Dem
51
GOP
49
Wow, did we get a LOT of questions about the Colorado decision.
And if you're looking for another hint as to yesterday's headline theme, we'll tell you that there were exactly 56 possibilities that we might have used. However, a whole bunch of them could never have worked, and the list got even more restrictive once we decided that homophones were off limits (so, no "Orr" in place of "or," no "Byrns" in place of "burns," no "Polk" in place of "poke").
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I think I know the answer to this but wanted to hear an expert opinion from you. After the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible to run for president based on the 14th Amendment, head of the RNC, Ronna McDaniel, promptly declared it "election interference."
That particular phrase has been on Trump's lips a lot, as well those of most Republican elected officials, but what the hell is "election interference?" I know what the Republicans are trying to imply but what (in deference to the holiday season) the fig is it really? When the Republicans use it as a rebuttal against any legal woes against Trump, they make it sound like it's a crime worse than murder or treason, but it's not an actual crime, is it? So why are people on both sides acting like it's the Holiest of Holies? Given how the Republicans use the phrase, shouldn't Representatives James Comer (R-KY) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) be just as guilty of "election interference" as Jack Smith, Fani Willis, etc? Why aren't the media and Democrats pointing this out every chance they get?(V) & (Z) answer: It is exactly what you think. Knowing full well the extent of Donald Trump's crimes, his enablers are doing everything they can to give the impression that "everyone does it" and that the former president is being unfairly singled out for prosecution. "Election interference" is vague to the point that it covers everything, and yet says nothing.
And there is little value in hammering on the lies, hypocrisy, offensiveness, etc. of what Trump and his enablers have to say. Anyone who is listening already knows, and so harping on that stuff just gives it oxygen.
G.A. in Berkeley, CA, asks: The majority four Democratic-appointed Colorado Supreme Court justices have ruled that Donald Trump participated in an insurrection on January 6, 2021, and that under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, he cannot be placed on the 2024 presidential ballot in that state. Three of their colleagues, also Democratic-appointed, dissented, but apparently not on the basis that Trump did not participate in an insurrection. The matter will inevitably be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Writing for Politico, conservative former Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig writes that the Colorado Supreme Court got it right, and that he expects the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm. I'm much more skeptical, given the history of partisan decisions rendered by the current Republican Supreme Court majority.
But suppose that the U.S. Supreme Court does affirm, and that other states then also bar Trump from the ballot, skewing the Republican primaries and the 2024 presidential general election. The Colorado Supreme Court justices have already received the expected death threats that constitute the usual American discourse today. Then there's the events of January 6 themselves.
How would "disappointed" Trump devotees likely respond to a court ruling knocking Trump out the election?(V) & (Z) answer: Based on the response to the Colorado decision, the first thing Republicans would presumably do is switch from primaries to caucuses. Caucuses are not limited by any law or court decision, and so attendees can pick Trump or Ronald McDonald or Santa Claus as their candidate.
These acts of defiance would allow Trump, though barred from appearing on primary ballots, to nonetheless claim enough delegates to "win" the Republican nomination. What would happen at the convention is anyone's guess. On one hand, the Party is very Trumpy, and the leadership has shown no ability or willingness to stand up to him. On the other hand, to nominate him, assuming he is ineligible, would mean handing the presidency to Joe Biden on a silver platter.
Or maybe not. Even if the Supreme Court ruled Trump ineligible, some Republican secretaries of state might put him on the ballot anyway and he could win those states' electors who then cast their electoral votes for Trump. Please don't ask us what would happen then because we don't know and neither does anyone else.
Should the RNC plow ahead with a Trump nomination, there could well be an outbreak of violence on Election Day. On the other hand, elections are decentralized, unlike the counting of EVs on 1/6. Further, by that time, Trump's supporters would have had 4-5 months to get used to the situation. They won't like it, but sudden shocks are much more likely to ignite the fuse as opposed to slow burns that unfold over half a year. So maybe there wouldn't be violence.
