Research Research of recent political blogs at the University of Missouri shows that politics is improving thanks to digital media […]
» Read more
Research Research of recent political blogs at the University of Missouri shows that politics is improving thanks to digital media […]
» Read more
Research Research of recent political blogs at the University of Missouri shows that politics is improving thanks to digital media […]
» Read more
Research of recent political blogs at the University of Missouri shows that politics is improving thanks to digital media that divides people into polarized interest groups. The researcher recommends a balanced approach to information retrieval in order to restore civilization in the political debate behind democracy.
“The other side loses in any political debate,” said Ben Warner, an assistant professor of communications at Washington State University’s School of Arts and Sciences. “The danger of digital media hostility to the other side of politics is that it undermines the legitimacy of those with whom we disagree politically. It’s important to understand that people who disagree with you aren’t “evil” or “trying to destroy America,” they just have different visions.”
Warner’s rhetoric on Howard Dean’s big blogs in 2004 revealed a dramatic battle between heroes and villains. When bloggers on the site left comments about their activities, it was a common theme to “fight to get our country back.”
“While this is not a new language for campaigns, it means that political power should be taken, not earned, suggesting that the ruling party is an illegal power,” Warner said. “Once the base has adopted this type of language, a channel for the growth of evil will be created.”
In contrast, Warner also criticized blogs from President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, in which bloggers often rejected overly negative comments and asked users to remain respectful.
“The conversations on Obama’s blogs were consistent with a respectful tone that was modeling for the campaign itself,” Warner said. “Senator John McCain was not an “evil villain” but a misunderstood politician who should be honored for his service to the country.”
Warner recommends that people use different sources of information, such as mainstream media and opposing websites, to form their opinions. Warner noted that both blogs still have broad sections representing well-meaning and respectful models of community engagement, and noted that blogs can help translate “various political frustrations” into “passionate crowds.”
“There are times when a passionate crowd is exactly what society needs. But we all need to understand that our nation is full of different perspectives,” Warner said. Ideological warfare does little to bridge society’s differences, but trust in others can maintain a healthy democracy.”
According to a study by a political scientist at Brigham Young University, people who follow both political blogs and traditional news media generally believe that the content of blogs is more accurate.
Professor Richard Davies reports on this and other blogs on print policy, a new book published by Oxford University Press.
“Blog readers still get most of their news from regular news sources, but they’re worried that they won’t get the full side of the story there,” Davis said. “They suspect the usual bias of traditional information content.”
Davis surveyed daily blog readers from a national representative sample and found that only 3 percent receive most of their news from blogs. Most readers continued to receive information from traditional news organizations, despite predictions from some bloggers that they would replace traditional media altogether. Instead, Davis said, blogs have evolved into an echo chamber that extends the lifespan of news.
Professional journalists and political bloggers disagree about the accuracy of the world of political news: the former seeks objectivity, and the latter openly spreads his personal opinions.
But when it comes to trust, political bloggers have an advantage over regular readers.
When the African National Congress (ANC) won its first national non-racial election in April 1994 in a landslide victory, it made Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela the first president of non-racist, non-sexist and democratic South Africa.
When the ANC won a second democratic election in 1999, President Thabo Mbeki succeeded President Mandela to become the second president of non-racist South Africa. He remained president for a second term after the ANC won elections again in 2004 and September 2008, when he was recalled by the ruling party (ANC). President Kgalema Motlanthe succeeded President Mbeki on 25 May. Jacob Zuma, who was inaugurated as President of South Africa on 9 May 2004, was elected President of South Africa.
The democratic order established in South Africa was the result of a political solution between the ANC and the other liberation forces and the apartheid regime on the other. The main objective of this negotiated solution was to remove apartheid and replace it with a new replacement for constitutional democracy, characterised by values, ideals and principles that recognised our humanity and sought to unite the nation.
When the new democratic government came to power only after the 1994 elections, South Africa was marked by centuries of state-strong divisions expressed by relentless political oppression and opposition. social and racial discrimination against society as a whole; serious economic exploitation; differences and differences are counted among the largest in the world; A racial state apparatus, a largely bankrupt state and an economy characterised by capital flight and on the brink of economic collapse.
South Africa’s newly elected democratic government was therefore responsible for focusing on the reconstruction and development programme within the framework of the restrictions imposed, but also on major social and political pressure. In these competing ancests, the government’s agenda, defined as a broadly developing state, required an approach that, while the need for fundamental change in society and the state had to be achieved systematically but gradually.
