|
1stGear posted:Is the drug problem in the country actually as serious as Duterte supporters claim? Here's a document from the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, back in 2001, where drug trafficking is described as the #1 domestic threat to the country, with an estimated 1.7 million regular drug users, or about 2% of the country's population at the time. It's not difficult to score drugs if you know where to ask and where to look. The slums and lower classes abuse crystal meth, which we call shabu, and then the cocaine problem is similar to white suburban America. What's problematic is that Duterte and his supporters use it as leverage for just about everything that they want to do and justify. The Philippines lacks the ethnic and racial tensions of other countries, so he's basically turned to drug traffickers and drug users as his fascistic "Other" of choice, with a side-order of indefensibility because it is of course exceedingly difficult to argue and advocate on the side of people who are otherwise literally breaking the law and shooting back at policemen and killing them. This is going to be a clumsy analogy, but you know how Sanders drew flak for resting a lot of his campaign platform on "income inequality"? That institutional racism is going to be alleviated by taxing the rich and reducing the GINI coefficient? It's kind of like that, but with drugs. That is, once Duterte cleans out the drug problem, it's going to boost the Philippine economy, because the country will be so safe that foreign investors will be better encouraged to come here. Once Duterte cleans out the drug problem, it's also going to resolve corruption in the government sector, because all those bribes and kickbacks that delay and overcost public works programs are apparently being done by high-level drug lords. Once Duterte cleans out the drug problem it's also going to resolve Manila's traffic problem, for God knows what reason. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Aug 25, 2016 |
# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 06:03 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:51 |
|
On economics: We keep making comparisons to Donald Trump winning the Presidency, right? One of the fears of a Republican President in the White House is that it would allow them to go whole hog on the Free Market ideology. The Duterte administration plans to pass tax reform that will reduce income taxes, from 32% to 25% at the highest bracket. This was another big bullet point of his campaign promises: economic literacy in the country is fairly low, and most people resent the gently caress out of having a big chunk of cash taken out of their paychecks for a government that they've been trained to think does nothing and isn't capable of doing anything, and not a lot of people know what progressive taxation and tax brackets are, so Candidate Duterte promising to lower taxes was a big thing for winning over middle-class voters. But that buries the lede in the story: quote:To compensate for the foregone revenues from lower personal income tax take, earlier pegged by the Department of Finance at P139 billion, the Duterte administration proposes the following compensating measures: And this very Paul Ryan-ish follow-up next year: quote:The second package planned for passage in June next year will reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent from 30 percent over time and simplify provisions to improve compliance. And that's not all. The administration also plans to "reform" Estate Taxes as well. All this coming from a candidate that ran on the platform of "the Aquino administration failed to let the entire country feel the economic bloom" is really disappointing, to put it mildly.
|
# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 06:22 |
|
Disharmony posted:To be fair with Duterte though, his heart is in the right place and has a can-do attitude that allowed him to pull off some surprising none-drug related poo poo faster than I thought. The 911 hotline has been doing well, the Freedom of Information bill, even the MRT is back to running decently (comparable to 5 years ago) - and its barely been two months. My take on this is that Duterte knows how to get things done directly, because as Davao Mayor, what he said goes, but he doesn't know how to cooperate. The 911 thing is under his purview as an Executive, so he got that done immediately The FOI is an Executive Order that only covers the Executive, so he got that done immediately, but it's not the same as passing a bill through Congress. The MRT's new trains were acquired by the previous admin, and yeah he threw out the previous admin's Transportation Secretary (who was a piece of poo poo), but again, under his purview as the Executive But he can't stand criticism. He picked a fight with the Chief Justice for not immediately having justices kowtow to his list of drug-involved officials, and he picked a fight with a sitting Senator for wanting to investigative EJKs. And now the Senate is having hearings on whether or not to give the President special and emergency powers to resolve Manila's traffic problem, because the only thing he knows how to do is to do it himself, at his direct orders. Kthulhu5000 posted:Out of curiosity, what is classified as an illegal drug in the Philippines? gradenko_2000 mentioned meth and cocaine use as a thing, but how wide is the spectrum? Marijuana is also an illegal drug*. Ecstasy is also an illegal drug. Does that help? I'm not sure what the scope of your question is. * as in, super-duper Reefer Madness illegal. There's a very small millenial population that knows of the "legalize weed, dude!" belief, but a vast majority of the country still believe it turns people into the Hulk and you can OD on it and all that stuff, and legalization is not discussed at any level in politics.