P.B. in Chicago, IL, asks: Let's assume Colorado wins and Trump is removed from the primary ballot. Does that automatically remove him from the General Election ballot in Colorado? Or does someone have to sue again to get that done?
(V) & (Z) answer: If he's ineligible, he's ineligible. The only way for that status to change is if the Supreme Court intervenes, or someone sues successfully to have him put on the general election ballot.
A.S. in Calgary, AB, Canada, asks: Please correct my thinking in this. If Article II, Section 1 of the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution gives states the power to decide how they choose their electors, and by extension, the procedures for conducting presidential elections within their borders (with flexibility granted to states that encompass their authority to establish criteria for candidate eligibility), then what right exactly does the U.S. Supreme Court have to supersede Colorado's decision to disallow Trump's candidacy? Don't they have to accept, no matter what their interpretation of the Constitution, that in this case and on this subject the Supreme Court of Colorado has the final say here?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are a great many bases for the Supreme Court to get involved, not the least of which is that it's a constitutional question that involves national, in addition to state, interests. What would happen, for example, if Mississippi declared that Black candidates were no longer eligible for that state's ballot?
If you want something more precise, however, how about this? In ASARCO LLC v. Kadish (1989), the Court declared:
When a state court has issued a judgment in a case where plaintiffs in the original action had no standing to sue under the principles governing the federal courts, we may exercise our jurisdiction on certiorari if the judgment of the state court causes direct, specific, and concrete injury to the parties who petition for our review.Trump and his supporters are injured, so to the Supreme Court they may go.
T.B. In Leon County, FL, asks: If the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado decision, would the other Republican candidates who are defending Donald Trump become disqualified as they are supporting an insurrectionist?
(V) & (Z) answer: The Fourteenth Amendment clearly speaks to supporting insurrection, not insurrectionists. That said, there are clearly some folks who are watching Trump's case very closely, since their fate might hang in the balance, as well. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) leaps to mind.
J.S. in Palm Springs, CA, asks: Is there some reason that the Supreme Court could not require a criminal conviction to make a ruling on the case? in other words, until there is a criminal conviction, Donald Trump must remain on the ballot.
(V) & (Z) answer: The first problem is that there isn't really a crime called "insurrection," and none of the 91 things Trump is charged with is "insurrection." The closest is probably "obstructing an official proceeding."
The second problem is that none of the people who were disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment in the past had been convicted of "insurrection." Several of them had been convicted of no crime at all.
B.M. in Arlington, MA, asks: Is it reasonable to ask that justices recuse themselves from litigation involving the president who appointed them?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not really, because a president, and his administration, have a LOT of business before the Court. If the current president's appointees were expected to recuse, it could be difficult for the Court to function. Taken to extremes, consider that by the end of Franklin D. Roosevelt's term, ALL of the justices were FDR appointees.
B.P. in Mill Creek, WA, asks: With so many trials going on with direct connections to TFG, and so much publicity regarding threats to those involved in these trials, do either of you suspect some cases will be rejected based on fears of threats from the MAGA faithful? And on a related noted, should the cases be heard, particularly by the Supreme Court, might a justice or two (or more) cave to those fears and find for TFG even if they believe he is guilty?
(V) & (Z) answer: Any judge who allows themselves to be influenced in this way should immediately resign their commission.
It is true that some members of Congress are apparently unwilling to stand up to Trump, fearing for themselves and their families. However, federal judges are provided with security details, as are some state judges. Protection can also be given, or increased, when circumstances warrant. In addition, members of Congress are considerably more public-facing than judges are. Judges don't have to meet with constituents, do town halls, march in parades, go to country fairs, or do other things that would allow a nut with a gun to take a shot.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: I was surprised you did not cover the revelation Thursday night that a recording exists with Trump pressuring Michigan election officials to help him steal the 2020 election in Michigan. Is this not much of a story in your view?
(V) & (Z) answer: We already wrote about different, although undoubtedly related, shenanigans in Michigan, and we will write something about the latest revelations Monday.
