JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate => The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on May 16, 2026, 08:29:37 AM
-
Why does the JFK Assassination attract so many Trump supporters?
-
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.
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.
I do not understand the MAGA supporters, or Biden supporters, who tolerate 1 million dead in Ukraine as a passing thought.
Trump has failed the Free World on the Ukraine issue. Biden was squishy.
-
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.
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.
I do not understand the MAGA supporters, or Biden supporters, who tolerate 1 million dead in Ukraine as a passing thought.
Trump has failed the Free World on the Ukraine issue. Biden was squishy.
Dear "BC,"
What Biden supporters give "one million dead in Ukraine a passing thought"?
Were you hoping Biden would give Ukraine Javelins sooner than he did?
On what other issues has Trump failed the Free World?
-- "TG"
-
I've never seen any correlation between one's political leanings and their views on the JFK assassination. People of all political stripes have come down on both sides of the conspiracy question.
-
I've never seen any correlation between one's political leanings and their views on the JFK assassination. People of all political stripes have come down on both sides of the conspiracy question.
One never used to see (or be aware of) so many vocal far-right jerks as there seem to be now.
Maybe it's because there are more of them, and it's because they've been so zombified by 60-plus years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and "inside man / outside man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies that they've conflated Peter Dale Scott's and Comrade Oliver Stone's "Deep State" with Steve Bannon's "Administrative State."
-
One never used to see (or be aware of) so many vocal far-right jerks as there seem to be now.
Maybe it's because there are more of them now, and it's because they've been so zombified by 60-plus years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and "inside man / outside man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies that they've conflated Peter Dale Scott's and Comrade Oliver Stone's "Deep State" with Steve Bannon's "Administrative State."
What we need is funding to find a cure for TDS.
-
I've never seen any correlation between one's political leanings and their views on the JFK assassination. People of all political stripes have come down on both sides of the conspiracy question.
I certainly did. A few months after I joined the Ed Forum, I was struck by the leftist-leaning sympathies of seemingly all the participants. They all seemed to have a dreamy-eyed near-worship of JFK and utopian notions of what the country would be like today if he and RFK had lived. I actually started a thread on the topic, which clearly hit a nerve because it was met with howls of umbrage. As it turns out, this was before the emergence of The Donald. The emergence of The Donald has fractured everything so badly that intelligible theories are hard to formulate. My observation would be that LNers tend to be conservative while CTers of the CIA-did-it ilk tend to be liberal, but that's probably painting with too broad a brush. Possibly it's no more complex than "Whatever The Donald finds interesting the MAGA folks ipso facto find interesting." Trump is a wacky conspiracy sort of guy; ergo, we are wacky conspiracy sorts of folks. I don't really see an ideological basis, as I saw at the Ed Forum.
-
What we need is funding to find a cure for TDS.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" perfectly describes what MAGATS, who, like Trump, simply can't accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election, are suffering from.
-
I certainly did. A few months after I joined the Ed Forum, I was struck by the leftist-leaning sympathies of seemingly all the participants. They all seemed to have a dreamy-eyed near-worship of JFK and utopian notions of what the country would be like today if he and RFK had lived. I actually started a thread on the topic, which clearly hit a nerve because it was met with howls of umbrage. As it turns out, this was before the emergence of The Donald. The emergence of The Donald has fractured everything so badly that intelligible theories are hard to formulate. My observation would be that LNers tend to be conservative while CTers of the CIA-did-it ilk tend to be liberal, but that's probably painting with too broad a brush. Possibly it's no more complex than "Whatever The Donald finds interesting the MAGA folks ipso facto find interesting." Trump is a wacky conspiracy sort of guy; ergo, we are wacky conspiracy sorts of folks. I don't really see an ideological basis, as I saw at the Ed Forum.
It's funny that a lot of far-left JFKA buffs voted for The Traitorous Orange Turd -- because he promised to release the files on George Joaniddes or some-such thing.
The KGB's multi-decade efforts to get a "useful idiot" (or worse) person like Trump elected finally paid off in 2016, thanks in-part to the efforts of the likes of Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, overly ambitious, scandal-plagued, and revengeful Jim Garrison, Paese Sera newspaper and Ralph Schoenman, Oliver Stone, Jim DiEugenio, and Oliver Stone (did I already mention him?).
-
There are right wing conspiracy believers as well. Several of the talking heads at Fox have expressed on air their beliefs in a conspiracy. Jesse Watters and Joey Jones to name a few. Liberal Bill Maher has also indicated he believes there was a conspiracy. On the other hand, Vincent Bugliosi was very much a leftist and there has never been a stauncher defender of the WC than him.
-
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" perfectly describes what MAGATS, who, like Trump, simply can't accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election, are suffering from.
Looking back, I'm glad Trump lost in 2020. If he hadn't, he wouldn't be POTUS now. That also spreads out the pain of those suffering from TDS from 8 years to 12.
Assuming he leftist media don't inspire a competent assassin, Trump will tie Grover Cleveland for the second longest period from his first day in office until his last. FDR will have beaten them both by 39 days.
-
What we need is funding to find a cure for TDS.
Absolutely. Trump is the best President we had in my lifetime.
-
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" perfectly describes what MAGATS, who, like Trump, simply can't accept the fact that he lost the 2020 election, are suffering from.
Trump didn't lose the 2020 election democrats forged more than enough "ballots" to win. Look how bad things got in those four years $7.00 for a dozen eggs. My local store has them on sale for $.79 this week.
-
Why does the JFK Assassination attract so many MAGATs?
What is the problem TG? Did that other forum ridicule your Z124 1st shot theory too? Are you not leftist MAGA ( Make America Go Away ) enough for them?
-
What is the problem TG? Did that other forum ridicule your Z124 1st shot theory too? Are you not leftist MAGA (Make America Go Away) enough for them?
Dear Gas Man,
At least get your juvenile ad hominins straight -- it's "Z-124" in quotation marks (or if you prefer, "hypothetical Z-124, i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133").
Working back a second from the frames in which JFK, Jackie, Connally, Nellie, and Kellerman in the limo consciously and rapidly turned their heads within half-a-second of each other in response to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything, shot, gives us the aforementioned "Z-124" / hypothetical Zapruder frame 124, i.e., half-a-second before he resumed framing at Z-133.
Unless, of course, they turned their heads in response to hearing yet another of your emissions.
-- Tom
PS I'm sorry that Roselle's and Scearce's plausible theory conflicts with your inane speculation that the first shot was at Z-223.
-
Good Grief, Tom!
There's no escape from you haters of President Trump! Not even in a place like this forum.
I think your post here is both rude and uncalled for.
-
Good Grief, Tom!
There's no escape from you haters of President Trump! Not even in a place like this forum.