|
# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 06:50 |
|
Argue posted:Edit: vvvvv Honestly, if you're middle class or above, aside from 911 now working (and laughably conflicting with Pizza Hut's delivery hotline), you'll never feel a difference in terms of safety. This whole thing is a big check-your-privilege reality check for me, and I'm annoyed that a lot of my middle-class Duterte-supporting friends don't. This is absolutely true. A lot of my friends completely bought into the Duterte hype because they wanted less traffic, less taxes, faster passport and driver's license processing, and general anti-establishment dissatisfaction (especially since the previous admin had some very latent, indefensible faults of their own). The anti-drug/anti-crime schtick was basically an afterthought compared to "I don't want the government to keep taking a quarter of my paycheck"
|
# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 09:08 |
|
Cross-posting from the PYF Awful Graphs thread:gradenko_2000 posted:A "matrix" of leaders and personalities behind the Philippine drug trade: Combined with the Fox News quality graph on murder statistics earlier this week: And this is shaping up to be a really fun administration for "truthiness"
|
# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 13:23 |
|
There's a new Time article out on Duterte's anti-drug, anti-crime campaign.quote:But how bad is the Philippine drug problem? According to UNODC data, the highest ever recorded figure for the prevalence of amphetamine use (expressed as a percentage of the population aged 15 to 64) in the Philippines is 2.35. That is a high figure, but then the equivalent figure for the U.S. is 2.20, and the world’s real amphetamine crisis is among Australian males, where the prevalence is 2.90. 2.35% of the population falling into amphetamine use would roughly match the figures cited in the 2001 government letter of instruction I shared earlier: gradenko_2000 posted:Here's a document from the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, back in 2001, where drug trafficking is described as the #1 domestic threat to the country, with an estimated 1.7 million regular drug users, or about 2% of the country's population at the time. So the Time article's figures and the official government's numbers are similar, but Time helpfully points out that Australia's amphetamine, opioid and cocaine problems are much more severe, and yet Australia is not, last time I checked, a post-apocalyptic wasteland overrun by warlords and gangs. Donkwich posted:I dunno, I'm pretty nervous about the guy seen in "cockpit areas" (whatever that means). It means a pit for cock-(as in male chickens)-fighting gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Aug 25, 2016 |
# ¿ Aug 25, 2016 17:44 |
|
PT6A posted:Heroin is a "safer drug"? What kind of deadly-rear end poo poo is going around over there? Heroin and other opiates are killing more people here than any other drug by far. It's not. It's really not. It's just that shabu/crystal meth is the primary drug of the lower classes, while the suburbanites use cocaine and heroin. So really all he's saying is "I don't want to have the police conduct warrantless house-to-house searches of rich-rear end people like we're currently doing in the slums, so I'm going to make the completely unsubstantiated claim that heroin and cocaine are safer so that I have an excuse to not need to do that"
|
# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 13:54 |
|
Background: Last August 7, the President read and released a list of more than 150 officials that he claims is or was involved in the drug trade. The list is simply names, with no corroborating evidence, and no official charges have been filed against any of the people named. Some of the officials named on the list were members of the judiciary. The Chief Justice of the country's Supreme Court wrote a letter to the President, clarifying that a number of the Judges named in the list could not possibly have had links to the drug trade anymore, because they're either dead, or resigned, or are handling cases and trials that do not involve drugs. The Chief Justice also instructed her Judges to please not voluntarily surrender themselves (as others have done) until and unless charges have been filed against them. She also asked that they be issued licenses to carry firearms for personal defense (as the expectation is that being named as a drug-involved figure will leave one open to being attacked by vigilante groups). The President then shot back with a threat of declaring Martial Law, if the Judiciary will not "cooperate". This was followed up by a statement later in the week by the President's chief legal counsel claiming that he would be entirely within his rights to do so, given the purported gravity of the drug situation in the country. Five days after the initial release of the list and as this affair played out, the President then apologized to the Chief Justice. In the news today: The President, in a speech, launched into a new tirade against the Judiciary when he said that the Chief Justice's emphasis on a need for warrants before making arrests would "promote anarchy" quote:“Madame Justice, you are again wrong when you said, ‘Do not allow yourself arrested without a warrant.’ [More people will die because of that],” he said. What doesn't make sense is that the Chief Justice was referring to a scenario wherein judges might feel compelled to turn themselves in just because they were named-and-shamed through the President's drug blacklist, or that judges might get "visited" by the police and "invited" to turn themselves in, sans a warrant. She advised the judges to not do that. Whereas the scenario that the President is describing, of making a warrantless arrest if one sees a crime-in-progress, is entirely different and does not apply. To say nothing of the direct accusation that waiting for warrants before making arrests will lead to anachy. Within the same speech, he also related a story about how he once threatened to shoot a judge who didn't want to sign an arrest warrant during his days as a prosecutor. [The quote is entirely in Filipino, so this is my translation] quote:These judges, they're sarcastic idiots ... even me, when I was a public prosecutor, I don't have to name them but, there was this one judge, I really kicked him. Kicked him right there in his office. And then the audience laughed.
|
# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 15:53 |
|
Helsing posted:So if the government is gearing up to purge part of the judiciary along with all these officials then is this essentially a coup? The administration is, at least in their words and their posturing, absolutely looking to purge anyone who isn't going to toe the line on letting the President have his way on pretty much everything. He's basically setting himself up to use his 90%+ approval rating and fearmongering drug trafficking as an existential threat as justifications to headbutt Congress and the Supreme Court all the way to a constitutional crisis unless they play ball. I just don't know about the semantic tangle of whether or not that's considered a coup. doodlebugs posted:I was watching finipinio news on SBS and they talk in tagalog but they occasionally speak a complete sentance in perfect English WTF is up with that The national and official language of the Philippines is Filipino, which is a combination of largely the Tagalog language spoken by about 90%+ of the population, plus loan words from provincial dialects, plus Spanish, plus English. Except speaking Filipino fluently enough to use it 100% of the time is rare, and especially when there are modern words and phrases that have no good translation into Filipino. So most people fall back on reverting to English whenever they want to say something that Filipino either can't cover or they're not fluent enough to know how to cover. Switching back and forth between the two is called "Taglish", or a portmanteau of Tagalog and English.