That said, "damning evidence about Trump has come to light" is getting pretty close to "dog bites man" territory. At this point, the evidence of his guilt appears to be abundant and unambiguous, and the real question is when that evidence will be brought to bear in court.
M.M. in Newbury Park, CA, asks: Generally speaking, if a judge orders someone—like say, Rudy Giuliani—to pay a plaintiff more money than they actually have, are they allowed to keep any to live on? For example, can Giuliani's apartment and condo be seized and sold rendering him homeless? Would he be forced to crash on friends' couches and live on Social Security checks?
I am certainly not feeling sorry for Giuliani, but it seems like these people (O.J. Simpson, for example) always seem to go on to live happy lives in nice houses with expensive golf club memberships even after losing cases like this.(V) & (Z) answer: The laws vary from state to state, but generally, certain things are judgment-proof. Pensions and Social Security and things like that are usually exempt, which is what allows O.J. Simpson to keep living large (his NFL pension is $25,000/month). If someone is actively employed, the majority of their income is generally exempt, as well.
On the other hand, most assets, including Giuliani's condo, are generally fair game. Typically, the only assets that are protected are those essential to the person's employment (for example, their automobile, their power tools if they are in construction, their computer if they are an accountant, their books if they are a lawyer, etc.)
If Giuliani can make his bankruptcy stick (he filed Thursday), then he would likely be able to save additional assets, like his primary residence. But since his debt is due to willful, malicious conduct, he probably won't be allowed to go bankrupt on it.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Yes, I understand all the predictions—that Rudy Giuliani's type of malicious behavior against the poll workers takes precedence over certain bankruptcy protections, yada yada. But, assuming that all this is true, has such a penalty from one individual to another, $148M, ever actually been paid? If not, what is the largest amount that has been paid?
(V) & (Z) answer: All of the really big defamation payments (not judgments, but payments) were made by institutional actors, like Fox ($787.5 million), Dow Jones ($222.7 million), Disney ($177 million) and Oberlin College ($33 million). Although see the next question and answer.
In general, individuals who have that kind of money are clever enough not to put it at risk by saying actionable things. So, these various far-right nitwits are trailblazers, of a sort.
J.K. in Boston, MA, asks: In thinking about the massive judgment against Rudy Guiliani, it occurred to me that Alex Jones is on the hook for a similarly large amount for lying about Sandy Hook. How is that guy not driving a beat up Honda Civic like I am? It seems to me he's everywhere, hocking his garbage products and traveling the world. Shouldn't every penny he makes go to those poor families in Connecticut? Will Guiliani end up the same way, somehow living large while claiming bankruptcy? I just don't understand how legal judgments have any effect if nobody ever actually pays anything. And it seems like the more you owe, the less likely you are to pay. Thoughts?
Also, you wrote about how the Biden 17 will have to defend their votes in the upcoming presidential year election. They are the 17 Republicans holding seats in districts that Biden won. The thing is, I'm like 90% sure you've previously talked about them being the Biden 18. What happened, did one of them retire?(V) & (Z) answer: Alex Jones' secret (in contrast to, say, O.J. Simpson) is not that he's got judgment-proof income, but that he's managed to drag things out with appeals and other trickery. That said, he's only 49, and he's still got an active "career," such as it is, and so he has motivation to try to resolve the claims against him. Meanwhile, the Sandy Hook families also have motivation to negotiate, since even 10% or 15% of the judgment they won is big-time money. So, it appears that Jones and his victims are close to reaching agreement that he'll pay at least $55 million over the next 10 years to settle all claims against him.
Giuliani is 30 years older than Jones, his high-earning days appear to be over, and he's got other judgments coming down the pike. So, he may try to drag things out indefinitely. One of these days, however, the debt will no longer be a liability of Rudy Giuliani, and instead will be a liability of the estate of Rudolph W. Giuliani. At that point, it will be considerably easier for some people to get paid, depending on their place in line.