Through the Izimbizo programme, officials from all sectors of our system of government must meet regularly with their constituents to study the government’s findings. Imbizo is a form of interactive government that provides direct interaction with general citizenship in areas of the president, vice president and all other areas of government. In this way, ordinary South Africans can take into account the concerns, complaints and suggestions of their leaders on how to improve the provision of services.
The current government has also encouraged a vibrant community culture by campaigning for civilisation and through the popularity of local authorities and municipal organisations such as local council departmental committees, school governing bodies, community crime prevention forums and other community-based organisations. State ships and the construction of a democratic state have been at the heart of the administration.
National reconciliation and social reconstruction
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission allowed an open, honest and transparent process in which former human rights defenders and their victims can meet each other in a spirit of forgiveness. By acting as a forgiving of truth, as a society, South Africans have been able to make a historic distinction from the past and overcome the problem of accusations and vengeance – of all post-war societies – that extends forever into the future. The TRC has made a significant contribution to the reconstruction of the South African nation and to the promotion of an ethos of national reconciliation.
As a result of this process, the whole concept of symbolic substitutes for the apartheid community suffered irregular damage and damage. These are the main monuments and monuments and other symbolic remedies that reflect the collective history of the country.
While most scientists accept the theory of evolution that humans evolved from primates, many Americans still reject it. According to the Pew Research Center, about one in five American adults believe that life on Earth has never changed.
Proponents of evolutionary theory generally believe in Charles Darwin’s natural choices, which are considered the primary process of development. Others agree with Darwin’s premise, preferring to use more modern scientific theories to explain how change happens.
Evolution was often pushed against religion. Those who believe that humans are created in God’s image are often called “creatineists.” They argue that evolutionary theory contradicts the teachings of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian concept of God that changes human events. This perspective is sometimes called the theory of “intelligent design” and claims that life could not have been born by chance and must have been designed by an almighty being.
This disagreement is most visible in the education debates. Many evangelical Christian groups oppose teaching evolution in science classes because Darwin’s ideas contradict their worldview. Others advocate taking smart design into account in public school science curricula, as well as the scientific theory of evolution that has sparked a debate about the separation of church and state.
Despite being legal in 11 states, marijuana is still highly controversial across the United States. There are major debates going on about its use as a medicinal product and whether it should be for recreational use, for example, in the case of pharmaceuticals. There are currently 55 million U.S. adults (16.9%) who use marijuana in the U.S., including 43% of students.
Advocates see cannabis use as a personal choice and argue that laws that violate this choice violate individual freedoms. They also say that the ban prevents proper medical care for those who need it and that enforcement is often unfairly directed at minorities and other at-risk populations.
Ban on the validity of medical marijuana use and believes there is a greater risk to public health, safety and community order than benefits. They also fear that it will become a gateway drug if it is made legal for recreational use.
As more and more states have legalized marijuana, the debate has widened, with advocates calling for the elimination of low-level marijuana beliefs, the use of marijuana as an alternative to opioids, and the study of the economic potential of marijuana cultivation in agriculture.
The death penalty, also called the “death penalty”, is a punishment in which a convicted criminal is considered unfit for rehabilitation and executed by the state. It is legal in 28 states and under federal law.
Supporters of the death penalty believe that some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrators are too dangerous to be imprisoned. They also believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to others and will give victims, survivors and their families a sense of justice.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that governments should not have the power to decide who has the right to live or die, arguing that human life is too important to be punished – regardless of crime. They also show that the death penalty can lead to the accidental death of innocent people.
The debate on the death penalty also addresses racial and socio-economic inequalities in the justice system, rehabilitation and punishment and prison economics.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 22 people were executed in the United States in 2019. According to the NAACP Criminal Justice Project, there are 2,620 people on death row as of January 1, 2015.
Religious freedom is considered the fundamental human rights of all Americans. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall not pass a law honoring or prohibiting the free annexation of religion.”
However, religious freedom remains controversial in the context of the execution. Debates about religion and politics are often polarized because they are divided deeply into how people perceive the world. As the saying goes, “Don’t change religion and politics.”
The First Amendment forces the government not to favor a particular religion or to eliminate a person’s ability to practice faith. It also ensures that neither the state nor the Church has the power to control each other. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to practice any faith or not. Legally, they can do so without fear of forcing the government, even in public.
