I don’t think Romania will be the only one to do it. There was no due process (did he get to appeal?) for the Georgescu so I wouldn’t really put that much faith in charges against him.

Was there? I am not deeply invested in the matter, so my knowledge of the situation is only superficial. But generally speaking, annulling the result of the first round of a run-off is not equal to cancelling a whole election. The question the supreme court answered was not “Did Georgescu cheat” but “was there so much external interference as to question the results’ validity”. If people disagree with this decision, they have to appeal or sue and make their case, which includes Georgescu and also other candidates or any other citizen for that matter.

As for the charges: Due process is going to court in this case. See above.

I trust Romanian government even less now after they released Tate because Trump asked them to.

On a moral level, I highly contest this decision as well. But looking at real world politics: The power imbalance is just too great to ignore. This is the same situation as when Putin visited Mongolia: Yes, he should have been arrested and handed over to the ICC. But realistically, the repercussions for Mongolia would have been too severe to handle.

when liberals pretending to be centrists can rule indefinitely? […] stagnation will lead to even bigger knee-jerk reactions from general population later on

These two points somewhat contradict each other. If the majority of the population wants these people in power, why would there be some knee-jerk reaction?

I was talking about western governments in general.

I am not sure where you see democracy suspended in general?

Except for Romania’s supreme court annulling the results of the recent election because of massive Russian interference and Ukraine postponing elections due to the ongoing war, I am not aware of any other western government doing such thing.

it’s now „alarming” how people vote for anything other than those parties.

This aspect highly depends on which country we are talking about, due to different voting mechanisms. The worst offender in this category is clearly the US where the ‘first past the post’ system mathematically results in a two party system.

Here in Germany, we held elections this Sunday on the 23rd. One notable outcome of this election was a near doubling of votes for the left party “Die Linke” compared to last election, which was projected to lose all of their previous seats, which were not many to begin with. This increase was a direct result of conservatives choosing to work with the far-right AFD party before the election. So people actually are voting depending on issues and not just out of habit.

I assumed you were talking about Romania. I just used Trump as an example just because it’s such a blatant lie used to instil fear.

They can’t apply tarrifs to Romania, only the EU as a whole

but they also suspended democracy so that Putin doesn’t get a weirdo in power.

Is democracy truly suspended if the supposed will of the people has been moulded by a hostile outside force?

If a majority of people are truly of the opinion that they do not want immigrants living next to them, I’d argue that’s regrettable but in the end a valid opinion. If they hold this opinion because someone feeds them lies such as “immigrants are eating the cats and dogs”, is that still their free will?

Firstly: Why does the US have a say in that?

Secondly: Separation from the US new imperialistic ambitions starts at the personal level. Use Deepl instead of Google for translations. The quality is better as well.