4 ms·

I don't know what the big fuss is about. There are clearly rules in places that force you to declare your voting budgets and where the money comes from. Seems p

by tekkk 2y ago

I don't know what the big fuss is about. There are clearly rules in places that force you to declare your voting budgets and where the money comes from. Seems pretty clear. So saying you spent 0€ and then have ads everywhere and _win_, is clearly illegal. In smaller scale, this could have been omitted but this is just blatant fraud. For people who say this undermines democracy, I think this is perfectly the opposite. We have rules in democracy that need to be followed. If he now declares he got the money from Russia and China or wherever and people still vote for him, so be it. He'll probably end up in 2nd round either way but it's good Romania shows that they are vigilant even though their people aren't necessarily that smart.

IAmGraydon 2y ago
> There are clearly rules in places that force you to declare your voting budgets and where the money comes from. Seems pretty clear. So saying you spent 0€ and then have ads everywhere and _win_, is clearly illegal. Is it though? It’s entirely possible that people who wanted him to win purchased ads to support him, possibly without his consent. This happens in most countries, including the US. That doesn’t mean he actually spent the money himself or had anything to do with the ads.
- tekkk 2y ago
  Without his consent seems implausible. Clearly somebody has been coordinating it and he should have noticed this and done something. Pretending that it was all just coincidence is just bad faith. "And happens in most countries" is just a blanket statement. Major proportion is still declared and you dont just skate into presidential election 2nd round with 0€ spent.
  - IAmGraydon 2y ago
    Why would he do something about it if it’s helping him win? > "And happens in most countries" is just a blanket statement. Major proportion is still declared and you dont just skate into presidential election 2nd round with 0€ spent. Are you kidding? In the 2024 election, super PACs spent $4.5 billion on helping one candidate or the other win, and the source of more than 50% of those funds is unknown. I don’t think you can name a single democratic country where this doesn’t happen. It’s kind of funny how people are willing to shut down all critical thinking when they want to believe a particular thing.
    - tekkk 2y ago
      If a foreign, hostile country is helping you to win the election I think you ought to report it. I get if you are of the school that all that matters is winning and not how you do it, ethics aside, but setting a precedent that all is allowed is just dangerous. That's why I think it's great that there's new vote. I believe he might as well win again, but this time it's much more transparent what's behind it. > Are you kidding? In the 2024 election, super PACs spent $4.5 billion on helping one candidate or the other win, and the source of more than 50% of those funds is unknown. I don’t think you can name a single democratic country where this doesn’t happen. Yes, US the shining beacon of democratic process. But even in that system, there's a money trace—clear evidence who has spent and what amount. But since you are enthusiastic about it, can you analyze the Nordic systems as well? > It’s kind of funny how people are willing to shut down all critical thinking when they want to believe a particular thing. To me the funny part is that you can't argue without trying to dismiss my point of view. I think you should evaluate your own critical thinking before critizing others. Look, I merely wanted to point out that it's good the interference was caught and put on display, probably the people will elect him to 2nd round nonetheless. I think he should be allowed to run of course, if that's why you are getting so worked up about this. It's clear the other parties probably try to out-maneuver him this time, but this might just as well help him.
Dah00n 2y ago
> If he now declares he got the money ... He didn't pay for the ads. Others did or home printed them.

by tekkk 2y ago

IAmGraydon 2y ago

> There are clearly rules in places that force you to declare your voting budgets and where the money comes from. Seems pretty clear. So saying you spent 0€ and then have ads everywhere and _win_, is clearly illegal. Is it though? It’s entirely possible that people who wanted him to win purchased ads to support him, possibly without his consent. This happens in most countries, including the US. That doesn’t mean he actually spent the money himself or had anything to do with the ads.

tekkk 2y ago
Without his consent seems implausible. Clearly somebody has been coordinating it and he should have noticed this and done something. Pretending that it was all just coincidence is just bad faith. "And happens in most countries" is just a blanket statement. Major proportion is still declared and you dont just skate into presidential election 2nd round with 0€ spent.
- IAmGraydon 2y ago
  Why would he do something about it if it’s helping him win? > "And happens in most countries" is just a blanket statement. Major proportion is still declared and you dont just skate into presidential election 2nd round with 0€ spent. Are you kidding? In the 2024 election, super PACs spent $4.5 billion on helping one candidate or the other win, and the source of more than 50% of those funds is unknown. I don’t think you can name a single democratic country where this doesn’t happen. It’s kind of funny how people are willing to shut down all critical thinking when they want to believe a particular thing.
  - tekkk 2y ago
    If a foreign, hostile country is helping you to win the election I think you ought to report it. I get if you are of the school that all that matters is winning and not how you do it, ethics aside, but setting a precedent that all is allowed is just dangerous. That's why I think it's great that there's new vote. I believe he might as well win again, but this time it's much more transparent what's behind it. > Are you kidding? In the 2024 election, super PACs spent $4.5 billion on helping one candidate or the other win, and the source of more than 50% of those funds is unknown. I don’t think you can name a single democratic country where this doesn’t happen. Yes, US the shining beacon of democratic process. But even in that system, there's a money trace—clear evidence who has spent and what amount. But since you are enthusiastic about it, can you analyze the Nordic systems as well? > It’s kind of funny how people are willing to shut down all critical thinking when they want to believe a particular thing. To me the funny part is that you can't argue without trying to dismiss my point of view. I think you should evaluate your own critical thinking before critizing others. Look, I merely wanted to point out that it's good the interference was caught and put on display, probably the people will elect him to 2nd round nonetheless. I think he should be allowed to run of course, if that's why you are getting so worked up about this. It's clear the other parties probably try to out-maneuver him this time, but this might just as well help him.

Dah00n 2y ago

> If he now declares he got the money ... He didn't pay for the ads. Others did or home printed them.