In practice, fiendry disagreements over how religious freedom can and should be expressed have led to clashes over the mention of God in a promise of allegiity that reflects the Ten Commandments in public spaces and companies that refuse service based on religious beliefs. The problem is particularly prevalent around Christianity, which manifests itself in many aspects of public life in the United States, although it is not an official religion.
Many people with religious views argue that religious freedom means they have the right to make choices about who they serve or hire and what they show or do based on their religious values. Others argue that religious freedom means that traps of a particular religion do not need to be followed up in public spaces or the necessary promises, nor are they denied access to goods, services or jobs on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Animal rights campaigners believe that animals should be able to live freely in medical research, hunting, agriculture and other industries that benefit humans. The central conflict here are conflicting priorities: the protection of animals or the service of humanity’s needs.
According to Gallup, 39 percent of Americans believe animal research is immoral. Gallup found that by 2020 there will be less support for medical testing of animals, the purchase and attire of clothes made of animal skins and animal cloning than in previous years.
Animal rights activists argue that animals deserve rights equal to or equal to those of humans without imprisonment, abuse or neglect. In addition, the animal rights movement believes that it is immoral to eat animals or use them for work and research. This also applies to the protection of animal habitats against displacement or damage, for example, in the case of animal habitats.
Opponents of animal rights do not usually speak out in favour of cruel or unnecessary animal cruelty, but they do not believe that animals are equal to humans and that it is morally justified to use animals for the benefit of humanity. Most prominently, they believe that animal research can lead to medical findings and an improvement in people’s quality of life, such as testing antibodies in animals to combat COVID-19. They also claim that animals do not think or feel feelings such as pain, fear or loneliness.
Most fall somewhere between these two views. For example, many people support animal rights, but still eat meat. Others are loathed by animal cruelty, but still support the use of animals to promote medical research.
The right to privacy is a controversial issue in relation to conflicting priorities between privacy and public security. Over the years, the U.S. government has expanded its ability to conduct mass surveillance of its citizens to protect national security interests.
Privacy advocates argue that state control violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. They also express concern about private companies like Google and Facebook, which can collect and store large amounts of personal information.
Mass surveillance advocates believe that the threat of terrorism and foreign interference is more important than the right to privacy, arguing that the government should be able to protect Americans in any way necessary.
Sharing personal information via social media and online shopping also creates privacy issues. Many people often pass on financial information, addresses and credit information to private devices, for example, that internet thieves can then hack.
The 1857 uprising was a protracted armed insurgency and an uprising in northern and central India against the British occupation of that part of the continent. In January, small precursurs began to appear in dissatisfaction with arson in cantonal areas. Later in May, a large-scale uprising broke out, which turned into so-called full-scale wars in the affected area. This war led to the end of the British East Indian company’s rule in India and led to direct rule by the British Government (British Raj) over large parts of the Indian Peninsula for the next 90 years.
The issue of cassettes and military complaints has been overestimated as a factor in the 1857 uprising. However, recent studies have shown that the cartridge was not the only reason for this rebellion. In fact, for a number of reasons, but not to say so, social-religious-political- worked together economically to create a rebellion.
The British had abandoned their policy of not interfering in India’s socio-religious life. Abolition of Sat (1829), the Hindu Renegotiation Act (1856). Christian missionaries were allowed to come to India and continue the proselytizing mission. In 1850, the Law on Religious Disabilities amended the traditional Hindu law. According to it, a change in religion would not cause a boy to inherit the property of his pagan father.
Economic reasons: The BRITISH Government led to the collapse of the village’s self-sufficiency, the commercialisation of agriculture, the introduction of free trade imperialism since 1800, the decline in industrialisation and the draining of wealth, all of which led to a general economic slowdown.
Military complaints: The expansion of the UK dosage in India had had a negative impact on Sepoy’s state of service. They had to serve in an area far from their home without the extra Bhattaa. A major cause of military dissatisfaction was the General Service Recruitment Act of 1856, which requires sepoys to cross the seas if necessary. The Post Office Act of 1854 annulled a free post office for them.
Political reasons: The last major expansion on British territory took place under Dalhousie. Dalhousie announced in 1849 that Bahadur Shah II’s successor had to leave the Red Division. However, the annexation of Baghat and Udaipur was cancelled and returned to their houses of power. When Dalhousie wanted to apply child doctrine to Karaul (Rajputana), the court overturned him.