As to the Biden 18, one of them was "George Santos." So, when he left, it became the Biden 17.
M.C. in Newton, MA, asks: The item "The War in the Middle East Expands to California" discusses Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-CA) position calling for a "ceasefire" between Israel and Hamas that would be permanent and unconditional. That sounds like "surrender" to me. Is there an actual difference, or is it a way of saying surrender without using the word?
(V) & (Z) answer: "Surrender" means accepting defeat and usually, with it, accepting some number of conditions demanded by the victor. A ceasefire, by contrast, allows everyone involved to save face and to avoid punishment. So, the two options are substantially different in terms of both appearances and actual impact. Most of the United States' wars since World War II have ended with a ceasefire, and not a surrender.
D.A.B. in Chicago, IL, asks: For states with open primaries, would it be advisable for Democrats to vote Republican and for anyone but Trump?
(V) & (Z) answer: Trump isn't going to lose many (or any) primaries, barring a major change in circumstances, no matter how many never Trumpers, crossover Democrats, etc. vote for someone else. So, if you use your vote on a non-Trump Republican, it would be to try to give them a small boost for a 2028 run. In other words, if you think that, say, Nikki Haley would be better for the country in 4 years, and you help her finish second in Illinois, then that will help her potentially become a frontrunner the next time around.
That said, the dominant narrative right now is "Democrats hate Joe Biden." So you're probably better off voting for him, with an eye toward demonstrating that the hatred has been overstated, and he's still strong with the base.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: This week, The Washington Post had a prominent (main) headline: "Biden said to be increasingly frustrated by poll numbers."
Further down in much smaller font is an item "Trump reprises dehumanizing language." Shouldn't the first line be something like "Trump channels Hitler" with Biden's frustration being at most one of the secondary item? And this is a paper accused of having a left-wing bias? It seems like they go out of their way not to give the President even a fair break. Maybe that's part of why his numbers are abysmal?(V) & (Z) answer: There are two things going on here, we think. The first—and we almost had an item this week on the subject—is that "Biden is in trouble" has become the narrative du jour in the media, even the non-right-wing media. Good news for the President is almost invariably ignored or downplayed, or even turned into "bad news." Note that it is entirely possible that once this strain has run its course, you could see a long run of stories about how Biden is surging or recovering or whatever.
The second is the problem we allude to above. If you ignore Donald Trump's outlandish rhetoric, you're normalizing it. If you give it attention, you're giving him free PR and playing his game. It's a tough choice, and neither options feels right.
K.F.K. in CleElum, WA, asks: My greatest fear, should Donald Trump become our next president, is for my son, and others like him who are naturalized citizens. With Trump's latest rhetoric about immigrants and his past forays into considering changes to the legal status of naturalized citizens (as in, making it easier to deport them) I am wondering what the process would actually be to change citizen status for an entire category of U.S. citizens? Or, more bluntly, what are the chances Trump could actually do this?
(V) & (Z) answer: The chances are zero. As a legal/civic matter, it would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would never, ever pass. As a practical matter, there are something like 25 million naturalized citizens in the United States. Finding them, capturing them, and ejecting them would be an impossible undertaking, especially in the face of massive resistance from the targeted individuals themselves, their friends and family, and their supporters in the wider community.
Remember that most of Trump's policy "proposals" are just hot air, as he tells the base what they want to hear. In 2016, he promised to round up all the undocumented immigrants and eject them. And how did that go? He made zero progress, and really zero effort, and that is on a task that is several magnitudes more doable than outlawing and ejecting all the naturalized citizens.
Also, don't forget that Trump's wife is a naturalized citizen.
R.M. in Bryan, TX, asks: I have a feeling that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Donald Trump is likely to underperform compared to expectations (e.g., current polls). What do you think are the chances and the consequences if it comes to pass? I'm trying to rein in my aptitude for wishful thinking.
