Shuddered democracy
Diana Iovanovici Şoșoaca was rejected for the second time from the presidential, despite the boxing gloves with which she presented.
Inadequate behavior, aggressive anti-so and anti-over. But only from words. I didn't give anyone a fist. Only with tiring, vulgar, gross, with a cheap circus, slum, threats, bad jokes, with sides.
Despite this, she has mobilized enough supporters to lead a parliamentary party and to have two places in the European Parliament (of which I refer to!).
How is this explained? Even so many vulgar, rude admirers and mahalages have the Romanian society? I don't think it would be so many. But it has!
The result of the elections could also be taken as a kind of survey in the matter. At the same time, Diana Iovanovici Soșoaca spoke many truths about the dysfunctions of the Romanian state and about the weaknesses of our political world, quite « shuddered ».
As a result, we cannot find out with precision what were the explanations of a support of about 6% in the parliamentary elections. For the circus and vulgarity or for the truths that are hard to overcome at different stands?
Diana Iovanovici Şoșoaca can not be otherwise. Excess clown is part of her nature. She made a party with her husband and then kicked out with sizes and trumpets.
More than that, the Bucharest Bucharest slum could not produce in two centuries of agitation.
Her main motto must undoubtedly be a famous one, that « show must go! » (Queen) that she adapted to her mind and physique. And where he goes, he gathers the world and cries out, and unpleasant truths.
And yet Diana Iovanovici Şoșoaca should not have been excluded from the ballot bulletins to the presidential elections. The truths he would have spoken would have been more precious and useful than his vulgarities and monkeys.
What would have happened if they had anti-Semitic accents? Nothing! Does Romania have enough voices to challenge it, to contradict it, to maintain a balance, to jump in the defense of minorities? If he does not have them, what does he look for in the European Union?
If the driver had raised stupid, the first reaction should have come from the Romanian society. Not from the parties, but from the citizens. If in her excesses, a significant percentage of the population would have been silent, laughed in fists or voted it, then the electorate (ie the population) would have a problem. We all, only then.
Diana Sosoacă should have been allowed to speak, at least for the true works she says, and electoral taxed for the excesses she commits.
I am convinced that the administration through the RCC and the BEC of the candidates is antidemocratic, even if it claims to block dangerous elements.
The blockage of these characters to the decision -making positions in the society falls to the population and the electorate, not of committed commissions from all kinds of individuals and more or less « shuddered » characters.
With analyzes of the speeches made by commissions made up of quarters and opportunists we reach the administration of democracy in Soviet style.
-You are not with us? You're dangerous!
These courtyards, offices and commissions could have a certain protective role in a single hypostasis. If there was a risk of majority support for this type of character in our country. Which seems to me excluded.
Only then would it be a catastrophe.
Fortunately, no matter how much the European Commission and our self-timed progressives want to scare us « pro-European » we are still very much far away.