Modernity, as we now understand, was conceived in England in the mid-18th century. Late ancestor: technology. The innovations that started the industrial revolution promoted modern democracy and led to the establishment of modern economies. They disrupted society, depending on the old structures, and the construction of new ones. Institutions, industry and people were all going to change course, and in the end the revolution had little to do with British life. By spreading — first to Western Europe and the United States — it also left a much greater mark on the world. It took a long time for technological change to shift to politics and politics. But the spread led to both eventually shaping political parties in front of the Labour founder, the culmination of a long debate about the role of capital and workers.
Today, only the world is going through a period of profound technological change, much more than experienced during the Industrial Revolution, there are some rhymes of history. The issues of inequality, productivity and regulation are profound. Concerns about corporatism are growing, which is why the demands of socialism are higher. However, the chances of restructuring are even greater than before. That’s already started.
The companies that have dominated this era at the moment have done so for significant economies of scale and strong networking influences. New business models have evolved, with platforms, consorts and infrastructure companies blowing away old models that dominated distribution and had expensive fixed assets. This, in turn, has brought many people closer to the economy: the unrest in a place like Silicon Valley came from public funding, but it flourished because the Internet enabled decentralized entrepreneurship and decentralized power. Thriving countries are innovative, adopted and adaptable. Take some time off.
Moreover, the driving force behind innovation is no longer the national economy, as it was during the Industrial Revolution. All countries can be open to development, and although the UK was an early exporter of new data in the 18th century, many of the most important events are currently taking place in the US, China and other leading European countries. This has increased the chances of what is possible, but it has also changed people’s perceptions.
We live in a time of abundance, but in an abstract sense. Resources aren’t from the ground. Their use is often unpredictable, while the unintended consequence of the reunification of billions of people can be chaotic. As some of the great reform legislation of the 19th century has said, there is still much left. The overall effect of such a change can feel like a cacophony, where the signal is difficult to distinguish from noise. Politics and journalism, once gatekeepers and leaders of public debate, have weakened their power and are struggling to maintain control by lowering their standards.
See is more than documented time, and a much more diverse and open public sector is largely exploring some of the potential impact of technology on public policy. The nature of the work changes, for example, as a result of new business models and job recognition technologies that increase the large-scale transition of employees. This raises questions about education and retraining, well-being and human intentions. What skills do workers need to withstand technological shocks? What is the right balance between labour and capital, only overloaded technology can hamper productivity by undercutting the human capital needed to rebuild it? And should the OECD consensus on labour taxation be heavier than capital?
The growing fight against climate change has also opened discussions on the sustainability of capitalism. The question is whether a new model is needed or whether technology changes based on existing trends can lead to the necessary dematerialisation. This debate has been sparked by the industrial revolution and the use of the resources needed to build modern capitalist economies. However, there is a persuasive argument that the West is using technology to free up the environment and becoming increasingly aware of the need to be produced and consumed more wisely. At the heart of this has been the growth of renewable energy, and some forecasters predict that carbon-neutral technologies will take over fossil fuels and generate more than half of the world’s generational needs, taking the 2030 menäness. However, this problem must be focused relentlessly, with investment in technological innovation and efficiency at its core.
North Korea is in trouble. The COVID-19 pandemic, self-isolation and isolation, crop disruptions, sanctions and others have put the economy in a sad state, as Kim Jong Un himself acknowledges. The government’s planning mechanism appears to be broken, currency shares are falling, government revenues are falling, foreign trade has plummeted and growth is slowing. To solve the crisis in the administration, the gaps so far do not seem to change things. In fact, they could exacerbate the situation, especially if Pyongyang continues its plans to redirect scarce resources to expand its nuclear and missile programs.
Foreign Senior Researcher – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asian Political Studies
Despite its difficulties, Pyongyang is not counted out. For decades, the North Korean regime has shown remarkable determination, diplomatic dexterity and irrational survivability. The People’s Republic of Korea has the support of China, which is ready to live with Pyongyang’s nuclear status and promised to keep the regime “in a lifeline.” North Korea is down, but hardly out.
Amid this economic crisis, Kim Jong Un is playing that expanding its nuclear and missile arsenals will prompt the U.S. to participate in “arms control negotiations” where North Korea is tacitly accepted as a nuclear power and Pyongyang for the sanctions it needs.
