By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a joint Oval Office appearance, Donald Trump jested about the possibility of suspending U.S. elections during wartime, referencing a past point of pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump questioned if elections could be halted if the U.S. were at war in 3 1/2 years. Zelenskyy, who was with Trump, laughed and said he “liked” the idea. Zelenskyy also stated that he was open to holding elections, but they would need safety measures and a truce on the battlefield, sky, and sea to make them possible.
Read the original article here
Trump Jokes About Canceling Elections in Wartime, and it’s clear this isn’t just a throwaway line. It’s hard to ignore the gravity of such a statement, especially when delivered in the context of a joint appearance with the Ukrainian president. To casually suggest the suspension of elections due to war, even as a so-called “joke,” raises serious red flags. It normalizes an idea that strikes at the very heart of democratic principles.
The notion of potentially delaying or canceling elections is not a novel one, and it’s important to recognize that the US Constitution itself sets clear guidelines for this. Historically, the United States has always held elections, even during periods of war, making it a cornerstone of our democracy. But, the fact that Trump would even utter these words, within this context, is alarming.
It seems the reaction to this wasn’t one of dismissing it out of hand, but of concern. The phrase “testing the waters” pops to mind, suggesting this wasn’t simply a slip of the tongue. It was, perhaps, a trial balloon, an effort to gauge public and media response to an idea that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The fear is that he’s already laying the groundwork, dropping hints and testing the reaction to see what he can get away with.
Many also feel that this is a sign of greater things to come, given the history of this former president. The idea of him leaving office peacefully seems distant at this point. There is a lot of worry about the steps that he is taking and the people that he is surrounding himself with.
This extends beyond mere political rhetoric. There’s a deep concern regarding the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for authoritarian tactics. Suggesting the possibility of canceling elections, even jokingly, plays on existing anxieties and contributes to an environment of distrust and uncertainty. The suggestion implies that he would do anything to maintain control, and many people seem to believe this is true.
The reactions show a belief that this is the beginning of a larger game. The suggestion to halt elections during wartime is not viewed as a joke. Instead, it is seen as a strategic maneuver to stay in office, using war or national crisis as justification. The concern is that this “joke” is the start of a campaign to change the framework of elections.
A critical issue is the role of the media in how this is portrayed. Instead of dismissing it as a mere jest, it’s crucial to analyze the intent and context, recognizing that this could very well be a strategy rather than an off-the-cuff remark. The importance of careful scrutiny of these statements is highlighted and underscores the need for responsible journalism.
The focus shifts to the importance of taking these statements seriously. The perception is that he’s already laid the groundwork for actions and will stop at nothing to stay in power, making this much more than just a casual comment.
It’s not just about the words themselves. The sentiment highlights the dangers of normalizing authoritarian tendencies and the importance of defending democratic institutions. The suggestion, whether serious or not, should be examined carefully and with an understanding of its potential to erode the democratic process.
The consensus points to the idea that he is not joking. His history suggests a pattern of behavior. This is not a simple joke, but a calculated maneuver, a step in a larger game to retain power at any cost. The emphasis on taking the comment seriously and viewing it as a symptom of a more significant issue highlights the need for vigilance and a commitment to protecting democratic principles.