Sulli’s Act Proposed to Tackle Cyberbullying After F(x) Star’s Suspected Suicide

Sources:
Metro
The Guardian
SCMP

**This is my non-government related post**

On October 14th, South Korean actress, singer, and model Choi Jin-ri (better known by her stage name Sulli) was found dead at her home in Seongnam, South Korea – following former singer Kim Jong-hyun’s suicide in 2017. The police and media assume she took her own life after struggling with receiving anonymous malicious comments online. Sulli, who was a member of the girl group f(x) from 2009-2015, went on hiatus in 2014 due to this online abuse.

Sulli’s death directed attention to the dark side of the entertainment industry in South Korea. Sulli was very outspoken and often spoke publicly about her mental health issues, anxiety, and social phobia. Many anonymous “fans” target their idols, Sulli included, for not conforming to social norms. Tragically, before her death, she was a host on a TV show that tried to educate the public about the harms of cyberbullying, even reading some comments she has received aloud.

In attempt to reduce suicide numbers in Korea, lawmakers are proposing the “Sulli Act” to counter the cruel online comments. The bill was proposed by 9 members of the National Assembly and 100 organizations support the bill. This bill will be proposed officially in December at the National Assembly. However, this law requires people to use their real identities online and is hard to enforce, while some say it’s unconstitutional.

Homeland Security Department sued for allegedly tracking and interrogating journalists

Central Americans seeking sanctuary in the US standing at the border. 

Photo taken by Bing Guan, one of the photographers involved in the lawsuit. 

Article 1 

Article 2 

Five American journalists from the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit this Wednesday against the Department of Homeland Security for violating their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit claims that Customs and Border Protection officials tracked and interrogated the journalists (Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Kitra Cahana, Ariana Drehsler, and Mark Abramson). The journalists described being pulled aside multiple times when crossing the US-Mexico border between November 2018 and January 2019 for further screening where officials searched through their cameras/notebooks, some of which contained "confidential source material." The journalists had been documenting migrants moving towards the border, and when targeted, they were thoroughly questioned about who caravan leaders were, who was aiding migrants, who the "instigators" were, and other similar inquiries. Furthermore, according to Special Agent Wes Petonak, all the journalists are also on a Homeland Security dossier of 59 people suspected to be linked to the caravan, marking their headshots with a large "X" over them so that they'd be more closely watched and investigated. CBP has yet to respond to the accusation. 

If the claims are true, it definitely raises large concerns about invasions of privacy as well as the government's response to and actions regarding the border situation. Tracking and interrogating journalists when there is no evidence that they have broken a law is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. I understand that for certain situations there are debates about needing to take further actions to ensure the nation's safety, but I don't think that that claim works in this case. I believe that the motivations behind these actions are just another result of Trump's "build the wall" mentality. I also think that a part of these actions are an attempt to control the media narrative and censor journalists who are reporting unfavorable things about the border situation, which is always worrying given how much twisted news can impact the public and how this suggests that the government is keeping unsavory secrets. CBP already has a horrible reputation from its cruel and inhumane detention camps and other despicable actions so I would not be surprised at all if more foul play was occurring. 

1. Do you think there is any justification behind CBP's actions? 

2. Do you think there is a point where some personal rights should be sacrificed for the country's safety? If yes, when? 

3. What is the best way to fight invasions of privacy such as government tracking? 

Hong Kong Police Move On University Campus, Threaten Live Rounds, Retreat Before Growing Flames

Sources:
Washington Post
BBC
The Guardian

(This post is basically updating Cameron's)

As you all already know, there are many protests (also known as the “Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movement”) occurring in Hong Kong right now because of the introduction of the “Fugitive Offenders” amendment by the Hong Kong government. Early Monday morning Hong Kong time, police stormed a university campus occupied by anti-government protesters for a few days, arresting protestors, using tear gas, and threatening further resistance with live rounds. The demonstrators spent Sunday trying to defend themselves against the police shooting “water cannons of stinging blue dye with petrol bombs” at them. Officers entered the campus and made many arrests. To counteract these arrests, the demonstrators started a fire to try and hold off the police. The police are now surrounding the university and firing tear gas and rubber bullets while protestors are trying to leave. 

As of now, it is known that 10 people have died because of these protests. All 10 of these deaths were suicide. Many people have been hurt, including reporters who have been caught in line of fire and have been hit.