I think your post here is both rude and uncalled for.
Dear Steve,
I never have liked traitors and conmen very much.
-- Tom
PS It's interesting how a thread like this brings his zombified supporters out of the woodwork.
-
Trump didn't lose the 2020 election democrats forged more than enough "ballots" to win. Look how bad things got in those four years $7.00 for a dozen eggs. My local store has them on sale for $.79 this week.
Of you last two posts I sort of agree with the first but not the second. Yes, I did think the Democrats cheated in 2020. They always do. I don't think there cheating made the difference in any of the five states the Democrats flipped from the 2016 election. For the Democrats to have stolen the election, they would have stolen at least three of those five states. I have a hard time believing they stole even one. I did go to bed on election night in 2020 believing Trump had won. Arizona had flipped to the Democrats but Trump seemed to be leading in the three blue wall states and Georgia. What I didn't realize is that the early votes had not been counted yet. That is my one gripe. I think people would have had more confidence in the results had the early votes been the first ones counted and made public and there was no reason they couldn't have been. They could have been counted in advance and the totals released the minute the polls closed. Back in the day when the only early voting that was done was absentee ballots. When the news organizations released those counts, they would usually tell their views that those tended to be Republican votes because they were the ones who would me more likely to be out of town on election day. Once early voting became widely available, those tend to be heavily Democrat votes. Had those votes been thrown into the mix from the start, it never would have appeared Trump was winning the key toss up states. Instead it gave the appearance that the Democrats were waiting to see how many votes they needed before those votes were added in.
As for Trump being the best president in my lifetime, I'm taking a wait and see approach. Right now, I would give that honor to Reagan but that could change depending on what Trump accomplishes in the next 3 years.
-
Of you last two posts I sort of agree with the first but not the second. Yes, I did think the Democrats cheated in 2020. They always do. I don't think there cheating made the difference in any of the five states the Democrats flipped from the 2016 election. For the Democrats to have stolen the election, they would have stolen at least three of those five states. I have a hard time believing they stole even one. I did go to bed on election night in 2020 believing Trump had won. Arizona had flipped to the Democrats but Trump seemed to be leading in the three blue wall states and Georgia. What I didn't realize is that the early votes had not been counted yet. That is my one gripe. I think people would have had more confidence in the results had the early votes been the first ones counted and made public and there was no reason they couldn't have been. They could have been counted in advance and the totals released the minute the polls closed. Back in the day when the only early voting that was done was absentee ballots. When the news organizations released those counts, they would usually tell their views that those tended to be Republican votes because they were the ones who would me more likely to be out of town on election day. Once early voting became widely available, those tend to be heavily Democrat votes. Had those votes been thrown into the mix from the start, it never would have appeared Trump was winning the key toss up states. Instead it gave the appearance that the Democrats were waiting to see how many votes they needed before those votes were added in.
As for Trump being the best president in my lifetime, I'm taking a wait and see approach. Right now, I would give that honor to Reagan but that could change depending on what Trump accomplishes in the next 3 years.
Hey, maybe mail-in voting should only be for Libertarians and True Republicans, and all snowflake, woke, libtard, Socialist-Communist, illegal-alien-loving Antifa Dems and RINOs should have stand in line for at least a couple of hours at their designated polling place (secured, of course, by masked and heavily armed ICE agents), present a "long-form" birth certificate and a current passport, and pass a college-level U.S. history exam, a field sobriety test, and pay a $50 poll tax!
This country is NOT a "constitutional federal DEMOCRATIC republic," it's a REPUBLIC, PERIOD, intended only for God-fearing White Libertarians, True Republicans, Unrestrained Capitalists, and KKK members (as Trump's dad evidently was at one point), gosh darn it!
To heck with that rag known as The Constitution!
As Mike Flynn says, "Where We Go One, We Go All!"
-
Hey, maybe mail-in voting should only be for Libertarians and True Republicans, and all snowflake, woke, libtard, Socialist-Communist, illegal-alien-loving Antifa Dems and RINOs should have stand in line for at least a couple of hours at their designated polling place
Is there a downside to that?
(secured, of course, by masked and heavily armed ICE agents), present a "long-form" birth certificate and a current passport, and pass a college-level U.S. history exam, a field sobriety test, and pay a $50 poll tax!
Keep going.
This country is NOT a "constitutional federal DEMOCRATIC republic," it's a REPUBLIC, PERIOD, intended only for God-fearing White Libertarians, True Republicans, and KKK members (as Trump's dad evidently was at one point), gosh darn it!
NAH!!! The KKK were all Democrats.
To heck with that rag known as The Constitution!
Dems do treat it like toilet paper.
-
Is there a downside to that?
I suspect Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, Ayn Rand and you would say "Nein!"
Keep going.
What else would you like to add?
Mandatory sterilization -- or even better -- euthanasia?
NAH!!! The KKK were all Democrats.
You're referring to Southern Democrats, especially during "Reconstruction."
Gasp . . . were they in Queens in 1927, too?
Dems do treat The Constitution like toilet paper.
How so, Adolf I mean Benito I mean Vladimir I mean John?
-
I suspect Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, Ayn Rand and you would say "Nein!"
None of them were German.
What else would you like to add?
Mandatory sterilization -- or even better -- euthanasia?
You're referring to Southern Democrats, especially during "Reconstruction."
Gasp . . . were they in Queens in 1927, too?
Probably.
https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2024/08/1920s-new-york-ku-klux-klan/
How so, Adolf I mean Benito I mean Vladimir I mean John?
In 2024 the Democrats were comparing Trump's Madison Square Garden rally to a Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, even though they weren't even in the same building. Your reply exhibits the same sort of double standards the left is known for. It's OK for them to bring up things from long ago but not OK for those on the right to do the same.
"One rule for thee and another for me" is the motto of the modern political left.
-
Well, that was all certainly predictable.
Can we get back now to whether Oswald could drive, or maybe what Tippit was doing at Top Ten Records?
How about a little better Billy Meier UFO to get things back on track?
(https://www.krqe.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/12/Best-Evidence-2-Meier_002_11071989.jpg?w=1280)
-
Dear Steve,
I never have liked traitors and conmen very much.
-- Tom
PS It's interesting how a thread like this brings his zombified supporters out of the woodwork.
But why here-in this forum-start a thread completely off topic of the JFKA and unrelated to this forum, just to insult people who may support President Trump by calling them "MAGATs" and "zombified supporters"? This is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.
-
None of them were German.
Poetic license, Herr Corbett.
Probably.
Probably what?
Mandatory sterilization and euthanasia for Dems, or Fred was probably a Southern Democrat in NYC?
In 2024 the Democrats were comparing Trump's Madison Square Garden rally to a Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, even though they weren't even in the same building.
