The problem with "let the voters decide" is that THE VOTERS DECIDED!!!!!! And the voters decided they were done with Trump. Just because he's too immature to accept the fact that he's a loser. Just because the violent racist MAGA horde is too ignorant to accept the fact that he's a loser. Just because elected Republicans are too cowardly to accept the fact that he's a loser. Doesn't mean that he's not a loser.
Al Gore had the election stolen by a political Supreme Court and he walked away. Hillary Clinton won but lost because of Jill Stein and she walked away. But Trump, who has never been held accountable for anything in his miserable crooked life cannot accept the fact that the people voted him out. For millions of good reasons. And he can't walk away. So let's beat his flabby orange ass again, and make sure that he walks away or is dragged away by the prison guards.
The voters decided -- despite continual voter suppression in red states and the goddamn Electoral College. IOW, despite all the rigging in his favor and the gutlessness of the GOP, he still lost.
While those of us who voted for Al Gore and many others feel that he would have won the 2000 Presidential election had all the votes been counted, we now will never know because all the votes are yet to be counted.
As for HRC winning the actual vote but losing the election due to the rotting appendix within our body politic known as the Electoral College, let's not blame Jill Stein for that. There are many actual factors for that, besides the aforementioned school of higher learning from which nobody has graduated. They include James Comey, Vladimir Putin, twenty years of Fox propaganda defining HRC downward in the minds of too many, and last but not least, her own less than stellar campaign.
Daniel, sorry cannot source this info but remember clearly that after all was said and done a group DID IN FACT count FLA votes that proved Al Gore won the Presidency. If only he had been persistent in challenging the election, he would have brought us to a place where we now take climate change seriously and work together for the future of our beautiful planet. 🌎 It was too late but curiosity needed to be satisfied and so a manual count was done. Heartbreaking 💔, isn’t it?
New York Times team of journalists if I remember did count, eventually. If “spoiled” ballots where the voter punched the hole AND wrote in the same candidate’s name were counted, there were more of those for Gore than for Bush.
The GOP - and especially the Machavellian James Baker - knew that that was a watershed election for them and they pulled out all stops. Bush II can be as upset as he wants to be about Jan 6th, but the Young Republicans that accosted vote counters in 2000 were a pre-curser of the insurrection from last January.
Absolutely. The Brooks Brothers riot. I remember hearing that the people counting votes were afraid of the Cubans, thought it was them. Anyone else remember that detail?
I still blame Jill Stein in the same way I blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss. Stein took more votes in the swing states than Hillary lost by. Absent Nader, Florida would not have been a question.
That said, you are right, absent Comey, Putin, and 20 years of demonization, Hillary would have won. Frankly she might have won if Comey hadn't been forced to act by Giuliani's stooges in the NY FBI office who were going to make an even bigger deal out of the nothingburger that Comey blew up Hillary with.
I have long felt that the two party system is broken and fully favors limited, conventional thinking. The rules in most states are almost cartel like in preventing serious third party campaigns to start up, fund raise and jump into the arena. This has gotten worse over time, and we are all the worse for it.
Even now, while I fully intend to vote for Biden, I find it unhealthy that no serious Democrat is running against him. I mean no disrespect to Ms. Williamson or Mr. Phillips in so saying. If she were old enough, and decided to run, I would vote for AOC in a New York minute.
Jill Stein did not have any effect on the 2016 election.
Ralph Nader did not have any discernable effect on the 2000 election, especially considering your initial point about the horrific Bush v. Gore decision. Beyond that, I voted for Nader in 2000 proudly, as he was clearly the best candidate of the three in my view.
The mentality that seems ready to angrily enforce the party duopoly system is an anti-democratic one. If there are candidates out there, fully qualified under the respective States' rules, and voters want to vote for them, let's have at it.
If the HRC's of the world can't beat someone like Despicable Don, and in their failure seek to blame the powerless of the world, such as Jill Stein, that's pretty pathetic.
For one thing, I wouldn't say Stein is powerless. She visited Putin prior to the election, so there seems to be a definite link to an adversary who has tried to meddle intensely at every level of US politics. Boebert is another good example: she represents Pueblo CO, whose the main employer is Evraz, a russian-owned steelmaker (among others). Conflict of interests? Money in offshore accounts? Naw, couldn't be.
With HRC, we may yet find out that there were shenannigans at the ballot box, but until Dump, candidates didn't tend to suspect the system.
The very fact that the GOP has been hijacked and normal conservatives are walking (running?) away rather than splintering into a proper conservative party speaks volumes about the difficulty with third parrties and is very worrisome.
Finally, AOC is not constitutionally too young. She would turn 35 before taking office. But she may be too young to handle the current state of the country. I think the Dems have fallen asleep at the wheel. There should have been at least 2-3 candidates prepared to take over from Biden, who really deserves to spend his last few years relaxing with his family, not trying to heal a wounded country in crisis.
Presidential debates used to be run by the League of Women Votes until the two parties decided the questions were too challenging. We voters are now fed corporate candidates. The DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary, and runs the primaries to feed the media the anointed person…
Well, Susanna, I admit that your query gives me a bit of pause. If the question really is does she have enough life and governing experience under her belt to readily take the helm of the Ship of State? Perhaps. Perhaps not. She will be constitutionally qualified to run for President when the next election rolls around, four years from now. Certainly by then, she will gain another four years of valuable experience, and with that grafted upon her current top notch mix of policy chops, social media moxie, articulate communicative ability, empathy, and the gift of a charisma that burns brightly, "perhaps" might just morph to "yes".
One thing is for certain--At present she is, outside of Despicable Don and President Joe, the shiniest star in the American political firmament. She possesses what only few, including JFK and Obama have previously possessed in such rare balance, the aesthetically pleasing and the politically comforting. She is an American Pasionaria, with a potential as beguiling as her beauty.
Regardless of her qualifications, current or future, the question is whether she could be elected -- which, at least at present, is necessary before one can "take the helm of the Ship of State." As a woman of color from New York City, she has three potential liabilities with the national electorate, although at the same time they're big pluses with her current and potential constituency.
Also worth considering: AOC has been effective in the opposition, both to the Republicans and to the more conservative elements of the Democratic party. Does she have the experience or temperament necessary to lead on the national or even state level? This requires the ability to manage large, unwieldy, often contentious coalitions, including those she's built her reputation opposing. President Biden has it. This is why I'm glad he won, even though I campaigned hard for Elizabeth Warren and admire several of the other 2020 contenders -- I don't believe any of them could have managed what Biden has managed in the last three years.
