Summary
Romania’s electoral commission barred far-right candidate Calin Georgescu from the presidential election without explanation.
Georgescu, who led polls with 40%, called the move “a direct blow to democracy” and plans to appeal. His supporters protested in Bucharest.
The constitutional court annulled his prior election win over alleged Russian interference, which he denies. He faces legal issues, including accusations of financing violations and extremist ties.
A vocal Trump supporter, Georgescu received backing from Trump officials, including Elon Musk and JD Vance, who condemned Romania’s actions.
A vocal Trump supporter, Georgescu received backing from Trump officials, including Elon Musk and JD Vance,
Romania, good job.
Why doesn’t Romania want their political system and economy destabilized because of morons?
fascists deserve to be barred from oxygen
Well, on one hand, I like the far-right getting some institutional push-back. On the other hand, I’m a little concerned with both the state of democracy — that such a candidate could get so many votes — and the disregard for the people’s vote — while there may have been significant Russian interference, to what extent should the courts intervene with what seems to be a genuinely popular candidate?
It’s a shitshow if you look at it closely. Basically he got so many votes because the ruling party wanted to try the pied piper strategy that gave the US Trump. That included giving his campaign illegal support, which invalidated the previous election. And now they’re just outright going to ban him. They’re just throwing away democracy and pretending they’re saving democracy.
Not that I want the guy to win or be anywhere near power, but it’s a strategy that will backfire eventually and has in many countries. But I guess the alternative is to actually deliver for the people and that’s obviously unacceptable.
It’s a tough question but I don’t think it’s hypocritical.
A good government serves two roles: (a) to protect the rights of its citizens, and (b) to enact policy that is representative of its citizens (as shown by popular vote and opinion, usually). But no policy should be allowed to supersede a real right, no matter how popular.
So if a candidate is going to subjugate rights as a matter of policy, that government is right to bar them, even if that is undemocratic. Minds can differ on what rights have primacy, and how nuanced those rights are, but I think it’s coherent.
This is the most reasonable assessment in my opinion. The very same people down voting you would go apeshit if the Supreme Court barred what they deemed a far left candidate. If people don’t like right-wing politicians then they should demand a candidate passionate about popular policies to oppose them. However barring or attempting to, like Democrats did with Bernie, & has other candidates during debates & on the ballots, helped give us Trump.