Do all fascistic rallies have to be held in the same building to be considered fascistic?
-
Well, that was all certainly predictable.
Can we get back now to whether Oswald could drive, or maybe what Tippit was doing at Top Ten Records?
Why does that matter?
How about a little better Billy Meier UFO to get things back on track?
(https://www.krqe.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/12/Best-Evidence-2-Meier_002_11071989.jpg?w=1280)
It reminds me of a photo that appeared in the now defunct Columbus Citizen-Journal back in the 1970s during another wave of UFO sightings. The photographer had tossed the cap of a roll of film into the air and photographed it against the Columbus skyline to show how easy it was to fake these photos, even before the days of AI. Does anybody ever stop to wonder why all these UFOs seem to be a different make and model. Have the space aliens sent an entire armada of spaceships to the Third Rock from the Sun?
-
But why here-in this forum-start a thread completely off topic of the JFKA and unrelated to this forum, just to insult people who may support President Trump by calling them "MAGATs" and "zombified supporters"? This is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.
The explanation, of course, is that there is a species of JFKA fanatic for whom the only real significance of the JFKA is as part-and-parcel of Everything Wrong With the Country Today. The JFKA is just a launching pad for political rants. Anyone who doesn't share these folks' politics is, ipso facto, clueless about the JFKA. The person to whom your post is addressed is in the grip of a mania that passed rationality long ago, Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids with whipped cream and a cherry on top; he actually thinks he is performing some public service - although why he thinks an obscure JFKA forum is the place to do it is a kind of a mystery. The Ignore feature is certainly one solution that I freely employ.
I have been blessed, or cursed as the case may be, to be almost entirely inward-focused all my life. My avatar Alfred E. Neuman ("What? Me worry?") is an apt one. I honestly don't care squat about most hot-button issues, partly because there is no solution and often no middle ground anyway. As a badly flawed human being and erratic political leader of any stripe, The Donald is indeed extreme and kind of frightening. As someone as unqualified for the Presidency as it would have been humanly possible to be, Kamala was indeed kind of frightening. Americans seem to have a strange capacity for nominating and electing people you wouldm't want running a Der Wienerschnitzel if you owned it, but what's it really got to do with me and my daily life? Not enough to get as excited as and carry around as much anger as many people now seem to do. I have to blame it mostly on the rise of the internet and the echo-chamber effect of people immersing themselves in little universes where everyone is constantly excited and angry about everything. It's almost like people today feel OBLIGATED to be constantly excited and angry.
-
Oh, good, we're back on track!
Why does that matter?
Well, because if Oswald actually could drive, then this part of LN dogma is incorrect and new possibilities are opened up. If Tippit was actually doing some of the odd things he has been reported as doing, then this opens up the possibility that the encounter with Oswald was less routine than LN dogma would have us believe.
Even if one wants to confine all JFKA discussion strictly to the events of November 21-24, there are mysterious aspects that are hard to explain and that at least suggest the LN dogma may not be the full story. You apparently are satisfied it is the full story and that anyone who disagrees with you is credulous if not stupid. Even though I pretty much accept the LN narrative, there are aspects that leave me scratching my head and wondering if the LN narrative is the full story. At this point, thanks to Jack Ruby and an agenda-driven WC, all we likely ever will have is speculation - but there is the possibility some new kernel of actual evidence will come to light.
Oswald's preternatural calm in the encounter with Baker ... his calm and cockiness in the legendary Fritz's attempts to break him ... his insistence he didn't kill anybody ... his telling Robert "don't believe the so-called evidence." Just this is enough in itself to give me pause as to what was actually going on. Unlike so many, I don't have any psychological or emotional need for the LN narrative to be correct or for the case to be closed.
It reminds me of a photo that appeared in the now defunct Columbus Citizen-Journal back in the 1970s during another wave of UFO sightings. The photographer had tossed the cap of a roll of film into the air and photographed it against the Columbus skyline to show how easy it was to fake these photos, even before the days of AI. Does anybody ever stop to wonder why all these UFOs seem to be a different make and model. Have the space aliens sent an entire armada of spaceships to the Third Rock from the Sun?
Every area of weirdness, including religion, is plagued with hoaxers and fraudsters. Typically, however, they are eventually exposed. I am guessing the photo in the Columbus Citizen-Journal didn't fool any serious ufologist for very long, The level of photographic analysis to which the most credible UFO photos have been subjected might astonish you. The late Bruce Maccabee was an optical physicist employed by the Navy, and he was not easily fooled - nor was he alone. A serious analysis of a UFO incident or photo makes for tedious reading, even for me.
UFOs do not all seem to "a different make and model." For starters, we don't know that they are a make and model of ANY nuts-and-bolts craft; we don't know what they are at all. Perhaps they are holograms or simulations. The fact is, dating back to ancient history the disk shape has predominated, to the extent that Carl Jung speculated that this was an archetype originating in the collective human unconscious (Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky).
FWIW, this photo - from British Columbia in 1981 - and the circumstances in which it was caught on film make it one of the most credible of unexplained UFO photos (and there are many such photos). It and the photographer have withstood all analysis. See http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case241.htm (summary), https://www.nicap.org/reports/811008vancouver-isle_jse_01_2_haines.pdf (analysis in the Journal of Scientific Exploration).
The photographer, Hannah McRoberts, was on a family outing; the UFO photo negative was surrounded by family outing-type photos; and Hannah was "the niece of one of Canada's leading nuclear engineers, a man in charge of a multi-billion dollar electrical generating complex."
(https://www.ufocasebook.com/hannahufo2.jpg)
(https://www.ufobc.ca/History/historyimages/klsybays.jpg)
-
deleted.
-
deleted.
-
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.
I would not count Oliver Stone as "Left Wing", considering how big a fanboy he is of Putin, rivaling Trump. I am "Left Winger" and I would never consider Oliver Stone as a fellow "Left Winger" like I would AOC or Talarico.
He has been consistently against liberal Democracy, pushing the narrative that Liberal Democracy is a myth, that the people do not really control elections and governments, a view that Trump has a lot of agreement with. I believe this was his chief motive for making the movie 'JFK'.
Calling Oliver Stone "Anti Democracy" is a more accurate label than "Left Wing". Calling Stone "Left Wing" is like calling Hitler "Left Wing" because, he was, the head of the "National SOCIALISTS". The labels people give themselves can be misleading.
I do not understand the MAGA supporters, or Biden supporters, who tolerate 1 million dead in Ukraine as a passing thought.
Biden was overly slow and cautious in supporting Ukraine, but he did support Ukraine and his support was building over time, but Trump got Congress to interfere with this a lot in 2023 and since then.
I don't think it is one million Ukrainian dead. Most of the dead are Russians and the total dead could be one million. I think the way you phrase it is misleading.