The election was obviously stolen from Gore when Bush's Brother Jeb came up with the hanging chad excuse to throw out perfectly good ballots. That was a horrid turn of events. Need I say, "No Child Left Behind" which turned into even more Charter schools funded by public monies, and was carried on by Obama, as the "Race to the Top!" We need to uphold the constitution because we decided during the American Revolution that we did not want to be under the domination of a king. Trump wants to give himself Kinglike powers, clearly envying his fellow fascists like Vladamir Putin and Kim Jung Un their autonomy and absolute authority. The Courts are a branch that has been coopted, and who cannot reliably be expected to follow the constitution, and there seems to either be a missing piece in terms of us holding our justices in the Supreme Court accountable or there is a failure in the Constitution. We know that the Constitution does not really let the voters decide who is president, the Electoral College decides. This is favoring the rural over the urban. So, the Constitution is somewhat outdated, but as long as it is what we have we want it at least followed in spirit, if updated for our times.
As I think back to 2000 after reading your excellent comment, I have to ask is there really a democracy to save or a rule of law to rely on.
I am convinced that the Disgraced Roberts Court contaminated by the ridiculous 6 will use its now laughable tortured textual/historical reasoning to further shred the protections clearly written into the Constitution.
American rights and any semblance of economic fairness has been on a downhill slide since Republicans discovered the Southern Strategy as a result of Goldwater’s loss in 1964 and was fully realized with Reagan’s “States Rights” speech in Philadelphia Mississippi on August 3, 1980.
The majority of states had to pass the 14th amendment for it to become part of the Constitution so it seems to me that the people have already spoken on this subject.
When the 14th amendment was passed (passed by Senate in June 1866, ratified by states by June 1868), women couldn't vote and (since the 14th itself gave Black men, including those formerly enslaved, the right to vote) I'm guessing that most men of color couldn't either. So your argument is somewhat less than persuasive -- unless you think that men of color and women don't count as "the people."
What point are you trying to make? That those who were not enfranchised at the time would not have ratified the amendment? But this particular Amendment freed slaves and enfranchised them, so your statement is really silly.
Thanks. I believe Russian in one of the family of languages using the Cyrillic alphabet, yes? Given the amount of Russian hacking that goes on, it startled me.
Please reread the OP. It bases the argument that "the people have already spoken" on the fact that "the majority of states" ratified the 14th Amendment. The "people" responsible for enacting the 14th Amendment were all white and all male. Those enfranchised by the amendment did not include women. "The people have already spoken" is at best speculative and at worst inaccurate. If you think historical accuracy is "silly," so be it. (P.S. You've misspelled "those" in your second sentence. You're welcome. ;-) )
The only mistake in the OP was writing "have spoken" rather than "had spoken," since the discussion was about an event in the more distant past. Those who could vote at the time agreed to the Amendment. If you want to get really literal about "the people," then you should also include the underage population who can't legally vote. That's what made your argument silly and nit-picky. Or maybe just virtue signalling.
On the whole, I'd rather be signaling knowledge of history than wishful thinking about the past and sloppy use of language. And yes, I do want to be literal about "the people" and I suggest that you should be too -- because who's included in "the people," esp. those who are eligible to vote, has been hotly contested since the 14th Amendment was ratified, and is being hotly contested right now. Check it out.
Again, nitpicking by a notorious nitpicker. Clearly, the Declaration of Independence starts with "WE, THE PEOPLE ... "
Do you really want to suggest that what WE, THE PEOPLE stipulated is not binding to us today? Okay - let's do that! Start with the Second Amendment. Very happy to hear that that it is ready to be axed and not relevant to us today because, hey, those guys in 1791 were really not WE THE PEOPLE after all.
Seems like rathr than honoring/accepting historical reality, Ms. Sturgis, you are attempting to alter it. Nothing I wrote suggested an alternate reality or ignorance of history. If you want to be into "alternate" history, try writing a novel instead. Tobias makes the point rather well.
Corporate mass media reporters have not asked me what I think or how the indicted 45th president’s latest outrage & lie makes me feel.
So, I will post it here. Maybe, like a message in a bottle cast into the oceans, my comment will find its way to them:
“The Indicted 45th president’s lawyer in federal appeals court Jan 9, 2024 reveals what Trump THINKS he could do if he is re-elected: KILL more Americans.
“The indicted 45th president’s lawyer told judges that if the 45th ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, he would not be subject to prosecution, unless he had been IMPEACHED.
“I feel like what his lawyer said might wake-up more of US as to why our Supreme Court must NOT allow the 45th to run again.
“He disqualified himself on January 6, 2021. He only has himself to blame, and he’s too DANGEROUS.”
I've found many things disconcerting during the past 8 years. Regarding the Constitution, the idea that the former president is using the Constitution to defend himself, yet will destroy Our Constitution if he is elected makes me sick. Unfortunately, my fear is that his 2025 planners are preparing a mountain of executive orders for his threatened day one of dictatorship which includes trying to eliminate the constitution and the opportunity for anyone to have any right to contest this. Thank you Professor Snyder for continuing to voice your thoughts. We need you, especially now.
We as a nation are now paying the price for our electing people who tell us what we want to hear instead of the truth and who themselves are incapable of exercising true leadership lest they lose the support of their sources of campaign funding, junkets, and rewards in retirement. IMO, as a climate activist, the decline began with the 1980 election, when feelgood Regan defeated truth telling Carter. Try to imagine where we'd be had that election result been different!
In the dark days of World War 2, both the US aynd UK were blessed by having courageous, visionary leaders. Now, in both countries the so-called leaders mostly pander to fear. That can lead only to a deepening disaster, both for our form of government and the health of the planet.
Remember that one of the first things Reagan did was to remove the solar panels President Carter had installed in the White House? That act told us which direction Reagan would be taking the country.
I'd like to report a mistake I made. The panels stayed put until 1986, when they were removed for roof repairs, and were never reinstalled. Reagan did cut subsidies for green energy, though, and *that* is what put the U.S. behind everyone else. I should never have relied on a nearly 40-year memory. That'll teach me!