|
# ¿ Aug 27, 2016 18:15 |
|
Ytlaya posted:Given that the drug situation is not actually nearly as severe as Duterte portrays it, why exactly is Duterte so incredibly popular? I mean, Trump certainly has a significant support base in the US, but nothing near the almost ubiquitous support Duterte seems to have. The first thing to remember is that drug-users are, more-or-less, indefensible. They're somewhat of a perfect scapegoat for Otherization because even in a scenario where a person admits that the police and vigilantes are killing drug-users and drug-pushers willy-nilly, it's still very much an acceptable thing because for one they were already literally breaking the law (as opposed to, say, what happens to African-Americans in the US) and for another you're supposedly sparing the rest of greater society from other crimes they would have done had they lived or were not persecuted. Whenever people bring up that summary execution of drug-users is a violation of human rights, it's a very common retort here to say that the people who were/will be raped and/or murdered by crazed drug addicts did/would have their human rights also violated, and why aren't you caring about those? . The second thing to note is that Philippine politics prior to Duterte is (at least perceived to be) very establishment, and very centrist. Imagine an Overton Window spanning from maybe George HW Bush on the far-right end, and Bill Clinton on the liberal end, with lots of patronage politics and corruption to boot. And then Duterte runs on a populist, anti-establishment platform: 1. The Aquino administration's economic gains were a waste because it wasn't felt by the common man 2. There is lots and lots of corruption in the system, which slows everything to a crawl, including physically slowing everything to a crawl because the previous administration failed to address the traffic problem in Manila 3. The drug problem is severe and dire and the people are tired of criminality 4. I, Rodrigo Duterte, can fix all these because during my time as Davao Mayor, I rid the city of crime so that people feel safe walking along the streets, I implemented a 911 system which shows that I can cut through all of the bureaucratic red tape, and I have instituted reforms which made Davao a model city, something that even the previous administration has acknowledged 5. The outgoing administration wants you to vote for their next Liberal Party candidate in the name of consistency and continuation with the previous administration. That would be wrong, because you're just going to get 6 more years of bad rule. Vote for me. I will upend the system, and my campaign slogan is "Change is Coming" . The third thing to note is that the Philippine presidential election does not have primaries and does not have run-offs. All of the candidates are running at the same time, and whoever gets the most votes, wins. So Duterte wins with 39.01% of the vote. Mar Roxas, the candidate from Aquino's Liberal Party trying to run on an image of incumbency, comes in second place with 23.45% of the vote. Grace Poe, another moderate liberal that ran as an independent, got 21.39% of the vote. And then Jejomar Binay, the kleptocratic former Vice President, got 12.73% of the vote. To put this in perspective, imagine a four-way race between Donald Trump 2016, John Kerry 2004, Joe Lieberman 2000, and Jeb Bush 2016 (and the outgoing President is Jimmy Carter). Nobody votes for the establishment conservative (Jeb) because he's already been outed as a piece of poo poo, the Democratic vote is split between Kerry and Lieberman, and Trump wins with a slim plurality. . All of these factors combine to produce a nominally wildly popular President, because of the perception that he slew (or will slay) a lumbering, corrupt system, and especially since steps he has taken using Executive fiat in his first 50 days further reinforces the belief that he is a man of action that will get things done, goddamn the red tape. The criticisms leveled against him as a brutish thug tend to bounce off of him because A. we're supposed to have already known that he was going to be like that going in, since that was already his image as Mayor of Davao and that seemed to work for Davao, so we're supposed to excuse it, and B. because of "well, who're you going to support instead? Everyone else sucks"-style all-sides-are-equally-bad thinking. There's a bunch of stuff I'm glossing over or heavily summarizing, such as the polarization of social media within a 6-month period and Candidate Duterte's disinformation campaign, the real failings of the Aquino administration that made it difficult to defend against them, the background of how the liberal moderate vote ended up being split between Roxas and Poe, and others that we may eventually get into over this thread, but this post is long enough. Ask away if there's anything you'd want to be elaborated upon.
|
# ¿ Aug 28, 2016 02:25 |
|
Xelkelvos posted:The FPTP thing in the Philippines is pretty maddening too all things considered. The whole government structure was copied wholesale from the US at the time iirc with little consideration as to how and why those particular things were put into place. With an essentially cemented two party system, FPTP is no different than most other forms of voting, but with more than two very large political organizations at play, FPTP becomes a nightmarish thing particularly because it seems there's no galvanizing reason to merge parties beyond "gently caress that guy/party" and once that's done, the whole coalition/makeshift party breaks apart because of corruption and favoritism or the fear of it happening to them, putting all of the people from one of the pre-merged parties into positions of power and all of the others told to hit the bricks. You've been able to put into words something I've been struggling to express for a long time with regards to the party system in the Philippines. Because it's absolutely true what you said - there aren't really any parties in the Philippines because everyone just jumps ship to whoever won as soon as the elections were over. Like, international news made a big deal over how President Aquino had a Supermajority in both houses of Congress after the 2013 midterms, but nobody ever made the connection that the only way he pulled that off was because of massed Congressional defections from other parties into the Liberal Party boat. And that happened again this year: the PDP-Laban Party that Duterte ran under was a rump party with one governorship, one sitting Senator and maybe a handful of Representatives prior to the election, but then just days after the election when it became clear that Duterte was the Presumptive President, they had tons of defections and were able to declare a Supermajority in the House, and then it was the Liberal Party that was reduced to a rump.