I don't feel bad about Russian army dead any more than I feel bad about German army dead during World War II.
The U. N. estimates that around 15,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed since February 2022. About a third of them in the first month, mostly from face to face encounters with the Russian army. A sign that if an unfavorable "Peace" is achieved in Ukraine, Ukrainian civilian casualties will spike a lot, as to be decided in Moscow.
-
Still derailing the thread - and proud of it! - but I omitted from my list of Oswald puzzlements taxi driver Whaley's WC testimony that after Oswald was already seated in the cab an older woman approached and asked if she could have it, whereupon Oswald cracked open the door as if to exit and (Whaley vaguely recalled) offered the cab to the woman.
An escaping Presidential assassin politely offers his escape cab to a stranger? Well, he may have done so - but it's certainly curious.
Which reminds me: This is Whaley's actual cab. Such a cab is my candidate for the "police car" that pulled up in front of Beckley and toot-tooted, as described by Earlene Roberts. The Beckley property had 22 bedrooms, with 18 rentable rooms, and most of the rentable rooms were behind the main house. Pulling up to the curb and toot-tooting is common taxi behavior. Case closed, you're welcome.
(https://historicattractionsmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/5b37d6_fb1e5b2b10234d9fba845cb40e4c5dd9mv2.webp)
-
By popular demand, I am reluctantly compelled to offer the observation that my wife, who is a native Belarusian, was at the very outset (i.e., 2016) an enthusiastic Trump supporter. She regards Putin as the devil incarnate. We both now regard Biden, for whatever his other failings may have been, as a hero insofar as his support for Ukraine is concerned. Trump, for whatever his other virtues may be, has made a complete counterproductive fool of himself insofar as Ukraine and Putin are concerned. I am almost forced to conclude, unlikely as it may seem, that Putin actually does have photos of The Donald doing unspeakable things with little Russian boys. Something about the Trump-Putin relationship just makes no sense unless one thinks w-a-y outside the box. Egomaniacal Trump allowing someone as universally despised as Putin to play him like a cheap violin is impossible for me to explain in mundane terms.
-
LP-
I regard Biden as having been weak in the Ukraine war. I don't remember all the details, but there were all sorts of restrictions on Kyiv, such not firing missiles into Russia. The Biden and euro-weaklings seemed to live in daily dread of a nuke war. They visibly cowered before Putin.
The only narrative I can construct to "excuse" Biden and Trump is this: What the US national security state really wanted was a long stalemate in Ukraine, one that would drain down Russia. If so, this plan has worked better than anyone could have hoped. Russia will need decades to recover the catastrophe Putin has inflicted upon them.
From what I read, Trump still provides intel to Ukraine and has sold weapons through Europe to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Trump has destroyed Russian allies in Syria, Venezuela, Iran and possibly soon Cuba. Biden would have done none of that.
Some say, "Look at what Trump does, not his showmanship."
I am dubious about Trump's character. Not a Trump fan.
But if Trump topples the IRGC, I will forgive him all sins.
And Russia will be weaker than ever when that happens.
Is Trump a friend of Putin? Not sure.
-
Why does the JFK Assassination attract so many Trump supporters?
False premise. There are just a lot of Trump supporters. Over 50% of the voters. Which is why he won the election. U-S-A, U-S-A.
-
False premise. There are just a lot of Trump supporters. Over 50% of the voters. Which is why he won the election. U-S-A, U-S-A.
Is that why his approval rating is so high?
-
LP-
I regard Biden as having been weak in the Ukraine war. I don't remember all the details, but there were all sorts of restrictions on Kyiv, such not firing missiles into Russia. The Biden and euro-weaklings seemed to live in daily dread of a nuke war. They visibly cowered before Putin.
The only narrative I can construct to "excuse" Biden and Trump is this: What the US national security state really wanted was a long stalemate in Ukraine, one that would drain down Russia. If so, this plan has worked better than anyone could have hoped. Russia will need decades to recover the catastrophe Putin has inflicted upon them.
From what I read, Trump still provides intel to Ukraine and has sold weapons through Europe to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Trump has destroyed Russian allies in Syria, Venezuela, Iran and possibly soon Cuba. Biden would have done none of that.
Some say, "Look at what Trump does, not his showmanship."
I am dubious about Trump's character. Not a Trump fan.
But if Trump topples the IRGC, I will forgive him all sins.
And Russia will be weaker than ever when that happens.
Is Trump a friend of Putin? Not sure.
Obama sent them blankets. So they should be warm. He also sent Iran a plane load of cash. Something around $400 million. That worked out well. LOL. Trump makes the right policy decisions more often than not. Iran is a longstanding problem dating back five decades. Jimmy Carter should have brought down the hammer when they took diplomats hostage. An act of war. Their takeaway from that was that the US was weak and all they had to do is give it a slow roll. Trump is a new sheriff in town. Not Barney Fife but Gary Cooper. Russia and Ukraine is a longstanding regional conflict. It will play out soon. The US has done more than its part.
-
Is that why his approval rating is so high?
Who cares? He is president and Kamala/Hillary are not. If nothing else, Trump spared us an unmitigated disaster of a Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton presidency. That would have been the end game for the US. Even with our media working overtime to undermine Trump, he still won. The lunatics don't always control the agenda. Even if they are loud and destructive. Thankfully we still have some sane people.
-
Who cares? He is president and Kamala/Hillary are not. If nothing else, Trump spared us an unmitigated disaster of a Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton presidency. That would have been the end game for the US. Even with our media working overtime to undermine Trump, he still won. The lunatics don't always control the agenda. Even if they are loud and destructive. Thankfully we still have some sane people.
ME: What percentage of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 now disapprove of his job performance?
GROK: Approximately 20-25% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 now give him a negative (disapprove) job approval rating.
pewresearch.org
-
I do not know if there is a strong correlation between believing in a JFK conspiracy and supporting Trump. It is certainly not uncommon, on this board, for people to believe there was no conspiracy in the JFK assassination, as I do, but do support Trump, which I do not.
-
About 50% of the electorate voted for Trump so why should anybody be surprised if roughly the same percentage of JFKA buffs support him?
-
Who cares? He is president and Kamala/Hillary are not. If nothing else, Trump spared us an unmitigated disaster of a Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton presidency. That would have been the end game for the US. Even with our media working overtime to undermine Trump, he still won. The lunatics don't always control the agenda. Even if they are loud and destructive. Thankfully we still have some sane people.
The real danger is if the Democrats ever gain control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives which they probably will. When that happens, they will end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, making it very difficult for the GOP to take back the Senate. They will then be able to ram through their radical agenda. It almost happened in 2020 but we were lucky to have a couple sane Democrats in Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema to prevent that from happening. The only one we have now is John Fetterman and I don't think he will be enough to stop all this if the Democrats get 51 senators.
