So apparently, there are riots going on in Romania and it's because a truly independent presidential candidate won the first round of elections, despite not being on the ballot, yet he had his victory voided, despite the Romanian courts initially accepting his victory.
I don't know much about this guy, but he actually and surprisingly does seem genuine. He is 100% anti-COVID vaccine, against funding Ukraine (while also not being pro-Russia), and is skeptical of both the Apollo moon landings and 9/11.
I mean, wow! I never would think a truly independent candidate would get that far in this day and age, but it shouldn't be surprising that the courts would void the election. Now people are taking on to the streets about it.
I'd say to keep an eye on the situation. Things might get interesting.
@mrsaturday @xianc78
>They won't comment on whether or not nullifying the election is justified
The thing is, we legit don't know if it was justified or not. The public wasn't given enough evidence to make a judgement on whether Russia's influence had an effect or not.
Though, there is another reason why some measure might have been necessary either way. Georgescu has undoubtedly committed campaign finance violations, as he has reported that he spend $0 on his campaign. Declaring something like that in official documents is so outrageous that you don't really need any evidence to know he committed fraud. I don't know what the appropriate response to something like that could be, but I don't think letting someone win in these conditions is right either.