Here's a medium-length article by John Wihbey I just found from Yale Climate Connections dated 11/11/2008, "Jimmy Carter’s Solar Panels: A Lost History That Haunts Today" (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/11/jimmy-carters-solar-panels/). The article tells the story of the panels, as well as the dismissive attitude Reagan administration officials had towards them:
"Self-conscious about his own idealism, or perhaps just realistic, the President gave voice to his doubts about the panels: 'A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.'"
"The point of all this was simple, Carter said. America was to harness 'the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.'"
At the top of the article is a b/w photo of President Carter proudly announcing the installation of the panels.
Thank you for that, Rose. I appreciate your sending that link which I will check out. I remember the end of the air traffic controllers' union was in '81, but not the date of the solar panels removal until you just confirmed '86.
Thinking back, it seemed that it was defenestrating the air traffic controllers' union, followed by John Hinkley's disturbing love letter to Jodie Foster, resulting in Reagan being seriously wounded and Jim Brady maimed for life.
In fact, if you think about it, Reagan was at the center of a terrible missed opportunity for all of us Americans and the world as both incidents reflected. He could have stayed Carter's course on moving incrementally away from oil dependence, and as his brave press secretary's life attested to, also brought his bully pulpit to bear against the proliferation of guns. This was all a bit more than two score ago. So much could have pivoted for the better, but alas.....
I have never understood that. While we all like to be liked and at times flattered, I do not get how people continue to vote for those whom they know are giving them the constant flag waving, apple pie baking, Mom in apron smiling in the kitchen, decibel elevating flyovers at the Super Bowl type of faux patriotism and coziness, while directly working against their best interests
It's painful to acknowledge, but this nation has valued "emotions" over everything else for the last 50 years. Instead of this emphasis on "how do you feel about..." the better topic would be "what do you know about...". This emphasis on emotion, that began in the 1960s, was initially not a bad call, at a time when the stiffness of Puritanism and the brutal repression of Paternalistic Machismo was the rule of the day. But now it has led us to the wilderness of instant uninhibited emotional gratification (together with self-righteousness a toxic brew), from which there seems no easy escape back into the a land where reason, fact and learning played a role.
"Instead of this emphasis on 'how do you feel about...' the better topic would be 'what do you know about...'."
This is my theme song. I haven't had a TV in about 32y, and that's one of the many reasons I tossed it, literally, into a dumpster, when I was getting ready to move into a house. I brought a chair out to the dumpster, climbed the stairs back up to my apartment, hauled that old tube television down the stairs and, once I got onto the chair, clumsily lifted it upwards just to the point at which I could get it over the top, then I gave it a push. There was a great crash, and that was that. I've never regretted it.
There is also another emotion at work here. The best descriptive may be "hubris". In this case, the attitude that one's own thinking in this moment is somehow better than 2+ centuries of settled law. I saw it clearly in the Colorado judge who's pretzel logic somehow managed to come up with the idea that the office of President of the United States is not actually an officer of our government.
Not sure it is fair to the "Colorado judge" to characterise her opinion this way... Many legal scholars/commentators thought it was more of a strategy to enable the Appeal that followed, while leaving the ruling that he had actually taken part in an insurrection to stand unchallenged. It seems Judges sometimes play the long game in cases where important law needs to be clarified in a higher Court?
Let the Constitution decide. Article 3 is not wasted verbiage; not a nullity. And, it provides its own “due process” remedy: a vote by both houses of Congress overruling any disqualification. Not “the people”
"The slogan 'let the voters decide' makes no sense within our Constitutional order. We only have voters because we have elections, and we only have elections as organized under the Constitution." Perfectly stated.
Timothy, thank you for your brilliant argument here, that lays out the crucial distinction between the Constitution or rule of law versus "let the people decide". You provide a wonderful teaching for many of us. I may be otherwise well educated, but my civics education has been woefully inadequate. (I have spent recent years catching up). I wish our leaders with their bully pulpits, would take the opportunity to teach the civics course we skipped, especially to emphasize the rarity and privilege of Democracy in the long history of world governments. Perhaps, just perhaps, a more civics-aware public would deny leadership to those clearly unqualified, or worse.
It appears that a substantial number of Americans have become accustomed to tailor their morals to their personal preferences. "Let the voters decide" begs the fact that the voters did decide...to ratify the Constitution, and to support and affirm it for 232 years. They/we even decided to vote out of office the maliciously unqualified accidental President in 2020. Despite overuse of this trope, often in twisted contexts, now is a moment when we need to honor the sacrifices of all those Americans who sacrificed, worked, fought, suffered, and died to uphold the Constitution. Real risks, real danger, real fear - and people of real character who rose to the occasion, and allowed their courage to overcome their fears in making a better world for all of us. The job is never finished; our chapter in the story is now, and we're fortunate to have clear-headed leaders like Timothy Snyder, Robert Hubbell, Heather Cox Richardson, Jess Craven, Simon Rosenberg, Joe Biden, Sheldon Whitehouse....(endless list!) helping us understand current history and act once again to save our precious democracy.
I'm reminded of a quote from activist Rebecca Solnit: "A vote is not a love letter; it is a chess move." In this situation 'let the voters decide' denies the gravity of the issue, making it just another contest to be settled by the ballot box, and I don't doubt that most would make the proper chess move. However, many of us have been resisting the "horserace" mentality still prevalent in the MSM, and to think that a portion of the US Constitution should be sacrificed to the horserace mentality would only make us all losers. Of our democracy, that is.
Yes, in addition to Dr. Snyder’s argument, the zero-sum game now being played ruthlessly by the radical right in Congress is a key strategy and tactic used to perversely gin up the fear that our Constitution was designed to save or at least protect us from. And IMO the accepted, often unquestioned, role of continued delaying tactics to postpone a loss for one’s client can, and often does, contribute to public fatigue regarding the issue as well as well-aboutism arguments so treasured by the press who want to keep superficial arguments alive.
"fear builds to become the main mode of politics.", and as the centre will not hold. Those who have held onto Trump's coattails hoping that their past action, present actions will be ignored, are the basis of mob violence, which is based in self knowledge that 'I' have done it too, so I must adjust truth and follow. This was in your essay on post-truth, or in my class, which I am not positive of, but I did learn it. Spin being worse than lying, as it is ever-changing. When politicians refuse to confront but say, 'you do it' they are just passing it on, without courage.