-
The real danger is if the Democrats ever gain control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives which they probably will. When that happens, they will end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, making it very difficult for the GOP to take back the Senate. They will then be able to ram through their radical agenda. It almost happened in 2020 but we were lucky to have a couple sane Democrats in Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema to prevent that from happening. The only one we have now is John Fetterman and I don't think he will be enough to stop all this if the Democrats get 51 senators.
When did you start fighting "the Democrats' radical agenda"?
1980?
Regardless, why do you think Vladimir Putin installed Trump as our "President"?
-
When did you start fighting "the Democrats' radical agenda"?
1980?
Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports. Only fools would think those were good ideas but that's your modern Democrat Party.
-
The real danger is if the Democrats ever gain control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives which they probably will. When that happens, they will end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, making it very difficult for the GOP to take back the Senate. They will then be able to ram through their radical agenda. It almost happened in 2020 but we were lucky to have a couple sane Democrats in Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema to prevent that from happening. The only one we have now is John Fetterman and I don't think he will be enough to stop all this if the Democrats get 51 senators.
I highly doubt Americans will want a return to the Biden/Obama disaster. This whole Iran mess goes back to Jimmy Carter a good decent man, but weak weak weak like most liberals. The bulk of proud Americans aka conservatives know Iran can't have nukes, and any sane person want's the border to remain closed.
-
Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports. Only fools would think those were good ideas but that's your modern Democrat Party.
ME: Is this statement correct?
"Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports."
GROK: Partially correct on the timeline and AOC's win but overstated as a sudden "shock" that radicalized the entire mainstream party— the leftward shift on these issues was more gradual, driven by multiple factors including voter trends, activism, and reactions to Trump-era politics.
nytimes.com
AOC's 2018 Primary Win
This part is accurate. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a 28-year-old Democratic Socialist and former Bernie Sanders organizer, defeated 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley (a powerful House Democratic Caucus chair) in New York's 14th district primary on June 26, 2018, by about 57%-43%. It was a major upset that symbolized progressive energy against the establishment.
nytimes.com
It did energize progressives and highlighted primary threats from the left. Some moderate Democrats expressed concern about moving too far left post-2018, while others saw it as a signal to adapt.
cnn.com
Broader "Radical Agenda" and Mainstream Shift
The claim that the "radical agenda" was absent from the Democratic mainstream until ~2018-2020 is an oversimplification. The party had been shifting left on cultural and economic issues for years:
Pre-2016/2018 trends: Democratic voters and platforms moved progressively on issues like immigration, criminal justice, and identity. Pew data showed Democrats viewing immigrants more positively over decades (e.g., from ~32% in 1994 seeing them as strengthening the country to much higher later). Bernie Sanders' 2016 run already pulled the party left on economics and inequality.
npr.org
The 2016 platform and Obama-era policies were more centrist on some fronts (e.g., border enforcement rhetoric from earlier Democrats like Schumer or Clinton), but activism on criminal justice and social issues grew steadily.
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov
AOC's win amplified visibility (e.g., via the Squad and Justice Democrats), and the 2020 primaries/campaign saw more progressive rhetoric. However, establishment figures like Biden won the nomination, and many "radical" policies didn't become universal party law. The House flipped in 2018 with many moderates in swing districts.
nytimes.com
Specific Policies
Open borders: Democrats have long supported legal immigration, asylum, and pathways to citizenship, but "open borders" is a rhetorical charge—not official policy. Pre-2018, leaders like Schumer criticized illegal immigration. Post-2016/Trump, the party unified more around humanitarian framing and opposed strict enforcement, with further shifts under Biden. This was evolutionary, accelerated by polarization, not solely AOC.
npr.org
Cashless bail / criminal justice reform: Bail reform (reducing cash bail for low-level offenses) predates 2018. Efforts date to the 1960s-80s, with modern pushes in the 2010s over racial disparities (e.g., Kalief Browder case). New York passed major reform in 2019 (effective 2020); similar in other blue areas. 2020 George Floyd protests and "defund the police" (mostly activist-driven, not universal Democratic policy) intensified it, but many Democrats later walked back amid crime concerns.
nytimes.com
Men in women's sports (transgender athletes): This became a flashpoint later. Significant Democratic support for inclusion aligned with gender identity grew in the mid-late 2010s with broader LGBTQ+ advocacy. Pre-2018, it was niche; it gained traction post-2018/2020. Many Democrats (and earlier polls) showed internal division or opposition to blanket policies, with recent post-2024 election pushback from some moderates.
npr.org
Primary vs. General Election Fear
There's truth here: Safe blue districts face more primary pressure from energized progressives (low-turnout primaries favor activists). This dynamic exists on the right too (e.g., Tea Party, Trump). Post-2018, more progressive challengers ran, but establishment candidates still dominated many races. The party's 2020 platform and Biden's win reflected a balance, not full capture.
theatlantic.com
Bottom line: AOC's win was a notable moment that boosted the left's profile and contributed to caution among incumbents. However, Democratic shifts on these issues were underway due to changing voter bases (more college-educated, urban, diverse), cultural trends, and reactions to national events—not a single 2018 "shock" turning "sensible" Democrats into radicals overnight. The party remains factional, with moderates often prevailing in national/general election contexts. Claims of sudden embrace of "goofiest" policies reflect partisan framing more than a clean pre/post-2018 break.
8 web pages
-
I highly doubt Americans will want a return to the Biden/Obama disaster. This whole Iran mess goes back to Jimmy Carter a good decent man, but weak weak weak like most liberals. The bulk of proud Americans aka conservatives know Iran can't have nukes, and any sane person want's the border to remain closed.
If you don't have borders, you don't have a country. I wish I was as confident as you that the Democrats will not return to power. What we are seeing now is the result of decades of indoctrination by our education system from the lowest levels to higher education. I don't know when this started because I didn't see it when I attended a public high school back in the late 1960s. Millennials and Gen-Zers are being taught that socialism is just fine and a disgusting number of them believe political violence and quashing free speech is perfectly acceptable. The Democrat Party has encouraged this kind of thinking that wouldn't have been politically viable even 20 years ago.
The electorate is fickle and only once since WWII has either major party controlled the White House for three consecutive terms (Reagan/Bush). The party in power gets blamed for whatever goes wrong which is why power swings back and forth between the two major parties. To make matters worse, if the Democrats get control of both houses of Congress, they can admit new states without presidential approval. The Constitution gives Congress sole power to admit news states. It won't happen but I would like to see the GOP take preemptive action by making Guam and American Samoa new states. Since those are military bases, they would be reliably Republican Senate seats. That would offset plans by the Democrats to make Puerto Rico and DC states. They would need to dump the filibuster to do that, but they might as well since the Democrats will do that as soon as they get control of the Senate. That would also allow them to get the SAFE act through and prevent the Democrats from shutting down parts of the government they don't like.