However, the economic crisis in North Korea is a major vulnerability for Pyongyang. It provides an opportunity to put overwhelming pressure on the regime on a broad front and convince Kim Jong Un that his pursuit of nuclear weapons can end his regime. Previous attempts to do so were half-women, and they failed to change Kim’s calculation. The current crisis may be the last chance to try.
Now the possibility of nuclear disarmament in North Korea is almost gone. But that goal could be achievable if the United States, its allies and partners recognize that Kim Jong Un and his regime are on shaky ground, and now is the time to convince Kim that he believes the earthquake is a sign that the days of the regime can be handled.
Reasonable observers disagree on the value and fairness of ISDS. However, regardless of the position in this debate, the mechanism has become politically toxic, on which even many capital exporting countries now agree. Reform has become an important political agenda. The EU is proposing a revised format for ISDS after investment protection provisions helped torpedo the prospects for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and triggered a political crisis at the end of the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU (CETA). At the same time, EU efforts to reform the multilateral energy treaty have intensified after foreign investors used the agreement to target climate policy, including the regulation of the German coal-fired power plant and the Dutch decision to decommission coal-fired energy. In North America, the increase in ISDS requirements for the old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was also widely condemned, and the relevant mechanism has now been removed from U.S.-Canada investment relations in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement. [2]
But with the exception of ECT and NAFTA, leading policymakers and elected officials will focus primarily on how to limit or replace ISDS in future agreements. [3] This is misunderstood. Forward-looking reform proposals may help resolve some public backlash against new contracts. Even if all recently negotiated contracts improve or the government decides to stop negotiations with ISDS rules altogether, the current stock of investment contracts will continue to provide access to ISDS on the same terms as in the past.
In fact, most new ISDS cases come from agreements signed at least 15-20 years ago, rather than from agreements ratified in recent years. Unless policymakers return to existing investment agreements, the current network of agreements will continue to expose host countries on outdated terms. [4] And the home country’s launch of outdated agreements is complicit in easing investor demands, which are sometimes distorted by internal and foreign policy action plans, such as the energy transition.
The current president of America is working to make America great again. But he also has a past of working to make Trump Entertainment Resorts great again. In other words, the president has a great understanding of gambling in the USA. But something we must remember is that the president alone cannot change US gambling legislation. Still, it does look as if the new American president has had some impact on the gambling scene in the USA. Some positive and some less so…
As it became clear that the new American president would be one with extensive experience of casino gambling, many started to make little leaps for joy. Trump did express interesting views on sports betting and he agreed that the US laws had failed. Since 1992, it has been illegal to bet on sports. Only 4 States can offer sports betting. But this might change since there are many voices for making it legal and Trump seems to be part of the for-camp.
Trump’s understanding of gambling is crucial. Even if Casumo free spins online aren’t exactly the same thing as spins on a slot in a Nevada casino, the president’s background might also be a boost for online gaming. But this is not an easy hurdle to get over. Sheldon Adelson is one of Trump’s supporters. He is a casino magnate but also a strong advocate against online gaming all over the States.
But Trump is not one to fear opponents even among his own. And it is known that he and his daughter Ivanka looked into offering online gaming in New Jersey back in 2013. This was before internet gambling was legal in the State. Trump has expressed an ambivalent position on online gambling and has mentioned having friends for and against. So opinions of the likes of Adelson might weigh in more than we think.
It is hard to say anything definite regarding President Trump’s impact on gambling laws just yet. But there are clues to what his time in the White House could lead to. Brett Kavanaugh was recently nominated to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court. This came at the heel at the most important legal victory in the history of sports betting in the USA.
Brett Kavanaugh is known for being sympathetic to the gambling industry. This might lead to new American legislations that make it easier for breakthroughs.
But we must also mention the tariffs introduced by the president. These tariffs aimed at Chinese goods are also affecting the Nevada gambling companies. The ties between Vegas and Macau could be hurt by the new tariffs and American gaming company executives are nervous over what’s coming next.
With Donald Trump it is not so easy to bet what’s going to happen. We can only speculate and try to figure it out based on his comments, the people who stand close to him and steps that changes who sits in the seat where the new legislation will have to pass.
Bottom line, it does look like President Trump will have quite an impact on the gambling laws. The best bet is probably that more gambling such as sports betting will be allowed in America but not necessarily online.