The most dangerous threat to the Constitution is the tacit deal which has evolved . over the 250 years between the courts and the lawyers, who qualify to argue cases. Both accept unlimited time to take legal actions to defend the Constitution. Biden's DOJ decided to do nothing about J6 ,after more than a year of investigationb . Judge Cannon in Florida has decided to just run out all clocks on the most egregrious of all of MAGA crimes , theft and continued illegal holding of top secret documents . The 2024 election will almost certainly be held 1400 days after J6 happened in front of our eyes, without one verdict, made by a real jury, on Trump's crimes. The Constitution has been disabled by legal pursuit of unlimited time to spend our time and our money , to render it useless.. Only lawyers benefit . Above all ,they need hours to bill..
"Together we are changing history for the better – President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to the public of Lithuania and Ukraine
10 January 2024 - 17:03
Together we are changing history for the better – President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Sveikinu tave, Vilniau, sveikinu tave, Lietuvos tauta!
Days before, Vilnius experienced an especially cold spell. The next few days may also be very cold. But today, it's significantly warmer, – a symbolic change indeed. When we stand together, even the cold retreats.
And I am confident, so will Russia.
We cannot mark a specific day when this will happen, nor can we detail every aspect of how it will unfold. But we know it will happen.
Our freedom will prevail – and there will be that day, the first day after this war. Our day.
When in '89, '90, '91, the Baltic peoples first among nations, enslaved by Moscow, openly embarked on the path to restoring real state independence, Ukrainians were inspired by your courage and your anticipation – anticipation of the future.
You desired freedom above all else. And you knew, once your freedom was safeguarded, it would define a prosperous fate for you.
And so it did.
We are all grateful for that courage of yours, which helped change history for the better.
Now, we find ourselves at an even more pivotal historic moment. Now, risks are even higher.
Now, all of us are facing a much more malicious Russia.
As Moscow tries to resurrect its old empire with the whole range of modern weapons, our Ukrainian courage also helps you. Our common unity is also a security guarantee for you. The resilience of our warriors is also your resilience. And our Ukrainian sense that Russia will not withstand if we keep striking, also confirms our common rightness. The rightness of our shared historical choice – to be independent. To be in Europe. To be among equals and therefore, peaceful.
This will happen. And to this end, we must do everything possible in maximum unity for as long as it takes to achieve our goal. There will be no more empire.
Those who instigated this aggression against Ukraine clearly envisioned how they wanted the first day after Ukraine to look.
They dream of humiliating our nation. They kill without hesitation. They deported hundreds of thousands of our people, adults and children. They wanted to erase everything our culture stands on.
They brutally torture our people – thousands held captive – simply to avenge Ukraine's existence. Such is the level of Russian evil.
And if a catastrophic day – the day after Ukraine – ever came to pass, Russia would ensure it continued. There would be a day after Moldova. Then, a day after the Baltics. A day after Poland… A day after many others.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan already hear Russia disparaging their independence. Moscow has no respect for the nations of the Caucasus and there is a clear Russian desire to manipulate all.
And it is dangerous for everyone to stay silent, to stay aside or alone.
When everyone helps one, the freedom of each wins. This rule has worked repeatedly throughout history. It will work now too - for all of us.
Any empire is built on the cornerstone of freedom's definitive defeat, and Moscow needs to subjugate our state for this very reason.
But together, we are changing history for the better.
There won’t be a day after Ukraine. There will be a day after the war. After Putin.
It will be a day of our guaranteed security. And your inviolable freedom. And peaceful life for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Sweden. For all states whose fate Russia now tries to drown in doubt.
It will be a new day of opportunity for Belarus – an opportunity Belarus deserves.
A day of newfound strength for our entire Europe, which defending against Russian hybrid attacks is learning true unity… A unity that makes our continent a global defender of freedom. A unity, complete with Ukraine. With Ukraine in the European Union, with Ukraine in NATO, with Ukraine in peace.
Dear friends!
We all know the steps needed. We all know what we can lose and what we can gain. We all know the day we desire. And we must get our job done. We must do everything for the victory.
I thank you, the people of Lithuania, for everything, for supporting Ukraine. Thanks a lot and big applause to you! Thank you, Gitanas, my friend! I am thankful to your family, your loved ones, all people who have been standing with Ukraine for all these days and months of our war for freedom, our fight for independence! I thank you all for being here, for having Ukraine in your heart all these months and years of war. Thank you for standing with Ukraine!
"No journalist has covered the war in Ukraine with greater knowledge, compassion, and insight than Yaroslav Trofimov, the chief foreign affairs correspondent of the Wall Street Journal.
Born and raised in Kyiv, Trofimov has written a powerful new book about the war entitled Our Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of Independence, which will be published by Penguin Press in January 2024.
Drawing on his vast experience covering wars and conflicts in various parts of the world since 2001, Trofimov explains how the people of Ukraine against all odds have withstood one of the most powerful militaries in the world and endured unspeakable horrors. His account captures the bravery of ordinary Ukrainians risking their lives to preserve their country's independence. In his book, Trofimov combines his first-hand experience at the front lines with profound military analysis, providing unique insight into all levels of Ukraine's fight for survival.
Please join Trofimov and Susan Glasser of the New Yorker for an engaging discussion of Our Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of Independence. A book signing and reception will follow the event. Copies will be available for purchase."
The problem with "let the voters decide" is that THE VOTERS DECIDED!!!!!! And the voters decided they were done with Trump. Just because he's too immature to accept the fact that he's a loser. Just because the violent racist MAGA horde is too ignorant to accept the fact that he's a loser. Just because elected Republicans are too cowardly to accept the fact that he's a loser. Doesn't mean that he's not a loser.
Al Gore had the election stolen by a political Supreme Court and he walked away. Hillary Clinton won but lost because of Jill Stein and she walked away. But Trump, who has never been held accountable for anything in his miserable crooked life cannot accept the fact that the people voted him out. For millions of good reasons. And he can't walk away. So let's beat his flabby orange ass again, and make sure that he walks away or is dragged away by the prison guards.
The voters decided -- despite continual voter suppression in red states and the goddamn Electoral College. IOW, despite all the rigging in his favor and the gutlessness of the GOP, he still lost.
Truth!
Mind you, I think it's scary enough that he was even a contender, in 2016 much less 2020, but I'll take encouraging signs wherever I can find them.
Excellent point, Peter!