-
ME: Is this statement correct?
"Until 2020, the radical agenda wasn't in the Democrat mainstream. That all changed when AOC shocked the Democrat establishment in 2018 by beating 10 term congressman Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary. Suddenly all the once sensible Democrats got scared and embraced the far left because most congressman and senators realized they were more likely to lose in the primaries than in the general elections. They lacked the guts to oppose policies that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years earlier. They embraced the goofiest policies such as open borders, cashless bail, and men in women's sports."
GROK: Partially correct on the timeline and AOC's win but overstated as a sudden "shock" that radicalized the entire mainstream party— the leftward shift on these issues was more gradual, driven by multiple factors including voter trends, activism, and reactions to Trump-era politics.
BS. Once moderate Democrats caved to the far left for fear they would get primaried. Fetterman is the only moderate Democrat in the Senate and he will probably be primaried in 2028. He would be wise to switch parties now. Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democrat to try to save Senate seat in Pennsylvania. It didn't work.
nytimes.com
AOC's 2018 Primary Win
This part is accurate. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a 28-year-old Democratic Socialist and former Bernie Sanders organizer, defeated 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley (a powerful House Democratic Caucus chair) in New York's 14th district primary on June 26, 2018, by about 57%-43%. It was a major upset that symbolized progressive energy against the establishment.
nytimes.com
It did energize progressives and highlighted primary threats from the left. Some moderate Democrats expressed concern about moving too far left post-2018, while others saw it as a signal to adapt.
cnn.com
Broader "Radical Agenda" and Mainstream Shift
The claim that the "radical agenda" was absent from the Democratic mainstream until ~2018-2020 is an oversimplification. The party had been shifting left on cultural and economic issues for years:
Pre-2016/2018 trends: Democratic voters and platforms moved progressively on issues like immigration, criminal justice, and identity. Pew data showed Democrats viewing immigrants more positively over decades (e.g., from ~32% in 1994 seeing them as strengthening the country to much higher later). Bernie Sanders' 2016 run already pulled the party left on economics and inequality.
npr.org
The 2016 platform and Obama-era policies were more centrist on some fronts (e.g., border enforcement rhetoric from earlier Democrats like Schumer or Clinton), but activism on criminal justice and social issues grew steadily.
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov
AOC's win amplified visibility (e.g., via the Squad and Justice Democrats), and the 2020 primaries/campaign saw more progressive rhetoric. However, establishment figures like Biden won the nomination, and many "radical" policies didn't become universal party law. The House flipped in 2018 with many moderates in swing districts.
nytimes.com
Specific Policies
Open borders: Democrats have long supported legal immigration, asylum, and pathways to citizenship, but "open borders" is a rhetorical charge—not official policy. Pre-2018, leaders like Schumer criticized illegal immigration. Post-2016/Trump, the party unified more around humanitarian framing and opposed strict enforcement, with further shifts under Biden. This was evolutionary, accelerated by polarization, not solely AOC.
npr.org
Cashless bail / criminal justice reform: Bail reform (reducing cash bail for low-level offenses) predates 2018. Efforts date to the 1960s-80s, with modern pushes in the 2010s over racial disparities (e.g., Kalief Browder case). New York passed major reform in 2019 (effective 2020); similar in other blue areas. 2020 George Floyd protests and "defund the police" (mostly activist-driven, not universal Democratic policy) intensified it, but many Democrats later walked back amid crime concerns.
nytimes.com
Men in women's sports (transgender athletes): This became a flashpoint later. Significant Democratic support for inclusion aligned with gender identity grew in the mid-late 2010s with broader LGBTQ+ advocacy. Pre-2018, it was niche; it gained traction post-2018/2020. Many Democrats (and earlier polls) showed internal division or opposition to blanket policies, with recent post-2024 election pushback from some moderates.
npr.org
Primary vs. General Election Fear
There's truth here: Safe blue districts face more primary pressure from energized progressives (low-turnout primaries favor activists). This dynamic exists on the right too (e.g., Tea Party, Trump). Post-2018, more progressive challengers ran, but establishment candidates still dominated many races. The party's 2020 platform and Biden's win reflected a balance, not full capture.
theatlantic.com
Bottom line: AOC's win was a notable moment that boosted the left's profile and contributed to caution among incumbents. However, Democratic shifts on these issues were underway due to changing voter bases (more college-educated, urban, diverse), cultural trends, and reactions to national events—not a single 2018 "shock" turning "sensible" Democrats into radicals overnight. The party remains factional, with moderates often prevailing in national/general election contexts. Claims of sudden embrace of "goofiest" policies reflect partisan framing more than a clean pre/post-2018 break.
8 web pages
The bottom line is that the Democrats have always had a radical left element but the radicals were sent to the back of the bus. Once AOC beat Crowley, the radicals took over the driver's seat and the moderates in the party meekly submitted for fear of getting primaried themselves.
-
The bottom line is that the Democrats have always had a radical left element but the radicals were sent to the back of the bus. Once AOC beat Crowley, the radicals took over the driver's seat and the moderates in the party meekly submitted for fear of getting primaried themselves.
What we're seeing today is proof that the GOP has had a fascistic element since at least the Nixon Administration.
"Former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, with help from The Traitorous Orange Turd, has simply put that element in control.
-
What we're seeing today is proof that the GOP has had a fascistic element since at least the Nixon Administration.
"Former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, with help from The Traitorous Orange Turd, has simply put that element in control.
You wouldn't know a fascist if he pissed in your ear.
-
You wouldn't know a fascist if he pissed in your ear.
At 6' 3" (and 235 lbs), I'm too tall for someone like you to piss in my ear.
-
ME: What percentage of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 now disapprove of his job performance?
GROK: Approximately 20-25% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 now give him a negative (disapprove) job approval rating.
pewresearch.org
A Trump hating poll. Remember the pollsters that suggested Hillary would win in 2016 or the 2024 poll indicating that Trump was down double digits in Iowa? Who cares? If his approval rating drops to zero, he is still the president and Kamala is not - and never will be. That's what matters. Cite all the polls that you want. Trump will go down in history as a two-term president. A transformational figure.
-
The real danger is if the Democrats ever gain control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives which they probably will. When that happens, they will end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, making it very difficult for the GOP to take back the Senate. They will then be able to ram through their radical agenda. It almost happened in 2020 but we were lucky to have a couple sane Democrats in Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema to prevent that from happening. The only one we have now is John Fetterman and I don't think he will be enough to stop all this if the Democrats get 51 senators.