This connects to people’s rights to protest. People are allowed to have their own opinion and thoughts on what the government is trying to enforce on them. The people in Hong Kong are protesting against a law, voicing their opinion. At first, the protests were calm, then they began to escalate in the airport and now this. In Hong Kong, the freedom of assembly is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article17 of the Bill fo Rights and freedom of speech is also protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law. The police interfering and harming people directly contradicts these rights that people are given. It makes no sense to me.

Honestly, this is very worrying to me because next summer, my family and I are going to Hong Kong for a wedding. I’m hoping the violence clears up by then, but this protest has been going on for 6 months and has been getting more intense every day.

1. Do you think things will eventually get better? Or will they escalate even more and get more violent?
2. It’s been 6 months, why hasn’t anything been fixed yet?
3. Considering the amount of backlash the law has been getting, why hasn’t the government done much?

Trump attacks State Department employee prior to her public testimony

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

On Sunday, Trump once again took to Twitter to attack his opponents (his tweet also contained a typo which is sadly unsurprising). This time, he directly addressed Jennifer Williams, who is one of the people testifying in the impeachment process. Williams is a State Department employee and the top Russia advisor for Pence. She was present during Trump's call to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25th, read the transcript of Trump's April call with Zelensky, and listened to the second call between Pence and Zelensky. Trump's tweet came after Williams' closed door testimony, and he urged her to "read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls" before calling her a "Never Trumper." Pence's office did not defend Williams from Trump's tweet.

In her private testimony, Williams stated that Trump asking for specific investigations into the Bidens struck her as "unusual and inappropriate" and "shed some light on other possible motivations" for the pause on sending military aid to Ukraine. Williams' testimony definitely implied a quid pro quo, further solidifying the already clear evidence of foul play by Trump. She also mentioned that it was Trump who kept Pence from attending Zelensky's inauguration a few month prior which took away a high-profile statement of US support for the Ukraine government. In today's public testimony, she stood by these claims and also defended herself from Trump's attack, asserting that she is not a "Never Trumper" and that Trump has no evidence behind that accusation.

It is not shocking that Trump has again turned towards aggressive Twitter comments as a response to the impeachment testimonies, but it definitely never gets less frustrating knowing that the President can get away with such a lack of professionalism and immaturity. I am glad that Williams has not let Trump's tweet or any other threat stop her from testifying. I'm sure that she has been pressured by her own party to not speak out against Trump and "give Democrats a win" so I'm happy that she is remaining resilient and seeking out justice. With all the evidence pointing pretty obviously to an abuse of power by Trump, I hope that these testimonies are nails in the coffin and give any needed final pushes to impeachment.

1. How important do you think Williams' testimony is?
2. How much do you think she might be jeopardizing or gaining from this?
3. Do you think Republicans are willingly to impeach Trump if he is found guilty of foul play, or will they stick with their party through it all?

Trump Tells Kim Jong Un That Joe Biden Is “Somewhat Better” Than A “Rabid Dog”

Sources:

USA Today

BBC

On Sunday, November 17th, Trump took to twitter to tell North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that they should not have called former Vice President Joe Biden a “rabid dog”. In Trump’s tweet, he stated: “Joe Biden may be Sleepy and Very Slow, but he is not a ‘rabid dog’. He is actually somewhat better than that, but I am the only one who can get you where you have to be. You should act quickly, get the deal done. See you soon!” This exchange started with the regime claiming Biden’s campaign ad referred to Kim Jong Un as a “tyrant,” then leading to North Korean media saying, “Rabid dogs like Biden can hurt lots of people if they are allowed to run out of control” and that such dogs “must be beaten to death with a stick, before it is too late.” After defending Biden, Trump referred back to the efforts to negotiate an agreement to put a pause on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

As of right now, Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry that started from allegations that he pushed Ukraine into investigating Biden for political purposes. A month go, he also suggested that China should investigate Biden too.

This connects to the president’s duty to meet with foreign powers and communicate with them. It is important for Trump to be meeting with Kim Jong Un, and it is also important for him to maintain a good connection with him, to avoid any attacks from North Korea.

1. Is Trump trying to present a good image of himself after being caught trying to get foreign countries to investigate Biden?
2. What is Trump referring to in his tweet when he says, “I am the only one who can get you where you have to be. You should act quickly, get the deal done. See you soon!”?

Iran's supreme leader warns "thugs" amid violent protests over gas price hikes

Iranian protestors in Tehran stand around a burning car during a demonstration. 