|
# ¿ Aug 28, 2016 02:51 |
|
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/144331-data-drug-problem-philippinesquote:EXPLAINER: How serious is the PH drug problem? Here's the data
|
# ¿ Aug 28, 2016 04:02 |
|
The front-page news in one of our national broadsheets yesterday was this:quote:‘Junkies are not humans’ Please no one give this man a smartphone and access to Twitter.
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2016 03:46 |
|
blackguy32 posted:Super interesting. I work with almost all Filipinos (most of them seem to gravitate to night shift at hospitals) and some like that the voting system doesn't seem corrupt anymore yet dislike the current president. 2016 was the fourth election cycle that was done under computerized/automated voting. The last manual election, done in 2004 and lead to the election of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (her first full term, but her second term in general) was racked with allegations of massive vote fraud. So yeah, the actual winner of the elections notwithstanding, it's been pretty nice that the electoral process itself has been a lot more trustworthy.
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2016 11:08 |
|
President Duterte tells Senator De Lima to 'hang herself'quote:MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte wants his fiercest critic in Congress, Senator Leila De Lima, to step down. Emphasis mine. That's a direct quote, no translation.
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2016 12:06 |
|
Here's an interesting parallel to American social media. Remember the photo supposedly of Ambassador Stevens' body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi that turned out to be completely fake and was actually from Argentina? The Duterte administration is also engaging in such antics. quote:MANILA, Philippines – If you are on Facebook, chances are you've seen the above photo on your feed. Now, keep in mind that this is not some rando admin of Extremely Pissed Off Right-Wingers 2. Peter Tiu Lavina was the President's campaign spokesman during the election period. And he's posting stuff like this: [Direct link to the actual Facebook post] quote:To win the war against drugs, we need to be resolute like #PresidentDuterte. There should be no neutrals in this righteous crusade against evil. Let those fence-sitting nitpicking Humpty Dumpties realize that they are derailing our total victory against this menace. They are clearly on the side of if not protecting the drug lords. So it's not just like if Trump had won - it'd be like if you handed over the White House staff to the likes of Rob Morrow and Jerry Falwell. And To elaborate on this not being the first time that this has happened, another marked incident occurred back in mid-April this year, wherein this image of Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong supposedly endorsing Rodrigo Duterte made rounds on Philippine social media: It gained enough notoriety that the Singaporean Embassy in Manila had to issue a press release confirming that the image and the statement was fake
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2016 16:25 |
|
Yesterday, the Presidential Communications FB page made this post (now deleted): Problem is, it's completely made up The 2012 UN World Drug Report, linked here as a PDF, contains no such metric, and especially since the report only covers regional groupings, of which the Philippines is under "East and South-East Asia" which is shares along with Brunei, Cambodia, China, the DPRK, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, the ROK, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam. === Christine Amanpour did recently conduct interviews with both Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who was President Duterte's running mate and now a staunch administration supporter in the Senate: Facebook video link And then also Senator Leila De Lima, former head of the Department of Justice, now chairperson of the Senate Judicial Committee that called for hearings regarding extra-judicial killings https://twitter.com/camanpour/status/770688547699294208 === Here's a local editorial that tackles the current vibe of Philippine social media when it comes to political discussions quote:Here’s a classic appeal to emotion post by eugene_dlc1973 addressed to Gamboa: “Where do you currently reside? Have you ever tried walking alone in one dark alley of a slum area? Or have you even tried walking in the Malate area with your wife and a small child in the middle of the night? If you say yes (to) those questions, do you feel safe or (do) you keep looking over your shoulder while walking? Have you ever bumped into some kids (three to be exact), 15 years old or so, with knife and steel pipe (in) their hands, trying to decide if they just need to stab you or hit you with the pipe or both? Very courageous kids because they (were) so high at the time … Maybe you don’t worry about (these) things, because you are caged (in) a well-secured posh subdivision and travel in your luxury car and only visit high-end malls and restaurants, or maybe you are not even residing in Philippines …” quote:Perhaps even more alarming is that up to 42 percent of the comments can be categorized as ad hominems. A reasoning contains this logical fallacy, according to the IEP, “if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.” For example, Magnetic Levitation writes, “Inquirer is a tabloid with tabloidic-minded authors. Be a real writer for once.” === And finally, President Duterte is set to meet with both Obama and Putin quote:Washington (Reuters) — U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to meet with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Sept. 6, and plans to touch on human rights as well as security concerns, the White House said on Monday. quote:MANILA, Philippines – Of all President Rodrigo Duterte’s upcoming bilateral meetings with world leaders in Laos, his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin is the one he looks forward to the most.
|
# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 10:10 |
|
SynthOrange posted:A statistic today puts the total deaths at 2000+. I thought it was still in the three digits. Where'd you see it? The numbers can vary depending on how these deaths are being classified. Indeed, that argument over what death should be counted under which statistic is a point of contention going into the Senate inquiry into extrajudicial killings.
|
# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 06:55 |
|
Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Ronald dela Rosa is set to visit Colombia “within the next month” to see for himself how they “won the war on drugs.”quote:Dela Rosa, who has been chief of the PNP for two months now, is among the key officials in President Rodrigo Duterte’s so-called “war on drugs.”
