Why are so many Trump supporters attracted to the JFKA?

[Royell Storing]

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.

   Stop now trying to hide behind the "opinion" of others. You're jammed up with having misrepresented history because you failed to do the work that supports a legit opinion. That's "foundation", which you sadly lack. I really don't like confronting you, due to it feeling like I'm taking candy from a baby. But, if nobody corrects you, you will only only continue poisoning the historical well. You have no idea how extremely weak you look.   

[Richard Smith]

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.

"Talking points" don't make it untrue.   An endless open check from US taxpayers to Zelensky is not the solution.  There is no reason that Ukraine could not hold an election.  People can vote by mail or text if necessary.  I see many people going about their normal daily business in many areas.  I bet Putin might even agree to a short ceasefire to let them vote.  If Zelensky felt he could win an election, it would happen.   I'm 100% supportive of Ukraine but the US should not be expected to solve their issue.  They will also be in Russia's sphere of influence.  Nothing can change that.  Putin and his KGB generation will soon be gone.  Any hope lies with a different generation of leaders.

[Lance Payette]

"Talking points" don't make it untrue.   An endless open check from US taxpayers to Zelensky is not the solution.  There is no reason that Ukraine could not hold an election.  People can vote by mail or text if necessary.  I see many people going about their normal daily business in many areas.  I bet Putin might even agree to a short ceasefire to let them vote.  If Zelensky felt he could win an election, it would happen.   I'm 100% supportive of Ukraine but the US should be expected to solve their issue.  They will also be in Russia's sphere of influence.  Nothing can change that.  Putin and his KGB generation will soon be gone.  Any hope lies with a different generation of leaders.

Your comments sound remarkably similar to those who thought the United States should not become involved in WWII. You are "100% supportive of Ukraine" as long as your support doesn't affect you and the price of eggs. There is no way that Zelensky would lose an election. Literally all of Europe views the Ukrainian situation far more seriously and consequentially than you apparently do. Yes, Europe has allowed itself to become militarily weak and overly dependent on the U.S., but the U.S. has cheerfully contributed to that situation for decades; writing off Ukraine at this point is not the solution to that problem. I happen to have had breakfast with a State Department official in Minsk in 2007 who cited Ukraine as the shining example of what the former Soviet republics could become. Now, in the view of Trump cultists it's "screw 'em, they're just part of Putin's sphere of influence (whatever the hell that means) anyway." In my opinion, Trump cultists are absolutely no different from the TDS cult; it's just two crazy cults screeching past each other.

[John Corbett]

Your comments sound remarkably similar to those who thought the United States should not become involved in WWII. You are "100% supportive of Ukraine" as long as your support doesn't affect you and the price of eggs. There is no way that Zelensky would lose an election. Literally all of Europe views the Ukrainian situation far more seriously and consequentially than you apparently do. Yes, Europe has allowed itself to become militarily weak and overly dependent on the U.S., but the U.S. has cheerfully contributed to that situation for decades; writing off Ukraine at this point is not the solution to that problem. I happen to have had breakfast with a State Department official in Minsk in 2007 who cited Ukraine as the shining example of what the former Soviet republics could become. Now, in the view of Trump cultists it's "screw 'em, they're just part of Putin's sphere of influence (whatever the hell that means) anyway." In my opinion, Trump cultists are absolutely no different from the TDS cult; it's just two crazy cults screeching past each other.

There is only so much we can do for Ukraine. The US stood by and did nothing when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 for obvious reasons. We weren't going to risk starting WWIII for the sake of either country, which were Warsaw Pact members. We reacted with sanctions when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1980. We did later supply them with arms to help fight the invaders, but we were not going to come to their aid with our own troops. A direct military conflict would again risk WWIII. The Ukraine situation is similar to Afghanistan. NATO is not going to intervene on behalf of non-member Ukraine. We can provide them with arms but we aren't going to give them direct military assistance. They are going to have to win this fight by outlasting the Russians as Afghanistan did with the Soviets. Eventually, the Soviet leadership realized they were spending too much in blood and treasure and gave up on Afghanistan. That is probably the best we can hope for in Ukraine. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan lasted 9 years and 2 months. The current war in Ukraine has lasted a little over 4 years. I could see it dragging out as long as Afghanistan did.

[Richard Smith]

Your comments sound remarkably similar to those who thought the United States should not become involved in WWII. You are "100% supportive of Ukraine" as long as your support doesn't affect you and the price of eggs. There is no way that Zelensky would lose an election. Literally all of Europe views the Ukrainian situation far more seriously and consequentially than you apparently do. Yes, Europe has allowed itself to become militarily weak and overly dependent on the U.S., but the U.S. has cheerfully contributed to that situation for decades; writing off Ukraine at this point is not the solution to that problem. I happen to have had breakfast with a State Department official in Minsk in 2007 who cited Ukraine as the shining example of what the former Soviet republics could become. Now, in the view of Trump cultists it's "screw 'em, they're just part of Putin's sphere of influence (whatever the hell that means) anyway." In my opinion, Trump cultists are absolutely no different from the TDS cult; it's just two crazy cults screeching past each other.

Then have an election.  The situation in Ukraine is nothing like WWII.  The Russians did not bomb Pearl Harbor.  There are legitimate reasons to avoid these endless regional conflicts.  There are conflicts in Africa and other places that get no such publicity.  This is emotion driven by our media because they associate Putin with Trump.  The US is not the policeman of the world.  We have no obligation to right every wrong even if that were possible.  And it is not in many such conflicts.  Send as much money as we can print, bomb them to the stone age, and the next day nothing will be any different.  Europe has a much greater interest in this conflict than us.  Let them step up. 

[John Corbett]

Then have an election.  The situation in Ukraine is nothing like WWII.  The Russians did not bomb Pearl Harbor. 

No, they didn't. The Germans did.