5 ms·

Isn't it democracy when a candidate gets more votes than the rest? The only way to undermine democracy is to reject the results of the elections. If propaganda

• throw_pm23 2y ago
  No, this is about common rules for everyone. Campaign material had to be marked as such and campaign finances had to be declared. One candidate blatantly failed to do so and won the first round. The court took a bold decision.
  • ossobuco 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • warkdarrior 2y ago
      WTF is "NAFO"?
      • pomian 2y ago
        Look it up. It's a fascinating system of the global hacker mindset fighting Russian propaganda.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • vasac 2y ago
        Comic relief.
    • Calavar 2y ago
      It's really hard to take this line of argument seriously. Drawing parallels between a Twitter meme account run by a half dozen guys and a state intelligence apparatus is absurd.
      • ossobuco 2y ago
        Those "half dozen guys" are actually thousands of coordinated accounts. They had an official summit in Vilnius during the NATO summit, with official visitors such as ministers and presidents.
        • Calavar 2y ago
          > with official visitors such as ministers and presidents Okay, name two presidents who visited the NAFO summit.
    • tdb7893 2y ago
      First, as far as I can tell you're equating likely foreign state propaganda with what appears to be a diffuse meme organization so they can't be assumed to be the same thing. Secondly, for political messages it should be clear who the message is coming from! If this organization is coordinating messages that should be public (though from looking them up it sounds like they are already fairly public with it). Open, fair, and honest elections are important. People always whine on about what the other side is doing but I want that fixed, too and I would gladly work with anyone that wants to fix both but sadly it's much more common to see continuous deflections to the other side (because they know their side is indefensible) rather than a desire for real change.
  • jdasdf 2y ago
    Can you show me where the EU disclose its compaign financing for the romanian presidential election? They've certainly been putting the finger down in the scales far more than the russians
    • Almondsetat 2y ago
      The Romanian court had evidence of Russia putting the finger down and breaking the rules. You, on the other hand, are just accusing.
      • jdasdf 2y ago
        Oh? Is there some dispute that did EU called Tik Tok about these elections? https://apnews.com/article/romania-tiktok-elections-european-union-4b5e5c544a1d20da838e7502d46bc8f7 https://apnews.com/article/romania-tiktok-elections-european... If Russia had called them in for not blocking or censoring pro-EU candidates would you not have called that election interference?
    • cbg0 2y ago
      The EU don't have to disclose something like that, as Romania has a central authority that handles this stuff, as per the law: > The collection of electoral contributions and the payment of electoral expenses may be made only through bank accounts notified in advance to the Permanent Electoral Authority. The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country.
      • jdasdf 2y ago
        >The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country. Wow, seems like they're spent tens of billions of dollars in long term election interference campaigns. Are we going to see the politicians elected going to jail over it?
        • 2y ago
  • jahewson 2y ago
    That implies campaign material and finances are capable of swinging an election, surely that affirms the statement you’re replying to? Namely: > the general public is so easily influenceable that allowing them to vote is a danger for democracy I hate to admit it but he’s got a point. My counter would be that the recent US election was not won by the biggest spender.
    • ben_w 2y ago
      If campaign material was not capable of changing the minds of the electorate, nobody would waste time effort and money on it. Free speech is valuable and worth defending specifically because it has the potential to change minds, not just because people like the sounds of their own voices. (For the recent US election, people also point to Musk buying Twitter and getting his president of choice and saying this demonstrates why Musk is smart and $44bn was worth it, so are you sure it wasn't won by the biggest spenders?)
• ValentinA23 2y ago
  [flagged]
• kadabra9 2y ago
  Democracy is when the candidate the globalists want gets the most votes. If they dont, then you can claim "election interference" and misinformation and then call for a do over.
  • cbg0 2y ago
    Who are these "globalists" and what does that word really mean for you? Because the wikipedia article is a doozy.
    • ConspiracyFact 2y ago
      The term doesn’t have to be a dog whistle. The financial and corporate elite want open borders in order to maximize rent-seeking and depress wages.
      • cbg0 2y ago
        But we already have open borders in the EU. If you're referring to allowing in migrants freely, that's deeply unpopular in Romania and no candidate is in support of it.
      • nozzlegear 2y ago
        > The financial and corporate elite want open borders in order to maximize rent-seeking and depress wages. I want open borders so we can put a taco truck on every corner. Immigration is good.