I agree 100% but all Trump can do is continue to exercise good policy judgements and hope there are still enough sane people that haven't been brainwashed by media propaganda to avoid that result. I have no doubt whatsoever that TDS is a real condition that has resulted from either an intentional or unintentional PSYOP type effort. The decade long obsession with Trump bashing in the media, with social media algorithms, and in Hollywood culture has impacted the minds of such people. They are not only entirely obsessed with Trump but have a deep and very personal hatred toward him. I didn't agree with Biden or Obama but never felt that kind of rage over politics. It is frightening.
-
A Trump hating poll. Remember the pollsters that suggested Hillary would win in 2016 or the 2024 poll indicating that Trump was down double digits in Iowa? Who cares? If his approval rating drops to zero, he is still the president and Kamala is not - and never will be. That's what matters. Cite all the polls that you want. Trump will go down in history as a two-term president. A transformational figure.
I think Kamala should have run for governor of California. That way she could have followed Richard Nixon's path to the White House.
Sitting Vice-President
Lose the presidential election
Two years later lose the governor's race in California ("You won't have Kamala to kick around anymore" speech would be optional)
Go into private practice (OK that's a tough one. What prestigious law firm would hire her?}
In 2030 midterms campaign for congressional candidates around the country, earning favors in return
In 2032 call in those favors and cruise to the nomination.
Win the 2032 general election.
There's one big problem with that scenario. In 1968, the majority of convention delegates were still chosen at state party conventions where Nixon used the creds he banked in 1966. He did well in the primaries but it was the unelected delegates that put him over the top. The decisive move was offering Spiro Agnew the Veep spot in exchange for Agnew delivering the Maryland delegation.
Now, most of the delegates are selected in primaries and caucuses. Kamala is such a bad candidate, there's almost no way she could win a majority through the primaries. I doubt she would still be viable after losing big in Iowa and New Hampshire.
-
I think Kamala should have run for governor of California. That way she could have followed Richard Nixon's path to the White House.
Sitting Vice-President
Lose the presidential election
Two years later lose the governor's race in California ("You won't have Kamala to kick around anymore" speech would be optional)
Go into private practice (OK that's a tough one. What prestigious law firm would hire her?}
In 2030 midterms campaign for congressional candidates around the country, earning favors in return
In 2032 call in those favors and cruise to the nomination.
Win the 2032 general election.
There's one big problem with that scenario. In 1968, the majority of convention delegates were still chosen at state party conventions where Nixon used the creds he banked in 1966. He did well in the primaries but it was the unelected delegates that put him over the top. The decisive move was offering Spiro Agnew the Veep spot in exchange for Agnew delivering the Maryland delegation.
Now, most of the delegates are selected in primaries and caucuses. Kamala is such a bad candidate, there's almost no way she could win a majority through the primaries. I doubt she would still be viable after losing big in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Imagine the state of this country if she had become president having never won a single primary? That would have been the final straw. Even the most deranged TDS sufferer must know that she was unqualified to manage a 7-11 much less be president. Trump spared us that nightmare. My beef with Trump is that while his policy decisions are sound, he often can't implement them. And he is often his own worst enemy. That's Trump, though. A flawed person. I'll take him over any these corrupt, incompetent establishment politicians any day of the week.
-
Imagine the state of this country if she had become president having never won a single primary? That would have been the final straw. Even the most deranged TDS sufferer must know that she was unqualified to manage a 7-11 much less be president. Trump spared us that nightmare. My beef with Trump is that while his policy decisions are sound, he often can't implement them. And he is often his own worst enemy. That's Trump, though. A flawed person. I'll take him over any these corrupt, incompetent establishment politicians any day of the week.
Do you think if Trump had been a typical play it safe politician, he ever could have defied the odds and become President in the first place. The reason so many people hate him is the same reason so many people love him. He says what's on his mind and he doesn't sugarcoat it. Trump took over the GOP because the establishment Republicans would talk a good game but would never stand up to the Democrats. As soon as the Democrats would start to call them racists or Nazis, they would wet the pants and fold their cards, even when they had a winning hand. I got fed up with them in the 1990s when they finally got control of both houses of Congress but let Bill Clinton play them like a fiddle. They did accomplish some things but there was so much more they could have done. Even when Bush 43 got elected, they still wouldn't press their advantage. I refused to vote for McCain and I had to hold my nose when I voted for Romney. Now I wish I hadn't. Ryan and Boehner were ineffective as Speakers. The continued the tradition of rolling over whenever the Democrats started talking mean to them.
When Trump entered the race in 2015, I had reservations. I didn't know what to expect from him. I voted Libertarian in 2016. But then I saw how he governed and realized the GOP had finally found a fighter. The rank and filed of the GOP figured that out too most of them even before I did. I enthusiastically voted for Trump in both 2020 and 2024. I would do so again in 2028 if he was allowed to run. He has shown the rest of the GOP how to fight the Dems. I want to see which of the expected candidates in 2028 shows he (or she) will do the same.
-
Do you think if Trump had been a typical play it safe politician, he ever could have defied the odds and become President in the first place. The reason so many people hate him is the same reason so many people love him. He says what's on his mind and he doesn't sugarcoat it. Trump took over the GOP because the establishment Republicans would talk a good game but would never stand up to the Democrats. As soon as the Democrats would start to call them racists or Nazis, they would wet the pants and fold their cards, even when they had a winning hand. I got fed up with them in the 1990s when they finally got control of both houses of Congress but let Bill Clinton play them like a fiddle. They did accomplish some things but there was so much more they could have done. Even when Bush 43 got elected, they still wouldn't press their advantage. I refused to vote for McCain and I had to hold my nose when I voted for Romney. Now I wish I hadn't. Ryan and Boehner were ineffective as Speakers. The continued the tradition of rolling over whenever the Democrats started talking mean to them.
When Trump entered the race in 2015, I had reservations. I didn't know what to expect from him. I voted Libertarian in 2016. But then I saw how he governed and realized the GOP had finally found a fighter. The rank and filed of the GOP figured that out too most of them even before I did. I enthusiastically voted for Trump in both 2020 and 2024. I would do so again in 2028 if he was allowed to run. He has shown the rest of the GOP how to fight the Dems. I want to see which of the expected candidates in 2028 shows he (or she) will do the same.
No other person in US history could have withstood all Trump has had to deal with and become president. Twice. The media bias, establishment resistance, assassins, lawfare etc. It has always been an uphill fight. His election was a miracle. Breaking the establishment hold on power. With that said, the same characteristics undermine him. He is a flawed person always fighting invisible enemies. While it is great to make the right decisions, they are undermined if you can't implement them or get derailed. My fear is that Trump leaves office with more missed opportunities than accomplishments. He often is baited into playing into the media traps and lots of time and effort is wasted.
