D

Go to bed.