(V) & (Z) answer: He may underperform, but he's unlikely to lose either, much less both. And even if he does, well, they are small and wonky states that can be "gamed" by politicians in various ways. So, non-Trump victories in those places will be dismissed as anomalies, unless someone manages to string together 4-5 wins in a row.
G.H. in Branchport, NY, asks: I know it's unlikely due to ego, but wonder about your thoughts if Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) did drop out, say after Iowa, where his voters would go? It would be nice to think they would gravitate to Nikki Haley, a more sane and practical republican, but I suspect it would boost Donald Trump more.
(V) & (Z) answer: There appear to be two groups of DeSantis voters, and they appear to be of roughly equal size. Half of them are MAGA types who are worried about electing a president who might go to jail. The other half are people who are trying to find a viable alternative to Trump because they want him gone. So, if the Governor drops out, then it will probably help Trump and Haley in equal measure, which means it really wouldn't help either of them.
J.W. in Newton, MA, asks: I take some comfort in your arguments that early horse-race polls and approval ratings aren't meaningful predictors for November 2024. That said, you must admit the Democrats' position is reminiscent of 2015-16, when the GOP used congressional "show" hearings and a steady drumbeat of propaganda from
PravdaFox to convince just enough swing voters that a highly qualified Democratic nominee was Satan incarnate. Sure, it's early, and Biden has the advantages of incumbency and maleness, but his polls are awful. What are the chances that the damage to Biden is permanent and enough to swing just enough votes? I'd say they are fairly high.(V) & (Z) answer: It's certainly possible that Biden is fatally wounded, but we wouldn't say the chances are "fairly high." A year is a VERY long time in politics. Keep in mind also that in 2016, Donald Trump was a cipher, and many people hoped that voting for an unknown commodity would produce a pleasant surprise. Now, voters know exactly what they are getting. Oh, and this time, he might well be a convicted felon by Election Day.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: You wrote: "although we do know that when [Donald Trump] was living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in D.C., [Melania Trump] was mostly living with her parents and son in Potomac, MD, 15 miles northwest of the White House." When did we know that? I don't remember seeing that reported anywhere. Give more details on when this happened and how this worked.
(V) & (Z) answer: It was rumored for a long time, and was first formally reported by the International Business Times in February 2020. The IBT was persuaded to run with the story based on the fact that Barron Trump was attending St. Andrews Episcopal School in Potomac, which is close to his grandparents' house, but is more than half an hour from the White house. Thereafter, the arrangement was confirmed by several reporters, including Michael Wolff.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: You note, I think correctly, that Mazi Melesa Pilip may well be more liberal than her Democratic opponent for NY-03. I know I'm asking you to speculate here, but what do you think will happen if she is elected? Will she fall into line and vote with the Republicans even on their most far-right bills? Sometimes (or maybe even always) vote with the Democrats? Switch parties entirely?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would bet a large sum of money she will fall into line and become a loyal GOP backbencher. The number of Republican members of the House who have rebelled against Trumpism in the past 8 years can be counted on one hand with fingers left over. And none of those who did (Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, etc.) were freshman members.
D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Obviously, fascism is a disaster for those deemed to be "the other." But I have doubts it actually provides much benefit to the baton-wielders either. I suspect if the Radical American Right (or any of the similar European groups) were able to achieve their desired goals, that wouldn't actually improve their situation. Is there any historical evidence that would indicate benefits to the common foot soldier, or is all the gain simply at the top like in North Korea?
(V) & (Z) answer: Fascism is rooted in the notion that the state is supreme to all else, and that individual members of the body public are mere cogs in the larger machine. Any citizen who supports fascism, and then is surprised to find themselves relegated to second-class status, apparently did not study their history. The benefits of fascism always, always, always flow predominantly to those at the very top of the pyramid.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Recently, I've seen the American flag at half staff for some time now at public places. I was thinking this was in honor of Rosalynn Carter and Sandra Day O'Connor, who both passed away.
