Why are so many Trump supporters attracted to the JFKA?

[Michael T. Griffith]

TG--

James DiEugenio and Oliver Stone are not "MAGATs" and people like them are legion on the left-ideology side of the JFKA research base, and they excuse Putin everything.

True. Sad but true. 

They excuse North Vietnam everything, Pol Pot everything, Viet Cong everything, Castro everything, Beijing everything, Hamas everything, the IRGC everything, and so on. On the JFKA left, the bad guys are only Americans and Israelis. Maybe some Brits.

Yes, exactly. You can add Jefferson Morley to the list of JFKA leftists who excuse Communist and Jihadist murderers and who bash Israel while whitewashing Hamas. Morley has sent out several emails that argue for Israeli involvement in JFK's death and that paint Israel as the bad guy and Hamas as the victim of Israeli aggression. Absurd and shameful.

I do not understand the MAGA supporters, or Biden supporters, who tolerate 1 million dead in Ukraine as a passing thought.

No. The vast majority of Trump supporters do not share this view but want to see the Russians expelled from Ukraine.

Trump has failed the Free World on the Ukraine issue. Biden was squishy.

Oh, no, no. Not true. Trump has ramped up the flow of weapons to Ukraine, including fighter jets.

Trump and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte established the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, which allows Ukraine's Western partners (like Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands) to pledge funds to purchase U.S.-manufactured arms directly for Ukraine.

Trump has facilitated huge Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Ukraine. For example, Trump authorized a $652 million weapons sale and previously approved $310 million in FMS agreements to provide advanced air defense and munitions to Ukraine.

Trump briefly paused certain direct U.S. military shipments in March 2025 to compel European nations to shoulder more financial responsibility. However, following negotiations—such as the agreement to strengthen protection of Ukraine's skies—supplies were resumed.

Trump has ensured the continuation of support in satellite communications, and American intelligence on Russian troop movements remains highly crucial to Ukraine's defense, though U.S. funding and direct aid allocations are higher than they were under Biden.

[John Corbett]

True. Sad but true. 
 

Yes, exactly. You can add Jefferson Morley to the list of JFKA leftists who excuse Communist and Jihadist murderers and who bash Israel while whitewashing Hamas. Morley has sent out several emails that argue for Israeli involvement in JFK's death and that paint Israel as the bad guy and Hamas as the victim of Israeli aggression. Absurd and shameful.
 

No. The vast majority of Trump supporters do not share this view but want to see the Russians expelled from Ukraine.

Oh, no, no. Not true. Trump has ramped up the flow of weapons to Ukraine, including fighter jets.

Trump and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte established the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, which allows Ukraine's Western partners (like Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands) to pledge funds to purchase U.S.-manufactured arms directly for Ukraine.

Trump has facilitated huge Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Ukraine. For example, Trump authorized a $652 million weapons sale and previously approved $310 million in FMS agreements to provide advanced air defense and munitions to Ukraine.

Trump briefly paused certain direct U.S. military shipments in March 2025 to compel European nations to shoulder more financial responsibility. However, following negotiations—such as the agreement to strengthen protection of Ukraine's skies—supplies were resumed.

Trump has ensured the continuation of support in satellite communications, and American intelligence on Russian troop movements remains highly crucial to Ukraine's defense, though U.S. funding and direct aid allocations are higher than they were under Biden.

Based on what I have seen you write about the JFKA over the years, I would have guessed you were part of the TDS crowd. I must say I am pleasantly surprised you are not. It does show what I've said for years. One's political affiliation is not a good indicator of their views on the JFKA. The staunchest defender of the WC was Vincent Bugliosi who was very much a leftist. But there are also many leftists who are CTs and rightists who are LNs. If anything, a CT's political views might be an indication of whom they believe was behind the assassination. LNs don't have that problem. Both the leftist and rightist LNs blame the same guy.

[Lance Payette]

Alas, MTG lives in a fantasy world when it comes to Ukraine, just as with the JFKA. My wife's family is THERE - Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. Ukrainian polls are overwhelmingly negative toward Trump. Trump's "support" of Ukraine has been lukewarm and begrudging at best, and a large portion of the aid has actually been just a percentage of what the Biden administration had already approved. Anyone who can watch The Donald's mastubatory love affair with Putin and tell me with a straight face that he has been supportive of Ukraine is living in a different reality. Article exactly one month ago in the Atlantic: "Ukraine has Finally Given Up on Trump." IMHO, Trump cares literally nothing about Ukraine.

[Richard Smith]

Alas, MTG lives in a fantasy world when it comes to Ukraine, just as with the JFKA. My wife's family is THERE - Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. Ukrainian polls are overwhelmingly negative toward Trump. Trump's "support" of Ukraine has been lukewarm and begrudging at best, and a large portion of the aid has actually been just a percentage of what the Biden administration had already approved. Anyone who can watch The Donald's mastubatory love affair with Putin and tell me with a straight face that he has been supportive of Ukraine is living in a different reality. Article exactly one month ago in the Atlantic: "Ukraine has Finally Given Up on Trump." IMHO, Trump cares literally nothing about Ukraine.

