Incumbents losing elections can be fair. But only if the winner played by the rules at least loosely and the win wasn’t orchestrated by a foreign party, especially an adversary.
Unless you are Russian or Chinese you shouldn’t have a president ‘chosen’ by them. So props to the Romanian authorities for taking action and not allowing a president beholden to Russian interests.
Nobody is claiming the candidate didn't play by the rules. Rather, some agency has asserted there was "a mass influence operation" in his favor - apparently they're not even asserting an organized conspiracy.
There's a big problem with that claim. Intelligence agencies have a long history of making this claim of Russian control over elections all over the world, and it's always been lies and nonsense. What even is a "mass influence" operation? Sounds like the same thing as a political campaign to me? If it's really on a mass scale it should be pretty easy to prove and work out how to stop it next time, shouldn't it?
Such claims are never proven because they aren't true. Back in 2016 when Trump and Brexit were still fresh, the sort of people who didn't like those things were trying to explain their loss. The Clinton campaign came up with the Steele dossier and the American press ran with it. This was the origin of the "Russian influence" claim and back then it was usually described as being done through social media bots. Academics flooded the literature with papers that claimed to prove the existence of such Russian bots. I used to work in bot detection so was interested to read some of these papers, and found they were all based on academic fraud:
Given the long history of this type of claim, a rational person will have to assume that it's a plot by Romanian intelligence to overturn an election and treat it accordingly.
I’ll bite although this really feels as unlikely as trying to change the mind of a Russian troll. A few things really sunk your boat there.
First, you started on a wrong foot. He is literally accused of breaking the law by not declaring his assets. This is trivially proven by the fact that… he didn’t declare his assets. In my reasonable person circle that’s called “not playing by the rules”. Very Russian.
Second, at best you can say only “claims can’t be proven true” but you still went one step further to make multiple strong claims you yourself cannot prove (e.g. “because they aren’t true” or “intelligence plot”). “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, or “teapot calling the kettle black”, also good topics for your blog spam.
Third, you denounce people claiming conspiracies to get their way by claiming a conspiracy to get your way, like any “reasonable” person would. Romanian intelligence and constitutional court got together to overturn the people’s will to vote pro-Russia. Perhaps, to use your own words, your claims cannot be proven because they’re not true.
Lastly, going back to the Romanian elections and using very reasonable logic like the very reasonable people we are. Is it often the case that a pro-Russian extremist candidate nobody knows of, who polls close to 0, and basically campaigns only on TikTok, soars ahead in top position in any EU country that was historically and consistently pro-West for a long time? All without any outside interference?
My claims are all correct to the best of my knowledge. If you disagree with any, state which ones and why. You've engaged in a lot of handwaving and assertions that I must be wrong, but no refutations.
> Is it often the case that a pro-Russian extremist candidate nobody knows of, who polls close to 0, and basically campaigns only on TikTok, soars ahead in top position in any EU country ... without any outside interference
Yes. This has been happening across the world, and in every case it results in the same kinds of attempts to void democracy by the incumbents. Other countries where this has happened: Germany (AfD), France (RN), the UK (Reform), the USA (Trump), and so on. All accused of being popular only due to shadowy, unspecified manipulation by Russia, all with zero evidence. In most cases the claims don't even make logical sense to begin with.
So there's nothing unique about Romania in this regard. Incumbents collaborate with journalists to force through unpopular policies without allowing any coordination against them, social media takes up the slack. It's just a really good way to spread messages outside the control of local governments. Of course politicians use it.
> He is literally accused of breaking the law by not declaring his assets
We're talking about the BBC story which covers annulment, and it says: "The court's decision comes after intelligence documents were declassified, suggesting Georgescu benefitted from a mass influence operation – conducted from abroad – to interfere with the result of the vote." Nothing here about tax or assets. Maybe he has broken the law, maybe he hasn't. Given the rate at which bogus show trials are deployed against political outsiders these days, I'd reserve judgement on that.
You presented your opinion as incontrovertible fact, and everything else as lie or conspiracy because you didn’t see proof. Then you put the caveat that it’s “to the best of your knowledge” which basically turns the incontrovertible fact into common opinion. What’s more, best of your knowledge also incentivizes having little or selective knowledge in order to be able to claim anything as fact.
Case in point, you made such a hard case for everything being a conspiracy involving constitutional courts and intelligence agencies, all claims of foreign interference being lies because you haven’t seen proof, and everything you say is solid... until it turns out your only source of information was a single partially read article.
And you still maintain that you’re right despite still not reading anything else on the topic because it must be disinformation.
The candidate himself declared 0 campaign expenses despite obviously spending for a campaign. The court also noticed this obvious fact. Foreign interference doesn’t only mean someone hacking a TikTok algorithm but also external parties illegally funding a foreign agent’s election. With large amounts of undeclared funds you can sway an election which is illegal for obvious reasons. Being foreign funds just makes it worse because they sway the elections towards foreign interests. Do you expect a country to just ignore that, whether people on the sidelines who read one article proclaim it’s totally fine?
P.S. Someone is trying to set your house on fire. When you try to top him he says it's his right and wants to see evidence from a court showing that it isn't because he read an article that says otherwise. That's where yours and fellow "freedom fighter's" comments are right now. Except in this case the court actually already spoke and you're still sure you know better.
My blog posts go over the factual ways in which the claims of Russian bots on social media have been incorrect in the past. Bad use of statistics and logic, things like that. To my knowledge there are no factual errors in my analysis but if you find one, let me know.
To make this clearer: if someone asserts something objective about the world and their proof is invalid or missing, we have to assume they are wrong. There have been many claims about politicians being successful only due to Russian influence campaigns, and each time those claims were investigated the proofs were invalid or missing. That is a factual claim.
What's a subjective opinion is that this generalizes: if the last 99 times were wrong, the 100th time is probably wrong too, even without a deep investigation. You can disagree with that, but why would you? Your priors should be strongly against these claims having any merit by now.
> The candidate himself declared 0 campaign expenses despite obviously spending for a campaign. The court also noticed this obvious fact.
And yet that's not the justification for annulling the vote that's being presented. The rest of your paragraph slides smoothly between assertions of fact and speculation - that he must have spent lots of money, that the money must have been coming from foreigners, that those foreigners must be Russian, and that such funds are the reason he won. Those are all very subjective. For instance, Trump was outspent massively in both elections that he won. Apparently you can't just "sway" an election with money: other things matter more.
Unless you are Russian or Chinese you shouldn’t have a president ‘chosen’ by them. So props to the Romanian authorities for taking action and not allowing a president beholden to Russian interests.