[surgical_fire]

> not just a rule, but a bedrock principle.

Only when the rules are respected by everyone involved.

If we are playing football (or soccer for the barbarians across the pond), a core principle is to score goals. If in the middle of the game I punch you in the face, that principle stops mattering super fast.

> Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate?

Because that is how rules and regulations work. If you want them changed, change them properly, don't go breaking them because your pet right wing politician was punished for breaking them.

> There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office

I fundamentally disagree. The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within.

[psychlops]

> The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within.

Surely you see the catch in this belief. If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.

[surgical_fire]

> If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.

It is democratic at its core. Any democracy has an independent judicial system that can ensure that rules are being followed properly.

Separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, does it ring a bell to you?

If the judiciary stops doing its job of banning those that would cheat elections, you wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

[psychlops]

Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied in this case. (I don't pretend to know the details)

I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people. Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.

[surgical_fire]

> Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied in this case. (I don't pretend to know the details)

Then don't assume the judiciary is biased by following up with a disclaim that you are repeating baseless conjecture. Le Pen was judged with her right to legal defense, found guity, and punished accordingly. This is democracy working as it should.

> I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people.

Based on the content of your posts, I sincerely doubt your enthusiastic endorsement.

You are very quick to make excuses for the right wing politician that was punished for embezzlement, claimed repeatedly that her being banned from office is undemocratic, and claimed without a shred of evidence that the court that judged her is biased.

Forgive me if I think you are bullshitting me here.

> Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.

Comparing France to Turkey is pure bad faith argumentation. If you genuinely think that Turkey and France share any sort of democratic decay you are very ill informed.

If Le Pen was not punished, I would agree France was taking a step in creating its own French Erdogan.

[psychlops]

You must be confusing my posts with someone else. Or claim doesn't mean what you think it means. Forgive me if it's difficult to forgive you when you place so much negative spin on what I wrote.

[ModernMech]

Only if those people act in anti-democratic ways. E.g. if they apply the law selectively, if they forego or restrict due process, and if they play around with the meaning of words and crimes then yeah, that's anti-democratic. For example, people brought up what's happening in Turkey, and I agree what's happening there is anti-democratic.

But if the people involved are not making up crimes, but prosecuting crimes; if they are not targeting people specifically, but enforcing the law that applies to everyone; and if they are allowing for the maximum possible due process, then there really isn't much of a case for that process being anti-democratic.