As with everyone else who recalls election antics from one year to the next, I’ve been waiting for the October Surprise (or surprises, who knows?) that should be rearing its head right about now.

It didn’t take long, it seems. About one minute into October, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) called a strike at all of the ports that they have workers. All major ports on the East and the Gulf Coast are affected.

It is not news that an October port strike would be to the detriment of a sitting administration and a boon to the political party challenging them. The fact that the Biden Administration is the most pro-union government in decades – and arguably, ever, makes the move to strike just now more than a little suspicious.

Cap that with this newly circulated photo of the ILA president, Harold Daggett, 78, shaking hands with the first former president with 13 felony convictions (or any felony convictions, for that matter).
The photo was taken a while ago but has suddenly resurfaced all over the internet – and now here.

That, along with tales of two former trials in which the union president was connected to the Mafia.

That, along with tales of Daggett owning a luxurious 7100 square foot mansion, a 76-foot yacht and drives a Bentley.

And his salaries. Don’t forget his salaries.

So what is the deal here? Why slip a knife in the back of a pro-union party? The union supported Joe Biden in 2020 with their endorsement, and the ILA PAC has contributed $115,000 to Democrats out of a total of $120,000 to all parties just this year.

Right now, there are more questions than answers, but I’ll bet there’s a great story out there begging to be told.

Addendum: As you can read in the comments the strike was just called off until January 15th.  It reminds me of Rule 76 of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: “Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.”

When I look back at the Veep Debate, there are only two things that stood out for me. Well, three, really. The third was that Vance and Walz agreed with each other on more than one occasion. The agreeing just got to be annoying.

Can’t we all just disagree?

One other thing on JD was not on any of my bingo cards.

From the debate transcript:

“JDV: Margaret. The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.”

“MB: Thank you, Senator.”

Two things come to mind.

1. JD objected when he intimated that the Springfield Haitians were in the country illegally, and the moderators clarified that the Haitians were not undocumented workers. He thought it unfair that the truth got out after all he did to besmirch his fellow Ohioans.

2. The word salad that followed was such a “deep in the weeds” explanation of the Haitian’s status that I’m sure he lost his supporters’ trains of thought. It reminded me of something we Democrats are prone to do from time to time.

The other one, also a JD production, is aptly summarized by a meme posted by the MSNBC control room in their post debate deliberations.

For those under 40, the photo on the left is from the Dramatic Prairie Dog video clip that expressed sudden surprise. On the right, that is JD being suddenly surprised that the 800 pound gorilla in the room was mentioned: January 6th.

All of that debate prep and no one showed ol’ JD how to react when asked whether the 2020 election was stolen. One thing. He only had to do one thing when asked “Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?”

Caught in the headlights.

JD parried with a “whatabout” and Walz lunged for the kill with “That is a damning non answer.”

Touché, Coach.

I’ve been thinking about yesterday’s AI experiment, maybe a little more than I thought I would. I was struck with how easy it was for the algorithm to support Harris, given the extra detailed information that I provided. It would seem reasonable that “alternative facts” provided in the extra details from a Trump supporter would deliver to us a pro-Trump essay. So I asked a Trump supporter that I know (yes, I know a few that I still talk to) to provide three facts they know about Harris, and three that they know about Trump. Then I submitted them to the very same algorithm that I used yesterday. Here are those extra details:

Trump is trying to save America
Harris wants open borders
Trump cannot be bought
Harris supports abortion rights
Trump wants to secure the border
Harris flips on her opinions

Everything else I submitted was identical to what I provided yesterday. After about half the time that was previously noticed, the essay below was generated (again, italics are for effect).

In the upcoming presidential election, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump presents voters with starkly different visions for the future of America. Trump is positioning himself as the savior of the nation, promising to secure the border and protect American interests. Harris, on the other hand, advocates for open borders and supports abortion rights.

One of Trump’s key strengths is his reputation for being unbuyable. He has long touted himself as a self-made billionaire who cannot be influenced by lobbyists or special interests. In contrast, Harris has faced criticism for changing her position on key issues, showing a lack of consistency that may raise doubts about her sincerity.

When it comes to immigration policy, Trump’s focus on securing the border resonates with many Americans who are concerned about national security. Harris’s support for open borders, however, raises questions about her commitment to protecting American sovereignty.

On the issue of abortion, Harris’s stance aligns with liberal values, advocating for a woman’s right to choose. Trump, on the other hand, supports restrictions on abortion and has voiced his opposition to late-term procedures.

In conclusion, the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump represents a clear contrast in ideologies. Trump’s promises to save America and secure the border appeal to those who prioritize national security, while Harris’s support for open borders and abortion rights may resonate well with liberal voters. It is up to the American people to carefully consider these competing visions and make an informed decision at the ballot box.

See what they did there? Mr. AI didn’t pick a side this time even though both essays were designed to be persuasive. Why is that? The only thing I can come up with it that some of the extra details are more opinion than fact, and a check with internet content that did not agree with the “alternative facts” altered the persuasive aim from voting for one candidate over another to an exhortation to Americans to “consider competing opinions” when voting.

Or as TFG would say: “It’s all rigged!”