Posted on 02/20/2025 9:08:14 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
British Prime Minister immediately offered Volodymyr Zelensky affirmation over his democratic status after President Trump blasted Ukraine for cancelling its elections and enforcing martial law on its citizens.
Sir Keir Starmer spoke to Ukrainian President Zelensky overnight, with his Downing Street office revealing the Prime Minister had told the Ukrainian he is not a dictator and that it had been “perfectly reasonable” to suspend democracy because of the Russian invasion.
The comments follow Donald Trump airing his views on the state of Ukrainian democracy, saying if Ukraine’s leadership wants a seat at the table, the Ukrainian people should be consulted on who they will send to sit at the table. Later remarks were more strident — perhaps in response to Zelensky’s angry answer to the initial comments, and accusing Trump of repeating Russian “disinformation — and called Zelensky a dictator.
President Trump had said: “A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left… I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died”.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Starmer can sucky sucky long time G.I. Joe
Britain couldn’t even keep the Malvinas if the Argies invaded again.
The US had elections during wars, including the Civil War!
Zelensky not only canceled Constitutional mandated elections, he also closed all opposition media of all types, and opposition leaders have all been purged, either in exile or in prison. Churches that didn’t toe the Zelensky line have all be closed. Speech and thought police make regular arrests. How can anyone reasonably claim he is not a dictator?
This may be acceptable for His Majesty’s Government. But in the USA (where we are a Constitutional Republic and the House is up every 2 years & controls Revenue) the Elections are held anyway if there is a war on our soil. Other countries, not getting American taxpayer dollars, are sovereign and can do things their own way. In the USA we decided in 1776 that we were no longer going to follow the direction of His Majesty King George III or any British/English Monarch. Ours is a government that must have the consent of the governed to govern.
Europe is different in its history with having heads of State not having to bother with Elections during wartime against Russia. In 1812 the French Empire, under Emporer Napolean Bonaparte, was at War with Russia and they didn’t bother with having Elections to make sure their leadership had the consent of the governed. As a result the Grand Army of Napolean’s numbered approximately 600,000 soldiers and they had a 20% survival rate of approximately 120,000 soldiers with the other 480,000 perishing in Russia. In 1941 the Chancellor of Germany, a national socialism party member named Adolph Hitler, didn’t bother with Elections either during wartime when he was at war with Russia (Soviet Union). So, Starmer is correct about the precedent in Europe. A lot of German women didn’t get ballots to vote in Elections. Instead they got memorials to remember their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands who paid the ultimate price of sacrifice for their beloved “no wartime elections” leader.
Personally, I don’t think our tax dollars should go to someone not having Elections like Zelinskyy, Hitler, or Bonaparte. Our American tax dollars shoulds follow American principles. In 1812, 1814, 1846, 1862, and 1864 we had Elections. It was especially vital during wartime to ensure that the government officials represented the will of the people.
You know, like America did in WW II.
Oh - wait...
This is not surprising. Starmer knows the British people are not happy with him and he is looking to postpone local elections in nine councils:
“Farage blasts ‘terrified’ Starmer after local elections AXED as Reform leader predicts tidal wave”. https://www.gbnews.com/politics/nigel-farage-blasts-keir-starmer-local-elections-axe-reform-uk
The USA did NOT cancel elections during WWII.
the people of Iraq had elections in the middle of a violent insurgency that threatened to kill them if they voted and they bravely did vote...it can be done...
It’s also reasonable to let Europe police and pay for security for their own continent.
Starmer is representative of the worst breed of U.K. unrepentant Marxist totalitarian reptile and America will end up having to treat him very harshly.
For those who don’t follow UK news, municipal elections in Britain are being canceled in areas where the Reform party is popular.
Censorship of political opponents?
Fine.
Jailing of political opponents?
A good idea.
Stealing elections from populist candidates?
Makes sense.
Cancelling elections?
A-OK.
This new Europe seems a lot like the old USSR....
Ahhh, yes, but the UK didn't suspend the rule of the King during the second world war.
Zelensky is an authoritarian who has banned elections and closed Christian houses of worship.
So if Putin did it, would he be like Churchill?
War time suspension of elections? Could never happen here in the US...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/606
Well, dang.
So, when has the US EVER cancelled a Presidential election? We allowed FDR to keep running until death, because of WWII (ignoring precedent and eventually changing the Constitution)... but I cannot recall that we even cancelled one... did we even delay one??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.