If you find yourself suddenly seeing so much about Philippine Politics on your sphere, that is no mistake. You are presently seeing the calculated and well-funded attempt to oust the current President: Rodrigo Duterte.
A long-time mayor of the city of Davao found in the Southern archipelago of the Philippines. He has long been famous for his tough as nails approach to crime (with a vocabulary to match). He is well loved by the people of his city. Duterte has never wanted to run for higher office. He has been content with his successes in reforming one of the more dangerous Philippine cities.
Davao is near the southern end of the Philippines. Davao is also near where a majority of the Muslim rebel groups have enjoyed consistent stranglehold that part of the country. Davao was once known for the spate of killings and bombs going off.
When Duterte came into office, things drastically changed. His governance and strict rules effectively rehabilitated Davao into one of the fastest economically growing city in the Philippines. Duterte was so effective that Davao City was declared to be one of the safest countries in the world.
When he ran for the office of President in the 2016 election, the nation was divided. The strongman from Davao had a massive following from the middle and lower income members of society which vastly outnumbered those in the upper echelons of Philippine society. Social media became a battlefield between the faction of Duterte supporters and those that supported the former President’s chosen successor: Mar Roxas.
It was a truly vitriolic time to be part of the Philippine social media scene. It was been reported that no other election season has seen such attention or activity from ordinary citizens. It seems that the middle and lower income brackets have finally tired of the Oligarchs that have long monopolized the political sphere of Philippine politics.
A common tactic by the Oligarchs was to appeal to the Filipino’s sense of compassion and pity. For example, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo once had a TV ad stating that she had experienced having to sell Sampaguita garlands on the street for money. However, if you did a little bit of digging, you would know that Gloria Arroyo was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and had an excellent upbringing in a highly exclusive subdivision near the central business district of the country.
Mar Roxas who has had plain political aspirations through the years followed suit. Roxas took a “man of the people” approach by having a ton of photo ops where he was doing menial work or eating “as the people do” with their bare hands. It only served to emphasized how out of touch he was with how things were done by the masses.
The 2016 Philippine Election was undoubtedly one of the most polarizing events in their social strata. Most of the attacks were ad hominem—something that is entirely unbecoming. This is something that continues despite Duterte already winning.
The Philippines has been a long-time ally of the USA. That is not hard to imagine given that for a time the PH was under USA rule. Duterte showed inclination of distancing his nation away from the USA—a move that was indicative of the shifting power in the Asia Pacific where China and Russia had strong economies.
This was something that was heavily criticized by those that supported Mar Roxas and the Liberal Party (LP). They believed that since the US has been a long-time trade partner, Duterte should continue to pander to the longstanding agreements. However, once Trump had won and started to be vocal about putting “America First Above All”. The distance that Duterte had put in between the two nations was seen as a good strategic move—of course, the LP and their supporters will never own up to that.
Instead, they started to criticize the other parts of Duterte’s policies like his War on Drugs. International groups like the UN and the EU have heavily criticized the extrajudicial killings that are “rampant” in the country. Why the sudden interest in the PH state of politics by international organizations is something that strikes Duterte supporters as odd.
Last year, BBC even managed to interview this woman named Jover Laurio who ran a once anonymous anti-Duterte blog called Pinoy Ako Blog. She claimed that Pro-Duterte bloggers and members had bullied her and spread falsehoods about her character. Never mind the fact that when she was still hiding in her anonymity, she was right up there in the ad hominem and salacious accounts that were easily proven to be incorrect.
It seems that the reason why such personalities are catapulted into the international spotlight is because of Duterte’s approach at governance. As someone who takes a hard stance on crime and has a no nonsense approach at large corporations that have managed to get away with not paying their taxes for years, Duterte is a massive threat to the linings of the pockets of those that have benefited from the Filipino people for decades.
What is astounding so us who are watchers of events, there is a massive tone deaf approach regarding media dissemination of information. If any of the anti-Duterte people had anything to say or if Duterte himself had another foot-to-mouth gaffe, it would be all over the local and even international media. However, when carefully researched and properly constructed arguments supporting Duterte were to become viral, it is almost completely ignored by the media.
This is primarily because it is also Oligarchs that own the many different media outlets in the Philippines.
Singapore, who also has a very strict stance on crime, has commended Duterte’s action. There is arguably more confidence coming from other heads of state regarding the Philippine’s capability to reel in long standing issues like corruption and the necessity of bribes.
We certainly will wait to see what happens in the Philippines.