Yet forgive me the following legal nit picking---
While those of us who voted for Al Gore and many others feel that he would have won the 2000 Presidential election had all the votes been counted, we now will never know because all the votes are yet to be counted.
As for HRC winning the actual vote but losing the election due to the rotting appendix within our body politic known as the Electoral College, let's not blame Jill Stein for that. There are many actual factors for that, besides the aforementioned school of higher learning from which nobody has graduated. They include James Comey, Vladimir Putin, twenty years of Fox propaganda defining HRC downward in the minds of too many, and last but not least, her own less than stellar campaign.
Daniel, sorry cannot source this info but remember clearly that after all was said and done a group DID IN FACT count FLA votes that proved Al Gore won the Presidency. If only he had been persistent in challenging the election, he would have brought us to a place where we now take climate change seriously and work together for the future of our beautiful planet. 🌎 It was too late but curiosity needed to be satisfied and so a manual count was done. Heartbreaking 💔, isn’t it?
New York Times team of journalists if I remember did count, eventually. If “spoiled” ballots where the voter punched the hole AND wrote in the same candidate’s name were counted, there were more of those for Gore than for Bush.
The GOP - and especially the Machavellian James Baker - knew that that was a watershed election for them and they pulled out all stops. Bush II can be as upset as he wants to be about Jan 6th, but the Young Republicans that accosted vote counters in 2000 were a pre-curser of the insurrection from last January.
Absolutely. The Brooks Brothers riot. I remember hearing that the people counting votes were afraid of the Cubans, thought it was them. Anyone else remember that detail?
Roger Stone (yes, that guy) helped organize the Brooks Brothers Riot. It's all in Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
Heart breaking it is, Judith.
Cute pup, by the way!
Thank you, Daniel!
I still blame Jill Stein in the same way I blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss. Stein took more votes in the swing states than Hillary lost by. Absent Nader, Florida would not have been a question.
That said, you are right, absent Comey, Putin, and 20 years of demonization, Hillary would have won. Frankly she might have won if Comey hadn't been forced to act by Giuliani's stooges in the NY FBI office who were going to make an even bigger deal out of the nothingburger that Comey blew up Hillary with.
This is where I disagree with you, Peter.
I have long felt that the two party system is broken and fully favors limited, conventional thinking. The rules in most states are almost cartel like in preventing serious third party campaigns to start up, fund raise and jump into the arena. This has gotten worse over time, and we are all the worse for it.
Even now, while I fully intend to vote for Biden, I find it unhealthy that no serious Democrat is running against him. I mean no disrespect to Ms. Williamson or Mr. Phillips in so saying. If she were old enough, and decided to run, I would vote for AOC in a New York minute.
Jill Stein did not have any effect on the 2016 election.
Ralph Nader did not have any discernable effect on the 2000 election, especially considering your initial point about the horrific Bush v. Gore decision. Beyond that, I voted for Nader in 2000 proudly, as he was clearly the best candidate of the three in my view.
The mentality that seems ready to angrily enforce the party duopoly system is an anti-democratic one. If there are candidates out there, fully qualified under the respective States' rules, and voters want to vote for them, let's have at it.
If the HRC's of the world can't beat someone like Despicable Don, and in their failure seek to blame the powerless of the world, such as Jill Stein, that's pretty pathetic.
For one thing, I wouldn't say Stein is powerless. She visited Putin prior to the election, so there seems to be a definite link to an adversary who has tried to meddle intensely at every level of US politics. Boebert is another good example: she represents Pueblo CO, whose the main employer is Evraz, a russian-owned steelmaker (among others). Conflict of interests? Money in offshore accounts? Naw, couldn't be.
With HRC, we may yet find out that there were shenannigans at the ballot box, but until Dump, candidates didn't tend to suspect the system.
The very fact that the GOP has been hijacked and normal conservatives are walking (running?) away rather than splintering into a proper conservative party speaks volumes about the difficulty with third parrties and is very worrisome.
Finally, AOC is not constitutionally too young. She would turn 35 before taking office. But she may be too young to handle the current state of the country. I think the Dems have fallen asleep at the wheel. There should have been at least 2-3 candidates prepared to take over from Biden, who really deserves to spend his last few years relaxing with his family, not trying to heal a wounded country in crisis.
Presidential debates used to be run by the League of Women Votes until the two parties decided the questions were too challenging. We voters are now fed corporate candidates. The DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary, and runs the primaries to feed the media the anointed person…
Do you really believe that AOC at this point in her life and U.S. history could be an effective president?
Well, Susanna, I admit that your query gives me a bit of pause. If the question really is does she have enough life and governing experience under her belt to readily take the helm of the Ship of State? Perhaps. Perhaps not. She will be constitutionally qualified to run for President when the next election rolls around, four years from now. Certainly by then, she will gain another four years of valuable experience, and with that grafted upon her current top notch mix of policy chops, social media moxie, articulate communicative ability, empathy, and the gift of a charisma that burns brightly, "perhaps" might just morph to "yes".
One thing is for certain--At present she is, outside of Despicable Don and President Joe, the shiniest star in the American political firmament. She possesses what only few, including JFK and Obama have previously possessed in such rare balance, the aesthetically pleasing and the politically comforting. She is an American Pasionaria, with a potential as beguiling as her beauty.
Regardless of her qualifications, current or future, the question is whether she could be elected -- which, at least at present, is necessary before one can "take the helm of the Ship of State." As a woman of color from New York City, she has three potential liabilities with the national electorate, although at the same time they're big pluses with her current and potential constituency.
Also worth considering: AOC has been effective in the opposition, both to the Republicans and to the more conservative elements of the Democratic party. Does she have the experience or temperament necessary to lead on the national or even state level? This requires the ability to manage large, unwieldy, often contentious coalitions, including those she's built her reputation opposing. President Biden has it. This is why I'm glad he won, even though I campaigned hard for Elizabeth Warren and admire several of the other 2020 contenders -- I don't believe any of them could have managed what Biden has managed in the last three years.
