Andrew Tate and brother leave Romania for US after travel ban lifted

[GreenTeaLikesMe]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/feb/27/andrew-tate-tristan-romania-us?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other. It seems that Trump successfully pressured the Romanian authorities into allowing this.

Ah, I didn't realize they had Romanian passports.

I am still not totally shocked though that given they are American citizens, the US advocated for them to be able to travel to the US while they are out and awaiting trial.

That's not to say I do not believe they are a real flight risk. But citizenship has extremely strong obligations attached to it. Being guilty doesn't really impact those, they legally have a right to be in the US, and I can see an argument, from a US POV, that if they are allowed to be out in Romania they should also be allowed to go about their lives in the US. Like any other American criminal awaiting a trial.

Hopefully what will happen is they will get to the US and find they are now subject to the legal systems of two countries. They could end up worse off.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5257294-i-think-the-spell-is-finally-broken?reply=141610499 explains why Americans voted for Trump, despite him being a sex offender.

The Tates don’t have romanian passports. They are dual UK-US.

This might be true but there are also criminal charges that he was meant to be facing in the UK and he has dual nationality. He clearly supported Trump so that Trump would pull the necessary strings.

Him being in the States is clearly an attempt to avoid having to answer more questions. He has no intention of returning to Romania. He'll be lawyering up from the States already.

Apologies, but I don't have time to read a 20page thread about why FWR posters chose to support a rapist surrounded by other rapists and sex traffickers rather than a woman who, to the best of my knowledge, never raped anyone.

But that is by the by now. They did vote for the sex offender Trump, and his cabinet of abusers. So we are where we are.

I don't see that it's a good position for women and I am worried about things getting worse for women in USA.

Why are you saying that they dont have passports?

Are you saying they had only been given some right to remain after Brexit?

I posted that Farage had said that Tate was 'an important voice' for men, and gave confidence to boys, defended masculinity, and things like that.

I think what I said was an accurate distillation of what he said:

“Tate was a very important voice for an emasculated,” Farage said, speaking to the hosts. “You three guys, you are all 25, you are all kind of being told you can’t be blokes, you can’t do laddish, fun, bloke things… That’s almost what you’re being told.”
: “That masculinity is something we should look down upon, something we should frown upon. It’s like the men are becoming feminine and the women are becoming masculine and it’s a bit difficult to tell these days who’s what.
“And Tate fed into that by saying, ‘Hang on, what’s wrong with being a bloke? What’s wrong in male culture? What’s wrong in male humour?’ He fed into those things. His was a campaign of raising awareness, his was a campaign of giving people perhaps a bit of confidence at school or whatever it was to speak up …”
Nigel Farage calls misogynist Andrew Tate an 'important voice' for men | indy100

I think they've fallen out since he said that, but I doubt if it was over their shared fear of emasculation - not literal emasculation I presume

1. I wasn't suggesting that you read the whole thread, just the single comment linked.
2. Understanding why the US electorate voted for him isn't "supporting" him.

Seeing as your left mouse button appears to be broken, as I can see no other reason why that link wouldn't take you directly to my comment, I paste it below:

[An excerpt of a Janice Turner Times article, which a previous poster pasted the whole of. Emphasis mine.] Trump’s executive order states: “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.” The damn-fool Democrats handed truth to their worst enemy. Can they ever win it back?

There's a philosophical technique called "thought experiment", a well-known example of which is the Trolley Problem, in which the subject is asked to choose between two undesirable outcomes. Children also similarly conduct thought experiments, usually of a more fantastical nature like "which is worse: being eaten by a shark or burned by a dragon?".

Someone I knew a long time ago once polled his LiveJournal friends with a childish-seeming question "which is worse: paedophiles or Hitler?" One of the respondents commented that it depends on the circumstances, because a mother seeking someone to babysit her blonde-haired blue-eyed children whilst she goes to the shops will be better choosing Hitler, whilst Jewish people looking for someone to run 1930s-40s Germany would be better choosing the paedophile. Following these threads, that LiveJournal post from over twenty years ago returns to my mind.

The US presidential election effectively asked the electorate "which is worse: a rapist who has a track record of keeping (or at least trying damn hard to keep) manifesto promises; or a woman who, based on her party's track record, will break manifesto promises?" The people weren't voting to choose someone to be their sister's plus-one at a wedding or chaperone their daughter at a gynaecological examination, they were voting to choose someone to run their country. In that context, being a rapist matters less than being someone who can be trusted to keep manifesto promises.