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 06:34 |
|
Argue posted:Senator Cayetano, creator of the infamous murders graph, says that the hearings on extrajudicial killings are making the Philippines look bad. And that's not even the stupidest thing Senator Cayetano has said recently! Cayetano doubts BBC story on hired killer of drug dealers quote:Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, one of the staunchest allies of President Rodrigo Duterte, expressed doubts on an international news report about a woman allegedly hired by the police to kill drug pushers and users in the Philippines. And the head of the Department of Justice also has blinders on: [Justice Secretary] Aguirre: Bank account of ex-driver received millions from [Senator] De Lima quote:The bank account that allegedly received millions of pesos from Senator Leila de Lima when she was still Justice Secretary belonged to her former driver, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre III disclosed on Thursday, quoting a former employee of the senator.
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 07:24 |
|
Vegetable posted:Also great posts OP, really appreciate your detailed summaries. All I know about Duterte are his controversial comments. Interesting that he's for gay marriage -- how does that fly in a country where I assume people are pretty deeply religious? The Philippines is, AFAIK, the only remaining country that still does not have divorce, so that should say something. The campaign bullet points on Duterte's gender progressivism notwithstanding, same-sex marriages here are unlikely under a combination of the aforementioned conservatism of the Filipino culture, combined with the legislature being rather busy dealing with the President's War on Drugs, while also adopting Paul Ryan's economic plans when they get some free time to themselves. quote:Something I would not tax at all is inheritance of the family home. Not the 6 percent proposed, but zero. Why impose a heartless payment on a family suffering loss, and even putting at risk ownership of the house (many wouldn’t have the 6 percent and have to sell)? Home ownership is not by the husband or wife, or whoever else, but by the family. As long as the family retains the house, there should be no tax.
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 13:09 |
|
Reset the clock, because the President just had another hot take. Duterte: Drug war's death toll just like Clint Eastwood, Liam Neeson films quote:For President Rodrigo Duterte, the rising number of casualties in his administration's drug war is far from alarming.
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 14:13 |
|
CronoGamer posted:Not to jump to conclusions but this is probably gonna be an ASG retaliation to his crackdown in the Sulu archipelago, yeah? Pray that that's all it is.
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2016 18:33 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:What does a "state of lawlessness" entail? Is it any different from a state of emergency? We have our version of the Vox explainer articles! A "state of lawless violence" was previously declared by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo back in 2003 when mosques in Davao were bombed. NYT article The difference was that this only covered Davao City, whereas the declaration made by President Duterte today is nationwide. What is supposedly being invoked is Article VII, Section 18 of the Philippines' 1987 Constitution, which states: quote:SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. I am not a lawyer, but the precedent established by President Macapagal-Arroyo is that you can declare a state of lawless violence, and therefore call upon the armed forces to prevent or suppress this violence, and that is different from a declaration of Martial Law. That is, President Duterte specifically said he is not suspending the writ of habeas corpus, nor is he declaring Martial Law (not that he unilaterally could), nor is he making a request to Congress regarding the declaration of Martial Law. Further, that Martial Law is not and would not be appropriate in this situation since a declaration of ML requires an "invasion or rebellion", but if you only ever call it that first clause, of "lawless violence", then the need for ML does not exist. And I'm saying all this from a "strict Constitutionalist" perspective, with maybe half my tongue in my cheek. Talk is cheap, and like Argue I don't wish to make mountains out of molehills. The President did say that he is not declaring Martial Law, and that he is not suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which is good, but on the other hand, he has declared this state of emergency across the nation, and he has said the following: quote:Specifically, Duterte said he was allowing searches of motor vehicles at checkpoints.
|
# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 04:53 |
|
nopantsjack posted:They post cautiously about not wanting to make mountains out of molehills as their blatantly insane president proudly sets up death squads. but he won't frisk people to stop a bomb and blames democracy and namedrops fascism. I guess I'm sort of hedging my posting bets here because it's far too easy for me to go "see! this was all Duterte's plan! We're slipping right into being a police state!" Alex Jones-ish nuttery And yeah, okay, maybe the literal imposition of Martial Law is actually becoming a police state in a way that Alex Jones' paranoid rants about Obama aren't, but still. There are a lot of people out there who are using this as cover to further rally behind the President, no matter what he does, and I have no wish to be tasteless or ghoulish. https://twitter.com/moneyedCapital/status/771934588667060224 That sort of thing. Argue posted:CNN Philippines is reporting that the "State of Lawless Violence" is in effect only in Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan and Tawi-Tawi, and that there was a miscommunication regarding it being implemented nationwide. However, the guy who said this also said that it was "declared not only because of Davao blast but also for crime, drug war". See, that's confusing, because: https://twitter.com/inquirerdotnet/status/771918246341644288
|
# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 06:29 |
|
Argue posted:I'm seeing a lot more of this than I'm actually seeing anyone "celebrating". I'm actually kind of offended that people think the anti-Duterte crew saw this and thought "this is my chance to jab Duterte" or "hah, they deserve it" (there's a popular post on FB right now where someone paints us as such). That's kind of what I meant. I'm seeing more people go "LOOK AT THE LIBERALS CELEBRATING THIS!!! DUTERTE WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!" than any actual proof of any actual celebrating. And then there's also the people who are very transparently running ... can I call it an online false flag without coming off as a nut?