The election was obviously stolen from Gore when Bush's Brother Jeb came up with the hanging chad excuse to throw out perfectly good ballots. That was a horrid turn of events. Need I say, "No Child Left Behind" which turned into even more Charter schools funded by public monies, and was carried on by Obama, as the "Race to the Top!" We need to uphold the constitution because we decided during the American Revolution that we did not want to be under the domination of a king. Trump wants to give himself Kinglike powers, clearly envying his fellow fascists like Vladamir Putin and Kim Jung Un their autonomy and absolute authority. The Courts are a branch that has been coopted, and who cannot reliably be expected to follow the constitution, and there seems to either be a missing piece in terms of us holding our justices in the Supreme Court accountable or there is a failure in the Constitution. We know that the Constitution does not really let the voters decide who is president, the Electoral College decides. This is favoring the rural over the urban. So, the Constitution is somewhat outdated, but as long as it is what we have we want it at least followed in spirit, if updated for our times.
As I think back to 2000 after reading your excellent comment, I have to ask is there really a democracy to save or a rule of law to rely on.
I am convinced that the Disgraced Roberts Court contaminated by the ridiculous 6 will use its now laughable tortured textual/historical reasoning to further shred the protections clearly written into the Constitution.
American rights and any semblance of economic fairness has been on a downhill slide since Republicans discovered the Southern Strategy as a result of Goldwater’s loss in 1964 and was fully realized with Reagan’s “States Rights” speech in Philadelphia Mississippi on August 3, 1980.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.
The majority of states had to pass the 14th amendment for it to become part of the Constitution so it seems to me that the people have already spoken on this subject.
Touche'!
When the 14th amendment was passed (passed by Senate in June 1866, ratified by states by June 1868), women couldn't vote and (since the 14th itself gave Black men, including those formerly enslaved, the right to vote) I'm guessing that most men of color couldn't either. So your argument is somewhat less than persuasive -- unless you think that men of color and women don't count as "the people."
What point are you trying to make? That those who were not enfranchised at the time would not have ratified the amendment? But this particular Amendment freed slaves and enfranchised them, so your statement is really silly.
Lidia- Why is there a Russian language character in your post?
Not "russian" but Cyrillic. Because I'm a translator and often switch between Latin and Cyrillic. I've corrected it. :)
Thanks. I believe Russian in one of the family of languages using the Cyrillic alphabet, yes? Given the amount of Russian hacking that goes on, it startled me.
Please reread the OP. It bases the argument that "the people have already spoken" on the fact that "the majority of states" ratified the 14th Amendment. The "people" responsible for enacting the 14th Amendment were all white and all male. Those enfranchised by the amendment did not include women. "The people have already spoken" is at best speculative and at worst inaccurate. If you think historical accuracy is "silly," so be it. (P.S. You've misspelled "those" in your second sentence. You're welcome. ;-) )
The only mistake in the OP was writing "have spoken" rather than "had spoken," since the discussion was about an event in the more distant past. Those who could vote at the time agreed to the Amendment. If you want to get really literal about "the people," then you should also include the underage population who can't legally vote. That's what made your argument silly and nit-picky. Or maybe just virtue signalling.
On the whole, I'd rather be signaling knowledge of history than wishful thinking about the past and sloppy use of language. And yes, I do want to be literal about "the people" and I suggest that you should be too -- because who's included in "the people," esp. those who are eligible to vote, has been hotly contested since the 14th Amendment was ratified, and is being hotly contested right now. Check it out.
Again, nitpicking by a notorious nitpicker. Clearly, the Declaration of Independence starts with "WE, THE PEOPLE ... "
Do you really want to suggest that what WE, THE PEOPLE stipulated is not binding to us today? Okay - let's do that! Start with the Second Amendment. Very happy to hear that that it is ready to be axed and not relevant to us today because, hey, those guys in 1791 were really not WE THE PEOPLE after all.
Seems like rathr than honoring/accepting historical reality, Ms. Sturgis, you are attempting to alter it. Nothing I wrote suggested an alternate reality or ignorance of history. If you want to be into "alternate" history, try writing a novel instead. Tobias makes the point rather well.
10 Jan 24
Corporate mass media reporters have not asked me what I think or how the indicted 45th president’s latest outrage & lie makes me feel.
So, I will post it here. Maybe, like a message in a bottle cast into the oceans, my comment will find its way to them:
“The Indicted 45th president’s lawyer in federal appeals court Jan 9, 2024 reveals what Trump THINKS he could do if he is re-elected: KILL more Americans.
“The indicted 45th president’s lawyer told judges that if the 45th ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, he would not be subject to prosecution, unless he had been IMPEACHED.
“I feel like what his lawyer said might wake-up more of US as to why our Supreme Court must NOT allow the 45th to run again.
“He disqualified himself on January 6, 2021. He only has himself to blame, and he’s too DANGEROUS.”
“🎼 Message in a Bottle 🎼
I've found many things disconcerting during the past 8 years. Regarding the Constitution, the idea that the former president is using the Constitution to defend himself, yet will destroy Our Constitution if he is elected makes me sick. Unfortunately, my fear is that his 2025 planners are preparing a mountain of executive orders for his threatened day one of dictatorship which includes trying to eliminate the constitution and the opportunity for anyone to have any right to contest this. Thank you Professor Snyder for continuing to voice your thoughts. We need you, especially now.
We as a nation are now paying the price for our electing people who tell us what we want to hear instead of the truth and who themselves are incapable of exercising true leadership lest they lose the support of their sources of campaign funding, junkets, and rewards in retirement. IMO, as a climate activist, the decline began with the 1980 election, when feelgood Regan defeated truth telling Carter. Try to imagine where we'd be had that election result been different!
In the dark days of World War 2, both the US aynd UK were blessed by having courageous, visionary leaders. Now, in both countries the so-called leaders mostly pander to fear. That can lead only to a deepening disaster, both for our form of government and the health of the planet.
Remember that one of the first things Reagan did was to remove the solar panels President Carter had installed in the White House? That act told us which direction Reagan would be taking the country.
True that. I can't remember which came first, the removal of the solar panels, or the termination of the air traffic controllers.
I'd like to report a mistake I made. The panels stayed put until 1986, when they were removed for roof repairs, and were never reinstalled. Reagan did cut subsidies for green energy, though, and *that* is what put the U.S. behind everyone else. I should never have relied on a nearly 40-year memory. That'll teach me!
Here's a medium-length article by John Wihbey I just found from Yale Climate Connections dated 11/11/2008, "Jimmy Carter’s Solar Panels: A Lost History That Haunts Today" (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/11/jimmy-carters-solar-panels/). The article tells the story of the panels, as well as the dismissive attitude Reagan administration officials had towards them:
"Self-conscious about his own idealism, or perhaps just realistic, the President gave voice to his doubts about the panels: 'A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.'"