Orwell said via Winston Smith in 1984 that "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. From that, all follows." If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

Under Harris, the Wi Spa Incident would be repeated in changing rooms and toilets on Federal property across the US with the Govt putting its fingers in its ears and pretending that nothing is happening. Under Harris, male prisoners would still be housed in women's federal prisons. Only women in the same room as Trump are at risk of being raped by him. All women are at risk when men are allowed into women's toilets, changing rooms, and dormitories. All women are at risk of wrongful arrest and being remanded in federal custody.

There was no good candidate to vote for, so Americans voted for the least-worst of the two available.

I wonder if Farage has ever actually read Tate's spewings, watched his videos, or read what the Romanian state prosecutors charged him with. Telling men to abuse and cheat on women is a very long way from endorsing "laddish, fun, bloke things" and it's harmful to everyone to conflate the two.

Oh, I didn't think you meant that your single post on that thread explained everything.

If one presidential candidate believes something akin to "two plus two is five" and calls you a bigot for dissenting, whilst the other is a rapist who defends your right to say that "two plus two is four" and signs an EO on day one to stop the government agencies from saying that "two plus two is five", the rapist is honestly the better option.

Trump is a proven liar. He proved it numerous times before he became POTUS. His 2nd term is full of them. If we are to take your thought experiment and apply it to the vote, it is a choice between 2+2=5 from both candidates, but only one of them is a rapist.

Who would you choose?

The rapist, on his first day in office, signed an EO that protects thousands of incarcerated women from being incarcerated with men. Has he raped thousands of women?

Harris would sign no such order.

I would hold my nose and vote Trump whilst doing everything I could to get the Dems to change course on gender identity in time for the next presidential election.

I have no idea of the exact number of women /children who've been sexually abused, assaulted, raped and or trafficked by Trump and the men he has surrounded himself with. Do you?

How many sexual assaults are too many for you?

Neither do I. I do know that there were over a thousand male prisoners in federal jail, alongside hundreds of thousands of women.

How many Wi Spa type incidents are too many for you? How many women terrified of being left pregnant by a male prisoner in jail is too many for you?

Again, least-worst under the circumstances. What you are apparently unaware of is that the Dems are no friends to women. For American women, it's a choice between left misogyny and right misogyny. There is no feminist choice in the US right now.

A rapist is a rapist no matter what he wears. Most rapists, including Trump and the Tate brothers don't wear dresses.

I would never vote a rapist into power because I'm a feminist.

It'll probably be money!!
Tate is just vile & makes my skin crawl. He wanted to be famous whatever the cost (Big Brother fgs!).
Some men (aka Misogynists) get their rocks off by arguing (my EH) & he unfortunately does that 🤮 He treats/speaks to women like dirt. I hope he gets banged up for a long long long time! 🙏 He's just a nobody!!!

Not all the left believe eg that men can become women. Plenty of LP members don't and the Communist Party ( left surely?) definitely don't.

Because I think it's relevant if this is normal protocol for citizens in trouble abroad?

Several posters have said that it is, so it seems like a reasonable question.

Yes, a rapist is a rapist, no matter what he wears. It's the penis that's the problem and the penis that needs to be kept out of women's prisons and spaces.

I would never vote for someone who incarcerates men in women's prisons.

There are only two candidates likely to win and if you don't vote, others will.

It's Hobson's choice.

Who else has he brought home?

I that's all you meant, sure - my sense was you were saying that Farage approves of Tate. Which I don't think that quote really shows.

The whole manospehere thing seems to spring out of issues that young men are clearly having with how society wants them to inhabit their masculinity. So as far as it goes, I think Farage's point is correct - we ignore this stuff at our peril as recent elections have shown.

IIRC they fell out over the Southport stabbing in some way, Farage accused Tate of being misleading or dishonest or something like that.

Meanwhile, Sir Kneel-a-lot still can't bring himself to back his own Health Secretary.

Who else has who brought home? Trump didn't fly him home himself.

Have you actually read the comments? Or paid attention to cases where your own government negotiates for its citizens in trouble outside the country?

What other US citizen prisoners abroad has the Whitehouse had returned to America since Trump became POTUS for a 2nd time?

How many have been brought back to the USA in the past 7 weeks?

If the case of a citizen being detained by a foreign government attracts enough media attention in the home country, governments will often intercede to have that citizen released. And like I mentioned earlier, powerful countries throw their weight around in these matters as a way of ensuring their citizens (and the government) are respected abroad.

This new America First government is looking for opportunities to show itself as refusing to put up with disrespect from other nations and to be seen as the protector of its citizens. It's highly unfortunate and unpleasant that the man with US citizenship in this case is a dangerous misogynist arsehole.

What proof are you offering that the Rominian government interfered with their justice system?