The US has done more than its part in Ukraine.  Of course, there is resentment in Ukraine.  Trump is not just dishing out billions in US taxpayer dollars to them.  Instead he is holding others accountable for doing their part and asking that the US get some compensation.  The policy of just sending them endless billions with no accountability is over.  They don't like it.  Tough.  This is a regional conflict.  Ukraine has the misfortune to be in Russia's sphere of interest.  No one can change that.  There is no magic wand to wave or enough wealth in history to change that.  You know who else is unpopular?  Zelensky.  He has suspended elections to keep himself in power. 

[Lance Payette]

The US has done more than its part in Ukraine.  Of course, there is resentment in Ukraine.  Trump is not just dishing out billions in US taxpayer dollars to them.  Instead he is holding others accountable for doing their part and asking that the US get some compensation.  The policy of just sending them endless billions with no accountability is over.  They don't like it.  Tough.  This is a regional conflict.  Ukraine has the misfortune to be in Russia's sphere of interest.  No one can change that.  There is no magic wand to wave or enough wealth in history to change that.  You know who else is unpopular?  Zelensky.  He has suspended elections to keep himself in power.

No offense, but these are just Trump-speak talking points. A "slightly" more nuanced perspective from the Journal of Democracy, written by two experts on Ukrainian politics:

A year ago, some in government thought that it might be possible to hold the presidential election despite the war, not least because the president would have won easily: According to data collected by MOBILISE (led by Olga Onuch) in partnership with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), Zelensky’s approval was sky-high at 85 percent in July 2023, even with few gains on the battlefield. That number has since dipped — to 77 percent in late 2023. More recent data from February suggest that trust in Zelensky also declined from 77 to 64 percent in February 2024, likely because of Zelensky’s unpopular decision to reshuffle the army leadership. Nonetheless, the president remains the most popular and trusted politician in Ukraine by a wide margin. Only military figures such as former army commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi and army-intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov are more popular than Zelensky.

Ultimately the government chose not to hold elections — a decision that was in line with both the recommendations of local elections-focused NGOs and Ukrainian public opinion: According to a December 2023 survey, 84 percent of Ukrainians opposed holding a presidential election. When asked in February 2024 what should happen in lieu of elections, 69 percent preferred that Zelensky stay in office until the end of martial law. Even among those who dislike the president, it is hard to find anyone in Ukraine who supports holding a vote now. Opposition leaders such as former prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk have publicly recognized that, despite their disagreements with the president on most things, now is not the time to go to the polls and Zelensky’s legitimacy is not in question.

The most fundamental reason for not holding elections is that approximately a third of the country’s population would face enormous challenges participating — including around 6.5 million Ukrainians living abroad (over a million of whom reside in Russia) and five million living in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, as well as nearly four million internally displaced people and a million active military personnel. Finding and registering these displaced Ukrainians would be an enormous undertaking, one that would effectively be impossible in Russia or areas under Russian control, which include Crimea and five Ukrainian provinces. Locating Ukrainian military personnel would not be hard, but arranging a free and fair vote on the frontlines would be. How does one ensure a secret ballot in the trenches? In addition, active warfare in significant parts of Ukrainian-controlled territory creates obvious difficulties: Missile and other attacks occur almost daily in various parts of Ukraine, including large cities such as Kharkiv.

All this means that voter turnout would not only be low, but would systematically underrepresent those Ukrainians most directly affected by the war. Chosen by a rump of the population, winners of such elections might be considered illegitimate by at least some of the population. And Russia would likely make its own accusations of illegitimacy in an effort to polarize Ukrainian voters and cast international doubt on Ukraine’s democracy.

Very few democracies have held elections with an active military conflict on their territory. Among European democracies directly affected by World War II, only Denmark (under German occupation) held elections during the war. Great Britain did not hold elections between 1935 and the war’s end in July 1945. The United States did hold elections in 1864 during the American Civil War, but without the participation of nine Confederate states. This does not seem to be a good model to follow: The systematic exclusion of Southern states almost certainly exacerbated polarization in the country.

...

Thus, while it is certainly possible to hold some kind of elections in Ukraine, it would be nearly impossible to hold ones that are free, fair, and inclusive. Some Ukrainians fear that election campaigning would sow divisions in society at a moment when the country needs to remain united. Moreover, organizing elections now would divert scarce resources and attention away from defending Ukraine against the existential threat from Russia.

[Royell Storing]

No offense, but these are just Trump-speak talking points. A "slightly" more nuanced perspective from the Journal of Democracy, written by two experts on Ukrainian politics:

A year ago, some in government thought that it might be possible to hold the presidential election despite the war, not least because the president would have won easily: According to data collected by MOBILISE (led by Olga Onuch) in partnership with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), Zelensky’s approval was sky-high at 85 percent in July 2023, even with few gains on the battlefield. That number has since dipped — to 77 percent in late 2023. More recent data from February suggest that trust in Zelensky also declined from 77 to 64 percent in February 2024, likely because of Zelensky’s unpopular decision to reshuffle the army leadership. Nonetheless, the president remains the most popular and trusted politician in Ukraine by a wide margin. Only military figures such as former army commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi and army-intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov are more popular than Zelensky.