"The point of all this was simple, Carter said. America was to harness 'the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.'"
At the top of the article is a b/w photo of President Carter proudly announcing the installation of the panels.
Daniel, the air traffic controller incident started in 1981 (https://www.npr.org/2021/08/05/1025018833/looking-back-on-when-president-reagan-fired-air-traffic-controllers).
Thank you for that, Rose. I appreciate your sending that link which I will check out. I remember the end of the air traffic controllers' union was in '81, but not the date of the solar panels removal until you just confirmed '86.
Thinking back, it seemed that it was defenestrating the air traffic controllers' union, followed by John Hinkley's disturbing love letter to Jodie Foster, resulting in Reagan being seriously wounded and Jim Brady maimed for life.
In fact, if you think about it, Reagan was at the center of a terrible missed opportunity for all of us Americans and the world as both incidents reflected. He could have stayed Carter's course on moving incrementally away from oil dependence, and as his brave press secretary's life attested to, also brought his bully pulpit to bear against the proliferation of guns. This was all a bit more than two score ago. So much could have pivoted for the better, but alas.....
Excellent point, Stephen!
I have never understood that. While we all like to be liked and at times flattered, I do not get how people continue to vote for those whom they know are giving them the constant flag waving, apple pie baking, Mom in apron smiling in the kitchen, decibel elevating flyovers at the Super Bowl type of faux patriotism and coziness, while directly working against their best interests
It's painful to acknowledge, but this nation has valued "emotions" over everything else for the last 50 years. Instead of this emphasis on "how do you feel about..." the better topic would be "what do you know about...". This emphasis on emotion, that began in the 1960s, was initially not a bad call, at a time when the stiffness of Puritanism and the brutal repression of Paternalistic Machismo was the rule of the day. But now it has led us to the wilderness of instant uninhibited emotional gratification (together with self-righteousness a toxic brew), from which there seems no easy escape back into the a land where reason, fact and learning played a role.
"Instead of this emphasis on 'how do you feel about...' the better topic would be 'what do you know about...'."
This is my theme song. I haven't had a TV in about 32y, and that's one of the many reasons I tossed it, literally, into a dumpster, when I was getting ready to move into a house. I brought a chair out to the dumpster, climbed the stairs back up to my apartment, hauled that old tube television down the stairs and, once I got onto the chair, clumsily lifted it upwards just to the point at which I could get it over the top, then I gave it a push. There was a great crash, and that was that. I've never regretted it.
Excellent point, Tobias!
If I see one more sideline/Courtside reporter ask one more athlete "How does it feel.." I'm going to explode with Vesuvian consequences 😫
There is also another emotion at work here. The best descriptive may be "hubris". In this case, the attitude that one's own thinking in this moment is somehow better than 2+ centuries of settled law. I saw it clearly in the Colorado judge who's pretzel logic somehow managed to come up with the idea that the office of President of the United States is not actually an officer of our government.
Not sure it is fair to the "Colorado judge" to characterise her opinion this way... Many legal scholars/commentators thought it was more of a strategy to enable the Appeal that followed, while leaving the ruling that he had actually taken part in an insurrection to stand unchallenged. It seems Judges sometimes play the long game in cases where important law needs to be clarified in a higher Court?
Why not simply issue a true opinion, since it's going to be appealed anyway, I think the time for games, long or otherwise, are over.
Let the Constitution decide. Article 3 is not wasted verbiage; not a nullity. And, it provides its own “due process” remedy: a vote by both houses of Congress overruling any disqualification. Not “the people”
"The slogan 'let the voters decide' makes no sense within our Constitutional order. We only have voters because we have elections, and we only have elections as organized under the Constitution." Perfectly stated.
Timothy, thank you for your brilliant argument here, that lays out the crucial distinction between the Constitution or rule of law versus "let the people decide". You provide a wonderful teaching for many of us. I may be otherwise well educated, but my civics education has been woefully inadequate. (I have spent recent years catching up). I wish our leaders with their bully pulpits, would take the opportunity to teach the civics course we skipped, especially to emphasize the rarity and privilege of Democracy in the long history of world governments. Perhaps, just perhaps, a more civics-aware public would deny leadership to those clearly unqualified, or worse.
It appears that a substantial number of Americans have become accustomed to tailor their morals to their personal preferences. "Let the voters decide" begs the fact that the voters did decide...to ratify the Constitution, and to support and affirm it for 232 years. They/we even decided to vote out of office the maliciously unqualified accidental President in 2020. Despite overuse of this trope, often in twisted contexts, now is a moment when we need to honor the sacrifices of all those Americans who sacrificed, worked, fought, suffered, and died to uphold the Constitution. Real risks, real danger, real fear - and people of real character who rose to the occasion, and allowed their courage to overcome their fears in making a better world for all of us. The job is never finished; our chapter in the story is now, and we're fortunate to have clear-headed leaders like Timothy Snyder, Robert Hubbell, Heather Cox Richardson, Jess Craven, Simon Rosenberg, Joe Biden, Sheldon Whitehouse....(endless list!) helping us understand current history and act once again to save our precious democracy.
I'm reminded of a quote from activist Rebecca Solnit: "A vote is not a love letter; it is a chess move." In this situation 'let the voters decide' denies the gravity of the issue, making it just another contest to be settled by the ballot box, and I don't doubt that most would make the proper chess move. However, many of us have been resisting the "horserace" mentality still prevalent in the MSM, and to think that a portion of the US Constitution should be sacrificed to the horserace mentality would only make us all losers. Of our democracy, that is.
Yes, in addition to Dr. Snyder’s argument, the zero-sum game now being played ruthlessly by the radical right in Congress is a key strategy and tactic used to perversely gin up the fear that our Constitution was designed to save or at least protect us from. And IMO the accepted, often unquestioned, role of continued delaying tactics to postpone a loss for one’s client can, and often does, contribute to public fatigue regarding the issue as well as well-aboutism arguments so treasured by the press who want to keep superficial arguments alive.
"fear builds to become the main mode of politics.", and as the centre will not hold. Those who have held onto Trump's coattails hoping that their past action, present actions will be ignored, are the basis of mob violence, which is based in self knowledge that 'I' have done it too, so I must adjust truth and follow. This was in your essay on post-truth, or in my class, which I am not positive of, but I did learn it. Spin being worse than lying, as it is ever-changing. When politicians refuse to confront but say, 'you do it' they are just passing it on, without courage.