-
RS--
Somewhat agree, but then also---what the hell goes on when Trump tweets on Truth Social?
Trump in person, fielding questions from reporters and so on, makes a fair impression. He is no JFK or LBJ, but is OK on his feet. Anyone would say Trump is more in the game than Biden, for example. Or even Bush Jr.
Then Trump gets on Truth Social and appears to be a lunatic.
-
No other person in US history could have withstood all Trump has had to deal with and become president. Twice. The media bias, establishment resistance, assassins, lawfare etc. It has always been an uphill fight. His election was a miracle. Breaking the establishment hold on power. With that said, the same characteristics undermine him. He is a flawed person always fighting invisible enemies. While it is great to make the right decisions, they are undermined if you can't implement them or get derailed. My fear is that Trump leaves office with more missed opportunities than accomplishments. He often is baited into playing into the media traps and lots of time and effort is wasted.
A very rational perspective that I mostly share, Richard. Unfortunately, I fear Trump's megalomania has caused him to believe his election ACTUALLY WAS A MIRACLE and that his every thought and act has the divine stamp of approval. As I've said before, I voted for him twice and was prepared to do so the third time but messed up my mail-in ballot and said the hell with it. The Trump I see now is more unbalanced and frightening than the Trump for whom I voted the first time. For a long time, I was willing to chalk up his "eccentricities" to an act that he was mostly enjoying and having fun with. Now I see him as seriously disturbed and even frightening. I think what's wrong with Trump is much more psychological and serious than simply being baited into playing into media traps. It would be wonderful if there were checks and balances in terms of close advisers who were something other than cowed yes-men and yes-women, but Trump is seemingly incapable of tolerating any dissension.
-
No other person in US history could have withstood all Trump has had to deal with and become president. Twice. The media bias, establishment resistance, assassins, lawfare etc. It has always been an uphill fight. His election was a miracle. Breaking the establishment hold on power. With that said, the same characteristics undermine him. He is a flawed person always fighting invisible enemies. While it is great to make the right decisions, they are undermined if you can't implement them or get derailed. My fear is that Trump leaves office with more missed opportunities than accomplishments. He often is baited into playing into the media traps and lots of time and effort is wasted.
I think Trump knows exactly what he's doing. The term crazy-like-a-fox certainly applies to him. Trump has two modes, one political, one governing. On the campaign trail, he is a caricature. He resorts to hyperbole and exaggeration. I think he learned that from spending time with the McMahons and WWE. He saw how wrestlers drive people's emotions playing over-the-top caricatures. Both the good guys and the villains do that. Even people who believe pro wrestling is staged get caught up in it. I used to attend the WWE matches when they came to my hometown. I used to have fun guessing what the script would be. Wrestlers are not the same people when they are away from the ring and the TV cameras. Hulk Hogan used to have a reality TV show and when he was home, he wasn't Hulk Hogan. He was Terry. So it is with Trump. He is one guy at his rallies or in front of the TV cameras. When out of the spotlight, he is much more measured in the way he governs. It has worked well for him so far. Why would he change?
I agree with you that it remains to be seen what his legacy will be. That's why I still put Reagan #1 among the presidents in my lifetime. Trump could move into the top spot depending on what he accomplishes in the remainder of his term. I think that will largely depend on the results of the midterms.
-
I view Trump like a football coach. You could hire the nicest guy who mentored young men to be better people but he loses every game. Or you could hire the nastiest SOB who does anything to win. Which coach do you want as a fan? You are not his buddy or friend. His character flaws don't matter. What you want is to go to the game on the weekend and watch your team kick ass. Too many people get caught up on Trump as a person. He is the president and not your Dad. His policy decisions are sound. Certainly much better than the Dem loons. I don't have to like or respect him as a person. I want results. Granted he shoots himself in the foot by often taking things too far but if my choice is Kamala or Trump, I'm going Trump every time.
-
I think Trump knows exactly what he's doing. The term crazy-like-a-fox certainly applies to him. Trump has two modes, one political, one governing. On the campaign trail, he is a caricature. He resorts to hyperbole and exaggeration. I think he learned that from spending time with the McMahons and WWE. He saw how wrestlers drive people's emotions playing over-the-top caricatures. Both the good guys and the villains do that. Even people who believe pro wrestling is staged get caught up in it. I used to attend the WWE matches when they came to my hometown. I used to have fun guessing what the script would be. Wrestlers are not the same people when they are away from the ring and the TV cameras. Hulk Hogan used to have a reality TV show and when he was home, he wasn't Hulk Hogan. He was Terry. So it is with Trump. He is one guy at his rallies or in front of the TV cameras. When out of the spotlight, he is much more measured in the way he governs. It has worked well for him so far. Why would he change?
I agree with you that it remains to be seen what his legacy will be. That's why I still put Reagan #1 among the presidents in my lifetime. Trump could move into the top spot depending on what he accomplishes in the remainder of his term. I think that will largely depend on the results of the midterms.
You are spot on but I don't think the midterms matter. My best guess is that the Dems take the House. Perhaps it's not the massacre many predict but enough to flip it. Trump has relied very little on congress even with republican majority. The Dems will spend their time trying to impeach Trump. They have no real policies except opposing Trump. That is likely good news for Vance or Rubio in '28. They can blame the Dems for spending their time undermining Trump over the next two years. The Dems fall into the same trap over and over. Their only objective is to oppose Trump. They always overplay that hand.
-
You are spot on but I don't think the midterms matter. My best guess is that the Dems take the House. Perhaps it's not the massacre many predict but enough to flip it. Trump has relied very little on congress even with republican majority. The Dems will spend their time trying to impeach Trump. They have no real policies except opposing Trump. That is likely good news for Vance or Rubio in '28. They can blame the Dems for spending their time undermining Trump over the next two years. The Dems fall into the same trap over and over. Their only objective is to oppose Trump. They always overplay that hand.
I agree with most of that. I think the midterms do matter as far as Trump's legacy goes. It will affect what he is able to accomplish. Right now I would put the odds at 60-40 that the Dems will take the House. If the election were held today, I'd put it at 80-20. The Dems would have to run the table in the toss up states to take the Senate. That is the crucial battle because there is a good chance Trump will be appointing one or two SCOTUS justices in his final two years. There's little chance the Dems would approve those unless there's a 51-49 split and Fetterman approves of a Trump nominee.
Right now Trump's approval is being dragged down by the high gas prices which will bleed over into other commodities due to rising transportation costs. If he can wrap up the Iranian war and get the Strait of Hormuz opened, that will not be much of a factor come November. If the economy takes off in the second half of the year, I could see the GOP hanging on to both chambers.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.