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.

There is strong legal backing to this. Romania bars anyone with ties to or rhetoric similar to the Iron Guard (Romanian fascists) from running. Georgescu has strong ties to them, and he’s not even the only politician barred from running due to this for this election (Sosoaca).

Paradox of tolerance. Don’t fall for it. Fascists do not now, and will never, get the benefit of the doubt.

It’s a tough call to make, isn’t it? Baring a candidate is inherently undemocratic, surely in a perfect democracy any candidate who is receiving votes should be considered. However given the current state of global politics, it’s also equally true that any candidate who is being manipulated by an outside government (such as allegedly Russia/USA in this example) should be restricted for the very same reasoning of allowing the voters to have their say without interference or manipulation by people who have an interest in the election being decided undemocraticly.

Ultimately, the decision to prevent any candidate, popular or not, is one that should not be taken lightly. And yet must also be a decision that can and should be made under the right conditions to protect the democratic nature of elections.

I sincerely hope that the people who made the decision in this case explain their reasoning publicly, and have a very good justification for doing so.

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.

People are down voting you for your attitude. Stop whining and start doing something 🙄