Spot on, Kelly. Liked the WB Yeats reference too
The most dangerous threat to the Constitution is the tacit deal which has evolved . over the 250 years between the courts and the lawyers, who qualify to argue cases. Both accept unlimited time to take legal actions to defend the Constitution. Biden's DOJ decided to do nothing about J6 ,after more than a year of investigationb . Judge Cannon in Florida has decided to just run out all clocks on the most egregrious of all of MAGA crimes , theft and continued illegal holding of top secret documents . The 2024 election will almost certainly be held 1400 days after J6 happened in front of our eyes, without one verdict, made by a real jury, on Trump's crimes. The Constitution has been disabled by legal pursuit of unlimited time to spend our time and our money , to render it useless.. Only lawyers benefit . Above all ,they need hours to bill..
Oh ye’ of little faith. We owe it to our faith in turbulent storms to reenforce the laws of justice written into the constitution. Now is the time.
"And it is dangerous for everyone to stay silent, to stay aside or alone.
When everyone helps one, the freedom of each wins. This rule has worked repeatedly throughout history. It will work now too - for all of us."
--- President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 10Jan2024, Vilnius, Lithuania (outside!)
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/razom-mi-zminyuyemo-istoriyu-na-krashe-vistup-prezidenta-vol-88213
"Together we are changing history for the better – President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to the public of Lithuania and Ukraine
10 January 2024 - 17:03
Together we are changing history for the better – President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Sveikinu tave, Vilniau, sveikinu tave, Lietuvos tauta!
Days before, Vilnius experienced an especially cold spell. The next few days may also be very cold. But today, it's significantly warmer, – a symbolic change indeed. When we stand together, even the cold retreats.
And I am confident, so will Russia.
We cannot mark a specific day when this will happen, nor can we detail every aspect of how it will unfold. But we know it will happen.
Our freedom will prevail – and there will be that day, the first day after this war. Our day.
When in '89, '90, '91, the Baltic peoples first among nations, enslaved by Moscow, openly embarked on the path to restoring real state independence, Ukrainians were inspired by your courage and your anticipation – anticipation of the future.
You desired freedom above all else. And you knew, once your freedom was safeguarded, it would define a prosperous fate for you.
And so it did.
We are all grateful for that courage of yours, which helped change history for the better.
Now, we find ourselves at an even more pivotal historic moment. Now, risks are even higher.
Now, all of us are facing a much more malicious Russia.
As Moscow tries to resurrect its old empire with the whole range of modern weapons, our Ukrainian courage also helps you. Our common unity is also a security guarantee for you. The resilience of our warriors is also your resilience. And our Ukrainian sense that Russia will not withstand if we keep striking, also confirms our common rightness. The rightness of our shared historical choice – to be independent. To be in Europe. To be among equals and therefore, peaceful.
This will happen. And to this end, we must do everything possible in maximum unity for as long as it takes to achieve our goal. There will be no more empire.
Those who instigated this aggression against Ukraine clearly envisioned how they wanted the first day after Ukraine to look.
They dream of humiliating our nation. They kill without hesitation. They deported hundreds of thousands of our people, adults and children. They wanted to erase everything our culture stands on.
They brutally torture our people – thousands held captive – simply to avenge Ukraine's existence. Such is the level of Russian evil.
And if a catastrophic day – the day after Ukraine – ever came to pass, Russia would ensure it continued. There would be a day after Moldova. Then, a day after the Baltics. A day after Poland… A day after many others.
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan already hear Russia disparaging their independence. Moscow has no respect for the nations of the Caucasus and there is a clear Russian desire to manipulate all.
And it is dangerous for everyone to stay silent, to stay aside or alone.
When everyone helps one, the freedom of each wins. This rule has worked repeatedly throughout history. It will work now too - for all of us.
Any empire is built on the cornerstone of freedom's definitive defeat, and Moscow needs to subjugate our state for this very reason.
But together, we are changing history for the better.
There won’t be a day after Ukraine. There will be a day after the war. After Putin.
It will be a day of our guaranteed security. And your inviolable freedom. And peaceful life for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Sweden. For all states whose fate Russia now tries to drown in doubt.
It will be a new day of opportunity for Belarus – an opportunity Belarus deserves.
A day of newfound strength for our entire Europe, which defending against Russian hybrid attacks is learning true unity… A unity that makes our continent a global defender of freedom. A unity, complete with Ukraine. With Ukraine in the European Union, with Ukraine in NATO, with Ukraine in peace.
Dear friends!
We all know the steps needed. We all know what we can lose and what we can gain. We all know the day we desire. And we must get our job done. We must do everything for the victory.
I thank you, the people of Lithuania, for everything, for supporting Ukraine. Thanks a lot and big applause to you! Thank you, Gitanas, my friend! I am thankful to your family, your loved ones, all people who have been standing with Ukraine for all these days and months of our war for freedom, our fight for independence! I thank you all for being here, for having Ukraine in your heart all these months and years of war. Thank you for standing with Ukraine!
Glory to you!
Glory to Ukraine!"
Glory to Ukraine! And shame to Republicans holding up funds.
"Our enemies will vanish..." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/books/review/our-enemies-will-vanish-yaroslav-trofimov.html
"No journalist has covered the war in Ukraine with greater knowledge, compassion, and insight than Yaroslav Trofimov, the chief foreign affairs correspondent of the Wall Street Journal.
Born and raised in Kyiv, Trofimov has written a powerful new book about the war entitled Our Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of Independence, which will be published by Penguin Press in January 2024.
Drawing on his vast experience covering wars and conflicts in various parts of the world since 2001, Trofimov explains how the people of Ukraine against all odds have withstood one of the most powerful militaries in the world and endured unspeakable horrors. His account captures the bravery of ordinary Ukrainians risking their lives to preserve their country's independence. In his book, Trofimov combines his first-hand experience at the front lines with profound military analysis, providing unique insight into all levels of Ukraine's fight for survival.
Please join Trofimov and Susan Glasser of the New Yorker for an engaging discussion of Our Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of Independence. A book signing and reception will follow the event. Copies will be available for purchase."
https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/01/11/our-enemies-will-vanish-book-talk-with-yaroslav-trofimov-event-8213
Bravo!! Right again.