Ultimately the government chose not to hold elections — a decision that was in line with both the recommendations of local elections-focused NGOs and Ukrainian public opinion: According to a December 2023 survey, 84 percent of Ukrainians opposed holding a presidential election. When asked in February 2024 what should happen in lieu of elections, 69 percent preferred that Zelensky stay in office until the end of martial law. Even among those who dislike the president, it is hard to find anyone in Ukraine who supports holding a vote now. Opposition leaders such as former prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk have publicly recognized that, despite their disagreements with the president on most things, now is not the time to go to the polls and Zelensky’s legitimacy is not in question.

The most fundamental reason for not holding elections is that approximately a third of the country’s population would face enormous challenges participating — including around 6.5 million Ukrainians living abroad (over a million of whom reside in Russia) and five million living in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, as well as nearly four million internally displaced people and a million active military personnel. Finding and registering these displaced Ukrainians would be an enormous undertaking, one that would effectively be impossible in Russia or areas under Russian control, which include Crimea and five Ukrainian provinces. Locating Ukrainian military personnel would not be hard, but arranging a free and fair vote on the frontlines would be. How does one ensure a secret ballot in the trenches? In addition, active warfare in significant parts of Ukrainian-controlled territory creates obvious difficulties: Missile and other attacks occur almost daily in various parts of Ukraine, including large cities such as Kharkiv.

All this means that voter turnout would not only be low, but would systematically underrepresent those Ukrainians most directly affected by the war. Chosen by a rump of the population, winners of such elections might be considered illegitimate by at least some of the population. And Russia would likely make its own accusations of illegitimacy in an effort to polarize Ukrainian voters and cast international doubt on Ukraine’s democracy.

Very few democracies have held elections with an active military conflict on their territory. Among European democracies directly affected by World War II, only Denmark (under German occupation) held elections during the war. Great Britain did not hold elections between 1935 and the war’s end in July 1945. The United States did hold elections in 1864 during the American Civil War, but without the participation of nine Confederate states. This does not seem to be a good model to follow: The systematic exclusion of Southern states almost certainly exacerbated polarization in the country.

...

Thus, while it is certainly possible to hold some kind of elections in Ukraine, it would be nearly impossible to hold ones that are free, fair, and inclusive. Some Ukrainians fear that election campaigning would sow divisions in society at a moment when the country needs to remain united. Moreover, organizing elections now would divert scarce resources and attention away from defending Ukraine against the existential threat from Russia.

   The above displays a total lack of historical knowledge. The Southern States WITHDREW from the "UNITED" States. How could anyone living inside these same states then vote in the 1864 POTUS Election? Laughable.
   TECHNICALLY, this same issue is what the Civil War was fought over. Whether a state could just withdraw from the UNITED States. Abe Lincoln was on record as being OK with the Civil War ending with slavery still being intact.
   

[Lance Payette]

   The above displays a total lack of historical knowledge. The Southern States WITHDREW from the "UNITED" States. How could anyone living inside these same states then vote in the 1864 POTUS Election? Laughable.
   TECHNICALLY, this same issue is what the Civil War was fought over. Whether a state could just withdraw from the UNITED States. Abe Lincoln was on record as being OK with the Civil War ending with slavery still being intact.
   

Right, they're just dummies who probably don't even think One Glove Cop is an Haygood Imposter. 

The Journal of Democracy is the world’s leading publication on the theory and practice of democracy. Since its founding in 1990, the Journal has engaged leading scholars, writers, and activists in critical discussions about the prospects and perils for democracy across the globe.

The Journal of Democracy is published by Johns Hopkins University Press. The Journal’s editors take no editorial positions, but are guided by the mission of providing analysis of the major political, social, and economic challenges that confront democracy. The Journal of Democracy is led solely by the best judgment of its editors, who act freely and independently. The Journal’s editors alone are responsible for all editorial decisions. No outside party determines, reviews, or endorses the Journal’s choices, and funders do not participate in commissioning authors, developing essays, or editing manuscripts. Each decision is made with the aim of providing a range of viewpoints and analysis that furthers our understanding of democracy today.

Off the topic, but I wonder how many people know that the Great Emancipator's view was not the freeing of the slaves and their integration into American society? It was the freeing of the slaves and sending them back to Africa or elsewhere ASAP because Blacks would simply never mesh with a white society. This was in fact the prevailing view, termed "colonization," within the anti-slavery movement.

Weirdly, as I happen to know from recent reading, the Mormons of Utah - who viewed Blacks as a cursed people carrying the Mark of Cain - overwhelmingly voted to extend them full civil rights in the Utah Territory before the Civil War.