You keep the receipts for about 4 years and you speak up one minute after the government changes. You get it done long before the following election.
All it needs is some kind of emergency, genuine, imaginary or self-inflicted, and ‘Oh no, we can’t possibly hold elections until our time of national crisis is over.’
You need to lay off the MAGA talking points.
But I can very well believe that the consensus is virtually unanimous.
Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014 was almost as 'peaceful' as the German takeover of the Sudetenland in the 1930s.
All in all, my comment is just a convoluted way that sometimes the price to pay for peace is too high.
In addition, there's also pre-commitments that make everything more complicated: as a potential victim of invasion, you might want to pre-commit to defending long beyond any reasonable threshold, in the hopes that this will deter invasion. Sometimes your bluff gets called, and then you need to actually fight to maintain your credibility.
Compare mutual assured destruction in nuclear war: nuking Moscow in retaliation for the Soviets nuking New York isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead. But it's what you pre-commit to in order to deter the bombing of New York in the first place.
THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want.
>not least because polling stations become targets.
I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candidate who will de-facto offer to surrender, and not for Zelensky with his busifications.
Totally outrageous concern.
All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
Well, that, and also the constitution doesn't allow election during wartime.
Because he will interfere, like he has across Europe. He is a tyrant and has only his own interests at heart.
Nobody is a strong word. Lots of people want elections, especially in wartime. And lots of other people don't want elections.
But it doesn't matter: the constitution of Ukraine doesn't allow elections during wartime.
I think by default constitutional rules should be followed, unless there are very good reasons not to.
> [...] I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them.
Doesn't even need to be their best interest, really. The Ukrainian government had and has its fair share of flaws. (They exist in the real world after all.) But it's enough that they are a lot better than Russia.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5159951-ukraine-pre...
Zelensky is not seizing power. Elections suspended during active, home-turf wartime is normal.
They might not even need an excuse. They could just not hold elections and say "what are you going to do about it?"
https://apnews.com/article/congress-save-act-citizenship-vot...
As your article discusses, requiring that proof means paperwork, paperwork some people might not have (e.g. wives who changed their names).
For example in the UK, the Windrush scandal 1) deported British subjects because the government made irrational demands for documents to prove that they're citizens.
I'm happy to bet. What odds to do you offer?
Or maybe just all future times: the Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission,8 reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3...