Is there a formal flag protocol for former First Ladies and former Supreme Court Justices?(V) & (Z) answer: The U.S. flag code has recommendations for what should happen when various dignitaries die. For example, 30 days half-staff/half-mast for former presidents; 10 days for former VPs, chief justices and speakers of the house; and so forth. There is no recommendation for first ladies, however.
This said, the final decision lies with the sitting president. And these days, when someone of prominence dies, there's almost always a presidential proclamation setting the time during which the flag will be flown at half staff. The proclamation for Carter ordered flags to be flown half-staff/half-mast from the date of death (Nov. 25) to the date of interment (Nov. 29). The proclamation for Sandra Day O'Connor ordered flags to be flown half-staff/half-mast only on the date of internment (Dec. 19).
State governors can also issue half-staff/half-mast orders within their states. In your home state of New York, flags were lowered on Dec. 20 to honor East Fishkill Police Officer Daniel P. DiDato, who was killed in the line of duty.
K.H. in Kerrville, TX, asks: What is your opinion of the Ken Burns documentary series The Civil War? Is it the best documentary about the Civil War—or are there others you would recommend?
Secondarily, what is your opinion of Shelby Foote as an author and historian of the Civil War? Would you recommend his books?(V) & (Z) answer: The Civil War is the best Civil War documentary out there, at least in part due to lack of competition. That is to say, trying to distill the story of the war down to 8-10 hours is such a daunting task, and Burns did such a good job with it, that nobody has really tried to knock him off his pedestal. There are more focused documentaries, on particular people or battles usually, but they are mostly dreck made for the people who watch the Military History Channel.
This is not to say The Civil War is perfect; far from it. Needless to say, when you are condensing things down as much as Burns was, and you're also trying to maintain a coherent dramatic narrative, you're going to leave a lot of stuff out, particularly social history. If you are really interested; you can pick up a copy of Ken Burns's The Civil War: Historians Respond, which has detailed critiques of the documentary from various perspective (women's history, military history, economic history), etc. The book was meant for a popular audience, so it's entirely accessible and readable.
In addition, while Burns included Barbara Fields to give the emancipationist perspective of the war ("The key story was the end of the slavery and the liberation of millions held in bondage"), he really gave too much screen time to Shelby Foote because Foote was charming and knew how to deliver a ripping yarn. Unfortunately, he's also pretty Lost Cause-y. He wasn't a racist, but he did tend to view the Confederacy through rose-colored glasses. Or maybe gray-colored glasses. And Burns himself leans heavily to the reconciliationist perspective; that the political issues of the war really aren't worth worrying too much about, and that the important thing is that the country came together afterward, stronger than it had been. It is instructive that the final image of the documentary is (white) Confederate veterans and (white) Union veterans shaking hands at the 50th anniversary reenactment of Gettysburg.
The documentary is also more than 30 years old, and so is showing its age in some ways. For example, the various talking heads make liberal use of the word "Blacks," which is not in step with modern usage ("Black people" is preferred). It's problematic enough that when (Z) shows clips from the documentary to his Civil War courses, he gives a disclaimer beforehand.
As to Foote, he's kind of a Lost Cause-r, as noted. If you really want a narrative of the Civil War to read, then get Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Not only is it 25 years more recent, McPherson is actually a trained historian, whereas Foote was not. Alternatively, if you want a narrative of the Civil War that reads kinda like a novel, and was written in the 1960s, then get Bruce Catton's The Army of the Potomac Trilogy.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: After Donald Trump's latest comments, it seems quite likely that he would have gotten along with Adolf Hitler. On the other hand, Trump only talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk (at least until now), therefore Trump isn't a real fascist. So what would have happened if Donald Trump had been president in the 1940s? I mean, would the U.S. have been a member of the Axis powers? And what would have been the outcome of World War II if Trump had been president then?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is inconceivable that the U.S. would have joined the Axis during World War II. American culture was too pro-British and too anti-German for that.
