By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker warned of potential military deployments in US cities, specifically blue states, as a means for President Trump to control future elections. This follows Trump’s call for Pritzker’s imprisonment and the ongoing deployment of Texas National Guard soldiers to Chicago despite local opposition. Pritzker believes Trump aims to normalize military presence and potentially station personnel near polling places to influence election outcomes, particularly in 2026. Furthermore, Pritzker responded defiantly to Trump’s threats, emphasizing his commitment to protecting his constituents.
Read the original article here
Pritzker Warns Trump Will Have Military Seize Ballot Boxes So He Can ‘Count the Votes Himself’ in Elections, a chilling prospect, understandably generates significant unease. The core worry revolves around the potential for orchestrated election interference, echoing tactics seen elsewhere, particularly in nations with a history of compromised electoral processes.
This fear crystallizes around several key actions: the potential use of the military to physically secure ballot boxes, effectively removing them from established democratic oversight. Then there’s the plan to direct the USPS to not handle mail-in ballots. This is coupled with the specter of road closures designed to limit access to polling places. These are potentially devastating moves.
Furthermore, there’s a concern about deliberate disruption, including false flag emergencies like bomb threats or active shooter incidents, strategically deployed to shutter polling locations. Also military presence outside polling places is being considered to intimidate voters.
A significant component of this narrative revolves around a perceived pattern of Trump’s behavior, characterized by a refusal to accept electoral outcomes and a willingness to employ underhanded tactics. This, coupled with the rhetoric of labeling opponents as “insurrectionists” or “terrorists,” suggests a calculated effort to undermine the legitimacy of elections.
The prospect of Trump counting the votes “himself,” as the warning states, is viewed with derision, yet carries a darker undertone. The ability of a man to count is a relevant point. This highlights a potential abuse of power where the integrity of the voting process is dismantled. The assumption is that Trump would not leave office, no matter the outcome.
Another major concern is the potential disenfranchisement of voters in specific areas. The fear is that these tactics would be targeted at states or cities where Democrats hold significant support, potentially skewing election results.
The conversation around this shifts between grave concerns and disbelief, capturing the emotional complexity. The potential consequences, including civil unrest or a complete erosion of democratic processes, are seen as the ultimate stakes.
The discussion veers between recognizing the gravity of the situation and the feeling of helplessness. One of the most common issues is what to do in the face of these issues. This illustrates a feeling of being overwhelmed.
A prevailing sentiment is that the GOP is effectively gone, replaced by a political entity aligned with Trump’s interests. The idea of a successor who is merely an “employee” of the Trump corporation further reinforces this concern.
The fundamental threat here is the erosion of fair and free elections. The notion that elections might be rendered meaningless, replaced by a carefully orchestrated façade of legitimacy, is a deeply troubling one.
There’s a palpable sense of urgency, with the suggestion that we are already in a compromised situation and must be ready to confront the worst-case scenarios. The feeling of not being able to take the power away from the people is common.