|
# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 06:49 |
|
Romneysmirkafterbenghazi.jpg
|
# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 12:30 |
|
Nyarai posted:Also, Duterte's nickname is Digong. Can anyone explain why? Google's been no help. It's a childhood name rooted in the Visayan dialect. Sephyr posted:Asked a filipina friend for her take on the issue. She e-mailed me this back. Sweet Jesus This would not be out of place in the Crazy Political Forwards thread, and there's a ton of poo poo to unpack, but I will try and address at least two big points that haven't been talked about before. quote:You don't understand the depth of desperation until you've lived here. The things you hear in the news do not even scratch the surface. This is the people buying into the administration's Ur-Fascist dichotomy. The drug menace needs to be so powerful, pervasive and all-encompassing that we need to be willing to hand over our liberties and swallow whatever extreme measures the administration wants to enact in order to stop it. Why, if it were any other President, the Philippines would have been destroyed by now! Such is the existential threat we face. But the drug menace is also vulnerable. The police are have taken in hundreds of thousands of surrenderees. They've broken up numerous gangs, arrested hundreds of pushers, and hauled in billions of pesos worth of drugs. The crime rate has dropped, and people feel more safe. Because at the same time, the drug menace can also be defeated, within six months, even. So that we can be saved. By Duterte. quote:Duterte was forced to run for President by the Filipino people You know how in very early American history, it was considered unbecoming to campaign for President? That you were supposed to be drafted by the people and other people were supposed to campaign for you? It's kind of like that. In the run-up to the deadline for candidates to submit their candidacy to our Commission on Elections, Duterte made repeated promises that he was not interested in the Presidency, and he did not want to run. Most people took him at his word, and the deadline came and went with him not filing, and everyone else doing so. But there was a big stonking loophole in the Philippines' electoral laws: in the event of a candidate withdrawing their candidacy, they could be replaced by someone else within 60 (or 90? can't remember off-hand) days. So there was this one guy, Martin Dino, former mayor of one of Metro Manila's cities, that filed a candidacy under the PDP-Laban Party, which was Duterte's party. It didn't take people very long to figure out that Duterte was going to use this loophole to jump in to the race months after the mudslinging had already started between all of the other candidates, but even then, he continued to say that he did not want to run for office. And so there was this movement to draft Duterte. People organized rallies and meetings to try and convince Duterte that he had a base of supporters ready to go out and campaign for him, if only he'd throw his hat in the ring. And this all culminated on the final day of the deadline for the loophole candidate-replacement rule, wherein the news was reduced to waiting at the Manila Airport to await Duterte as he flew from Davao on a private plane just to make the afternoon close of the Commission on Elections. It was a huge deal at the time, because the entire set-up tugged at peoples's heartstrings all across the nation. They bought it hook, line and sinker that Duterte didn't actually want to be President, and was only doing this out of the goodness of his heart, and that we had nothing to fear from him being power-hungry because he never wanted the job in the first place. It gave him a massively advantaged starting position in the polls, like a "post-announcement bump" that never went away until the elections. === This specific emotional appeal also allowed him to form an attack line against Mar Roxas, who was the candidate for the Liberal Party, which was then currently in power under the leadership of President Aquino. See, Mar Roxas was supposed to run for the President in the 2010 elections, but when former President Corazon Aquino died in 2009, there was enough public fervor and sympathy that the party threw their weight against having her son, Benigno Aquino, run for the top spot instead. And so Mar Roxas stood aside and ran for Vice President instead, except he lost. But because Roxas "gave way" in 2010, it was sort of expected that he would run in 2016 even before Aquino was inaugurated. So we're entering this 2016 cycle with a candidate, Roxas, who believes it's "his turn", versus a candidate, Duterte, who's made himself look like the reincarnation of Cincinnatus. And that allowed Duterte to form rhetoric that turned Roxas' partial-incumbency advantage against him. People didn't like the idea of Roxas' inevitability, and since he was due to "inherit" the Aquino administration and was running under their banner, the palpable failures of the administration were retroactively projected onto him.