Arguably one of the more divisive players in the field of national and international politics, Donald Trump is one to watch. We take a look at some of the political reforms he wants to put into action.
Donald John Trump is presently serving as the 45th President of the USA. Prior to this, he was best known for his businesses and television show. He is also quite well known for his lavish lifestyle and the Miss Universe and Miss Teen USA pageants.
He has had his share of controversies regarding bankruptcies and legal cases that involved his casinos. Trump has been hot and cold about the concept of politics. It seemed that he was going to run for office back in 1987—even dropping quite a sum on ads that professed his political inclinations. Nothing came out of that.
It was also thought that he was running for the office of the President in 1998 and several presidential election years thereafter—still nothing concrete had occurred. He did run for the office of Governor of New York twice but was not successful.
Trump has also been quite critical of past Democratic presidents, Barack Obama in particular. Trump had consistently made public statements regarding Obama’s supposed non-US citizen status. When Obama had produced both his short-form and long-form birth certificates, Trump took credit for protracting Obama’s “transparency”.
Trump later on went to demand to see Obama’s transcript of grades as the former had doubted that the latter could not have had the grades necessary to be accepted in an Ivy League School. When the media later asked Trump about Obama’s non-US citizen status (per Trump’s own statements) he goes on to claim that it was Hillary Clinton that started the rumors.
It was not until the 2016 Presidential Election that Trump would make a big impact into the sphere of American politics. Trump’s rallying cry was “Make America Great Again”. These are his biggest platforms:
One of Trump’s primary platforms was to be tough on illegal immigrants. The concept of building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico was being floated around. He had even claimed that Mexico will have to be the one to pay for it…or else.
Trump has also vowed harsh penalties for sanctuary cities that harbor illegal immigrants or the children who have been born on American soil.
Trump says that it is utterly terrible that a majority of the jobs that are meant of Americans are being outsourced. During his campaign, he had promised his voters that he would be making more jobs available for American citizens.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the project of the Obama administration which enabled affordable healthcare for millions of Americans. While the system was not perfect, it was still able to help many. Trump has been after the ACA since day 1.
Trump has always exclaimed that certain sectors have bloated funding. The Environmental Protection Agency or EPA is one such “sector” which will have its funding cut by about a third of its original budget. This will mean the loss of nearly 3,900 jobs. Trump claims that the funding taken from bloated sectors will go toward “better” sectors which will “create a big number of jobs”. While he cannot state specifically how many, he has said “A large number. Huge!”
Trump has spoken out against Islamic terrorist acts time and time again. Trump’s stance is to boost the budget for the military in order to deal with the Islamic threat “once and for all”.
Since taking up office, Trump has said a lot of inflammatory sentiments. The thing is, with technology available today and how fast it is to fact-check, it has been found that a lot of Trump’s statements were false. However, Trump has concluded that there is a media plot to take whatever he says out of context.
Never mind the fact that his words are all taken verbatim. The American public is now highly divided with those who find Trump’s statements and what he stands for to be completely repulsive and not at all what a president should be.
On the opposite vein of things, Trump has enjoyed a massive following (which is why he won). What is troublesome to many is the fact that Trump has been associated with “Alt-Right” personalities. These people are the newest faces of the White Supremacy movement. As America is one of the more diverse populations in the world, the resurgence of the White Supremacy is highly troubling.
Since winning the elections, many families of color have started to migrate to Canada. One of Trump’s infamous first acts as president was to sign a Travel Ban. Trump’s travel ban will suspend entry to the US for any refugees for around 120 days. The travel ban was implemented immediately after Trump signed his executive order.
As Trump has been aiming to repeal the ACA with not actual plan for a replacement, millions of Americans will not be able to afford their medical needs.
The travel ban that Trump signed also affects citizens from the Middle East. What is curious is the fact that several countries where Trump does not have business relationships in are not part of the ban despite being in the Middle East as well.
Trump has also pulled out of the Paris Agreement which was supposed to be one of the best ways to slow down and eventually counteract climate change. Trump, however, has said that he does not believe in the concept of climate change and that is it something that requires further study.
A hot topic in the middle of 2017 was Trump’s exchanges with the North Korean Leader Kim Jung-Un. Trump, instead of de-escalating the issue, added more fuel to the fire by warning that if North Korea was to persist in their missile testing or any further provocation against the US would be met with “Fire and Fury” (whatever that means).
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