The actual fascists of that era—your Charles Lindberghs and Henry Fords—acknowledged this reality, and so what they pushed for was non-intervention. Had they had a friendly audience in the White House, in Trump, then the U.S. likely would not have turned the diplomatic pressure on Japan up to 10 in 1941, and so likely would not have been attacked at Pearl Harbor.
It's hard to imagine the U.S. could have remained neutral throughout the entire war, but maybe until mid- or late-1943. Would that delay have been enough to hand victory to the Axis? The people who wrote the Star Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" thought so, but we are skeptical. The combined might of the U.S.S.R. and U.K. might not have been enough to bring Japan to its knees, but surely was enough to defeat Germany, even with delayed U.S. entry.
A.B. in Reston, VA, asks: You wrote: "invading Poland (which, of course, happened before the invasion of France), pretty much sealed Hitler's doom, particularly once he hit France, too. Taking even a part of Poland was too much a threat to the U.S.S.R."
Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. signed the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact and then both invaded Poland, partitioning it between them. Wouldn't that imply that Hitler's fatal mistake was attacking the U.S.S.R. in Operation Barbarossa, instead of attacking Poland? If he had stopped at Poland, would Germany have then faced a single front in the West and kept the U.S.S.R. as (an uneasy) ally, potentially then "winning" World War II? Or did attacking Poland somehow force a war with the U.S.S.R. also?(V) & (Z) answer: It's a little complicated, but the following things are true: (1) Germany and the U.S.S.R. had a tense relationship for many years prior to World War II; (2) Poland was the buffer that allowed leaders on both sides to breathe more easily; (3) Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both maniacs bent on world domination.
The upshot is that neither side had any intention of honoring Molotov-Ribbentrop long-term. Each was just buying time; the Germans so they could crush France and avoid a two-front war, the Russians so they could subjugate northern Europe and also properly re-arm. That means that signing the pact was a de facto commitment by Hitler to eventually (and unwisely) invade Russia. Operation Barbarossa was jusy paying off a check that had already been written.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, asks: I was horrified by a story on the news this evening about an organization called PragerU, and "educational" videos being used in schools in some states (Florida for one, naturally). Seems they want to teach "white exceptionalism."
Who is this Prager guy? Care to weigh in?(V) & (Z) answer: Prager is a far-right radio host and activist, and he created PragerU as a "corrective" to the alleged liberal bias of the educational establishment. Any teacher who uses PragerU videos in their courses should be ashamed, either because they don't recognize propaganda when they see it, or because they do recognize propaganda, and are willing to use their position of power to impose it on their students.
B.C. in Forest Park, IL, asks: I've noticed that (Z)'s pieces are, on the whole, fairly positive, while (V) is quite the cynic. Do you guys disagree with each other about the current state of U.S.? It appears that (V) is consistently the bearer of bad news while (Z) is not, and I struggle to believe that is a coincidence.
(V) & (Z) answer: There's probably some of that, but an even bigger reason for the dichotomy is that we try not to duplicate each other. So, if (V) writes some "bad news for Biden" pieces on Monday, (Z) is likely to write some "good news for Biden" pieces on Tuesday.
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
M.B. in St. Paul, MN, asks: Can you—or your readers—make me feel better about the state of the world these days? I look at my 2-year-old son and I can't help but be terrified by what the future holds. The Mideast, Trump, Putin. Sometimes it's too much, and maybe we could all use a little hand holding.
We specifically chose this because Christmas is coming up, and we've decided to run the responses on Christmas itself. That will allow us to present them more effectively.
Here is the question for next week:
A.W. in Chicago, IL, asks: I've got a toe (maybe even a whole foot) in the world of competitive trivia. I've been doing Learned League for a few years now; there's also a new league called Par.Live that's proving to be fun, and I was recently able to take a second swipe at trivia's brass ring on Jeopardy! Anyway, I've been wondering how much overlap there is between that world and Electoral-Vote.com's readership. I suspect those of us drawn to your site are a generally curious bunch who can retain and recall bits of information in the way that's useful in trivia, but would I find any of them on LL or in those other places?
Submit your answers here!