|
# ¿ Sep 3, 2016 18:30 |
|
Rodatose posted:Did the Philippine-American War and its hundreds of thousands of dead civilians like, not happen, or what The President has been really good at playing the xenophobia card: The US has no right to even criticize the Philippines because their cops are shooting black people, and they invaded Iraq, and they're bombing innocent people in Syria The UN has no right to even criticize the Philippines because they were ineffective in Uganda (and Uganda was much worse!), and the head of their Human Rights Council is from Saudi Arabia which has a much worse human rights violation record, and they've been unable to stop the Syrian Civil War And then this recent attack is going to let them play that up even more by shifting some of the blame onto America: if only the US hadn't created ISIS by destabilizing the Middle East, we wouldn't have this radical Islamist problem in Mindanao right now. And when American police kill African-Americans, those people are ostensibly innocent. When the Philippine police end up killing people, they're killing drug dealers and drug pushers who were fighting back, and is that not completely justifiable? All they're doing is ridding society of its worst elements, after all.
|
# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 01:43 |
|
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/580203/news/nation/duterte-on-discussing-human-rights-with-obama-nobody-has-the-right-to-lecture-mequote:President Rodrigo Duterte on Monday said he does not owe US President Barack Obama any explanation regarding the issues on extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses hounding his three-month-old administration. [translations] are all mine.
|
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 12:33 |
|
It's probably that things just aren't that bad enough yet to justify a chilling of relations. Like, I'm not saying Obama is Reagan, but the US didn't do anything about Marcos except prop him up while he was still firmly in power, and then told him to get out of town once it was clear that he wasn't. A policy which itself (correct me if I'm wrong) was also similar to how the US responded to Egypt during the Arab Spring.
|
# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 16:13 |
|
Tarantula posted:It might buy you some cool points at home That's it. That's entirely it. He knows that there's enough of a contingent of the Filipino people that want to reject a "colonial mentality" enough that he can get away with it and his approval ratings will still shoot up. Like, I've seen even moderates go "I mean, he may have been foul-mouthed, but he does have a point, the US shouldn't be meddling" (which, of course the flaw in that reasoning is that yes, the US and the rest of the world are entirely entitled to give a poo poo about how the government conducts our war on drugs, because these are internationally-recognized human rights) gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Sep 6, 2016 |
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 03:37 |
|
Y-Hat posted:The first exposure I had to Duterte was someone posting on Facebook that his presidency is what would happen if someone based their political platform on YouTube comments. It's not far off the mark. How likely is a Marcos-style state of emergency in the future, what would start it, and how long would it take before Duterte says "gently caress everything" and implement it? http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/09/04/1620388/panelo-state-lawlessness-being-drafted-even-davao-blast quote:MANILA, Philippines — Chief presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo on Sunday clarified that the proclamation of a “state of lawlessness” was already planned even before the night market blast in Davao City. This, on top of Duterte having already previous threatened the imposition of Martial Law, and this Panelo person that followed-up the President's statement with how it would have been totally justified had he done so. So while I emphatically believe that the Davao incident was not an "inside job", I am also firmly in the belief that the government is just waiting for the right time and opportunity to either make a justifiable declaration of Martial Law, or to simply erode civil liberties via other means to the point where it's de facto Martial Law anyway. And a lot of his rhetoric has been to shift public opinion in a way that would make it acceptable. To wit, there wasn't an immediate huge public outcry when Marcos declared Martial Law, because a significant chunk of the population accepted it as a necessary step to curb a Communist insurgency. Playing up the drug war as an existential conflict is cribbing from that playbook.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 05:17 |
|
"If you don't like the country, get out" is my favorite Bush-ism making a roaring comeback.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 05:44 |
|
CronoGamer posted:He's also already regretting the insult: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/duterte-expresses-regret-over-obama-comments-spokesman/3103660.html So we're basically following the same track as his insult to the Pope last year. Meeting is being rescheduled for a later date now. Like, the current spin is "He wasn't actually cursing at Obama, he was threatening to curse at Obama if Obama brought up the issue of human rights during the Laos meeting" Which isn't really that different because Josh Earnest already confirmed that that was a topic that was going to be brought up, which is why the local media asked Duterte about it in the first place. KiteAuraan posted:Hasn't MILF been a thing for like, at least 50 years now? Yes. Fun little history lesson: Ferdinand Marcos had plans to expand the territory of the Philippines, as most right-wing dictators are won't to do. His target was the island of Sabah, which the Philippines has had an on-and-off nominal claim upon due to ancient disputes over whether it was supposed to have been part of the Philippines over some deal that the local rulers made with British colonialists. Marcos' plan was to take a group of young Muslim Moros from Mindanao, train them to be commados, and send them over to Sabah to foment insurrection, dissent, and general chaos, with a long-term view towards turning Sabah into enough of a powder keg that he could step in to restore order. So these young Moros were sent to train in the island of Corregidor, which one may remember as being the last stand of American forces in WW2 against the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. At some point, Moros discovered the ulterior motive behind their training, and they refused to go along with the plan, as that would involve attacking their fellow Muslims. Their military trainers instead had them all killed, so that no witnesses would be left. Except one of them did escape - swam from Corregidor back to the Philippine mainland, and managed to relay his story to his fellow Mindanaoans. This incident would come to be known as the Jabidah Massacre, and was the instigating event behind the radicalization and drive for autonomy of the Moro people.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 08:52 |