        • theultdev 2y ago
          Open borders means open to illegal immigration. No one is arguing that immigration isn't good. You can have taco trucks with legal immigration.
          • nozzlegear 2y ago
            > Open borders means open to illegal immigration. I know what it means ;) > No one is arguing that immigration isn't good. You'd be surprised how many people argue exactly that. But I digress, I was just making a poorly-timed joke.
• vasac 2y ago
  No biggie, they'll have another chance to pick a correct one. And another if they don't choose wisely
  • ben_w 2y ago
    That is almost the definition of democracy — when they stop getting additional chances, that's when it stops being a democracy.
    • vasac 2y ago
      "Almost" is doing heavy lifting there. Why would they need additional chances when they have already expressed what they want? Oh, they dared to vote for a candidate that doesn’t suit the powers that be, so they’ll vote again and again until they choose the preselected candidate.
• Eumenes 2y ago
  The cold war communist boogie man hasn't gone away. Russia is apparently all power and has infinite reach into global elections, but at the same time, getting destroyed on the battlefield and about to lose the Ukraine conflict any moment now.
  • ben_w 2y ago
    Russia is well balanced against the aid everyone else is giving to Ukraine; it's a war of attrition, where both Ukraine and Russia are being worn down and nobody's quite sure which side will collapse first. Other than just being cheapskates, the west has a fear that {if Putin fears his regime may collapse, he may personally order the use of nukes}, and also that even if he doesn't and Russia does collapse then rogue actors may steal some of the nukes.
    • Svoka 2y ago
      building military is much much more expensive than paying influencers. Russian propaganda machine is incredibly strong, because it was perfected on their own citizens for basically century now. They spend billions on pure propaganda. While with military - they relied on propaganda as well. They projected power while not picking conflicts with anyone who can punch back. Ukraine appeared too big to swallow this time and everyone can see, that king is naked. Russian military is a sham compared to US. Like, incomparable to be honest. But problem is that propaganda is much stronger than military. So west made a mistake dismissing russia because of their weak corrupt military while being invaded by propaganda. West has nothing against russian propaganda machine and this is what thrtuthly terrifying to be honest.
• layer8 2y ago
  Many people are easily influenceable, which is why there are rules around campaign funding and transparency. It doesn’t mean that we have to give up on democracy (what would be the alternative?), it means that the rules have to be enforced.
  • ossobuco 2y ago
    I don't buy it. People aren't that easily influenceable; they are just extremely tired from decades of failed liberal policies and out of alternatives. The populist right-wing wins we're seeing all over the world are the expression of the immense frustration people have with the system. You want democracy to work? Give people real choices, not the usual binary bad or more bad. Make them feel like their vote matters for once.
    • layer8 2y ago
      I observe for myself that I am rather quickly influenced by the information I take in. Since I’m aware of that, I’m diligent in the information I seek out, and can therefore compensate for some amount of misinformation. Other people aren’t necessarily aware or diligent in that way. I’m not satisfied with the voting choices either, but I do have some understanding of why they are the way they are. It is a nontrivial systemic issue, and voting populist does not improve that situation. You seem to see a dichotomy between the politicians that provide voting choices and the rest of the population that votes. I don’t see it that way. The politicians are part of the population, they represent the population. I won’t tell you to go into politics to try to change things, but if you did, then maybe you’ll realize why it’s hard, and that how things are is a function of human nature, of the particular country’s specific political system, and of the world being more complicated than many people recognize.
• hagbarth 2y ago
  > The only way to undermine democracy is to reject the results of the elections. Do you actually believe this? Voter suppression and intimidation tactics don’t exist? Elections are always valid, no matter how they were facilitated?
  • ossobuco 2y ago
    Obviously, as long as neutral observers can guarantee the voting. But in this case, there is no question about the validity of the results; there are no voter suppression and intimidation tactics here. Those seem to be far more common in the US, with electoral nonsense such as gerrymandering, no ID required to vote, mail-in ballots, and so on.
• gtech1 2y ago
  Yep, you've stumbled upon a 'secret' fallacy that most know. People can be made to believe anything, or you can arrive at any conclusion you want from pretty much any premise. Not even in science is there consensus. What kept things in check so far has been that in the West, the elites have been benevolent. But now the masses, thx to social media and global comms, can be influenced by others. Welcome to our post truth planet.
• bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  [dead]