|
Duterte warns terrorists: I can eat peoplequote:President Rodrigo Duterte said that he won’t hesitate to be a 'cannibal' if terrorists will not stop attacking the country. Duterte warns Abu Sayyaf: I will eat you alive quote:VIENTIANE, Laos — I will eat you alive. To be clear, I'm now instead underlining parts of quotations that I've had to translate myself, and I'm linking two articles of the same subject because the second one was already completely translated into English, just to give people an idea of what that's supposed to sound like.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 11:35 |
|
Chomskyan posted:So did Duterte call Obama a son of a whore or not? Annoying people (Duterte supporters) on Facebook are claiming it wasn't directed at Obama or something Okay, so the thing to understand about the quibbling over this news is that this all on the scale of Donald Trump and his surrogates saying he totally didn't mean to say people should shoot Hillary Clinton when he said something about 2nd Amendment people finding a solution. It's plausible deniability wrapped up in arguments over semantics, tenses, and literal versus metaphorical translations. The first thing to note is that he said the words. He did, there's no question. People are going to argue and debate over the specific translation. "Putangina mo" is a contraction of "Puta ang ina mo" "Puta" directly translates to whore "ina" directly translates to mother So that phrase is "Your mother is a whore", but applying any modicum of context will mean it translates to "son of a bitch" just as well, because if your mother's a whore, then you're a son of a bitch, right? Personally, I translated it to "motherfucker" just because of the emotional weight behind the imprecation, but CNN and BBC will disagree with me for taking creative liberties with the translation. Spin 1: He wasn't cursing at Obama, he was threatening to curse at Obama if Obama brought up the issue of human rights and extra-judicial killings during their meeting in Laos. I find this a difference without a distinction. The White House already confirmed that as being on the agenda, so whether or not it was going to be in future isn't a meaningful difference. Spin 2: He wasn't cursing at Obama, nor at future Obama, but rather at the reporters. That's still not something you do in polite company in front of news cameras. Spin 3: He wasn't cursing at Obama, nor at future Obama, nor at the reporters, but rather he was frustrated at the situation the Philippines found itself in, and uttered a curse the same way you might say it if you stubbed your two. That's still not something you do in polite company in front of news cameras. Ultimately, I don't know of any world leader, whether it's Obama, or David Cameron, or Angela Merkel, or even Vladimir Putin, that's had to resort to such crude language in order to make their points. I mean, they even made an entire skit/joke about how Obama has to have an "anger translator" to express how he really feels. That the Philippine President doesn't have any such filter is, to put it mildly, disappointing. And excusing that behavior just because it wasn't literally pointed at President Obama is ultimately a distraction from the issue - that the President shouldn't be anywhere near a hot mic. KingEup posted:I work on a dementia ward and I'm starting to think this guy has some frontal lobe disorder, like as in he actually can't help but say what he thinks no matter how offensive. It's cheap armchair psychology on the level of calling Trump a narcissist, but my dad also has taken to believing Duterte might have frontal lobe disinhibition.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 13:55 |
|
Secretary Clinton made remarks about the cancellation of the meeting with the Philippines, saying Obama "made exactly the right choice" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyFn8QoBVv4
|
# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 01:50 |
|
Background: Back in 2011, Filipino journalist Maria Ressa, who was a former chief of CNN's Manila bureau, founded Rappler, whose main draw was better integration with the internet and social media for news distribution and presentation. It was new and it was hip - think of a cross between Vox and Vice News, with maybe just a bit of Huffington Post thrown in. I bring this up because while there has been an undercurrent of "the mainstream media is biased against Duterte" ever since the 2016 campaign season, this most recent incident with the Duterte-Obama meeting and its subsequent cancellation owing to the President's remarks, seems to have hit an especially strong nerve: "Talangka" is the Filipino word for "crab", and "utak talangka" then translates to "crab-bucket mentality" The point here is that anyone who is criticizing the Duterte administration is supposedly suffering from crab-bucket mentality: they don't want the Philippines to progress, so they're dragging the rest of the country down with them by unfairly attacking the President at every turn, up to and including engaging in dishonest, biased media tactics in order to do it: And how Duterte's brand of leadership is actually what we need, drat the torpedoes: And this last one I'm going to show is a direct intersection with the complete off-the-rails section of American conservatism, all because the article seems to depict Hillary Clinton as a foul-mouthed politician, which thereby excuses Duterte's own behavior: And so was Rahm "We got the votes, gently caress 'em" Emanuel: And so was even Obama (because he said the N-word when dictating his audiobook that one time?): Now, this may just be me hitting the fringes of political discourse, but by God is it ever an ominous fringe, as we've basically hit "Obama's America" levels of polarization and media bubble-ness within the span of about a year.
|
# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 17:24 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:51 |
|
Volcott posted:I'm really impressed they managed to get 9/11 levels of OUR COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG out of putting the boots to a bunch of low-level drug dealers. I think the takeaway here is that even if you had a McCain or a Romney Presidency, you'd still have an insane level of polarization regardless because besides the empowerment of the standard conservative platform as being a legitimate basis for governance, there would still be a division as far as liberals being called-out as "haters" and "sour grapes" for having the temerity to question the government's actions. Which, as I alluded to previously, already existed during the Bush era as far as "get out if you don't like it here", but stepped up to 11. Calls against "the liberal media" would be much more rabid once the case is made that MSNBC, et al are literally trying to execute a government takedown via misquotes, misrepresentation and "clickbait journalism"
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 03:27 |