Article 1 

Article 2

This past weekend, violent protests swept across Iran in response to the government's decision to raise gas prices by 50%. At least five people were killed and hundreds arrested, and Tehran, the capital, was brought to a standstill. While the plan for reduced subsidies and increased gas prices is not new in Iran, the timing caused anger to quickly ignite in the country. Due increased tensions with the United States and added sanctions, Iran has been struggling economically, and millions of citizens have been greatly impacted by this hardship. This situation combined with the influence of anti-government protests in other Middle East countries quickly turned the anger into action in Iran. 

In response, Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, called the protestors "thugs" while authorities warned citizens against demonstrating and shut down much of the internet. The internet shut down and tight control over the media released definitely raises some concerns regarding the actual events occurring and what might be downplayed. During the address made on Sunday, Khamenei also suggested that protestors have been forced into action by counter-revolutionaries and foreign enemies, which I feel might be too hasty an assumption and dismisses the public opinion, allowing him to avoid/ignore the opposition to the policy. He voiced continued support for the price increase, stating that the government plans to use money raised from the raised gas prices for cash payments to low income households. Since the address, the unrest has decreased. 

This connects to idea of freedom of speech and the ability to protest as all the Iranians involved are actively voicing their opposition to the new policy. We discussed in class the public's ability to impact the government and its policy-making, and this is a good example of citizens attempting to do so. However, I believe that it is always hard for the public to make as large of an impact as they hope to with protests, such as how these very violent nationwide demonstrations didn't actually result in policy change. Instead, tensions have only increased between the public and Iranian government. This is also similar to the protests in Hong Kong which have been extremely disruptive and violent, and yet led to little satisfaction or change. Or similar to the many marches in the US (whether for gun control, climate change, or another topic) that have yet to result in political action or actual policy change. 

Trump Backs Off Flavored Vape Ban Amid Backlash

Sources:
Washington Post
Fox Business

Two months ago, Trump promised to try and fix the youth vaping epidemic that has affected 5 million teenagers in the US by banning most flavored e-cigarettes, a decision that was cleared by federal regulators. Candy, fruit, and mint flavors were to be ordered off the market within a month after the ban. The only thing left for this to go into effect was Trump’s signature.

However, on November 4th, Trump suddenly changed his decision and refused to sign the “decision memo” page, stating that he did not want the ban (that he once vehemently supported) to go into effect. He feared that people would lose jobs and be angry with him. Trump decided to no longer support a significant public health issue and not ban flavored e-cigarettes anymore because he is worried that the vape shop owners and their customers would harm his chance at reelection. 

This connects to the government's role to protect citizens and their safety/health but also the people’s freedom to choose, which has been a reoccurring topic – like abortion. There needs to be a balance between government regulation of safety and helping citizens maintain good health while also taking into account what the people want. However, this issue in particular is starting to escalate with the amount of teenagers going to the hospital rising because of a life threatening emergency linked to vaping, causing them to fight for their life. I think although he doesn’t support the ban of e-cigarettes anymore because he fears he won’t get the support of many vape store owners and their customers, he will still lose support from parents who have children that are being affected by this e-cigarette epidemic. Either way, he will lose support.

1. Should Trump have banned e-cigarettes (and lose some support from vape store owners and their customers) or was it a good idea that he backed out of his original decision (and lose some support from families who are affected by this vaping issue)?
2. Is this issue a big factor in the possibility of his reelection?

Disney+ surpasses 10 million subscribers on first day

Sources:

 https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963172/disney-plus-subscribers-10-million-star-wars-marvel-pixar-launch

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/16/disney-plus-streaming-wars-just-warming-up.html

With Disney's long awaited launch of its streaming service on November 12th, it seems that the launch has been quite successful with 10 million subscribers signing up Disney+ on the first day alone. With the 500 movies and 7,500 episodes offered on the platform, some are comparing the streaming service to Netflix. However, this is just an accumulation of everything Disney has produced or helped produced in the past with the addition of hot new shows, like the Mandalorian and High School Musical: The Musical: The Series. 

The streaming service is currently being offered at a rate of $6.99 a month or $69.99 a year or a cheaper price with some deals. This price also allows 7 accounts to be created on the profile with 4 of those being able to stream at the same time which is more generous compared to other services, like Netflix. 

Questions:

Have you signed up for Disney+ or are you considering signing up for it?

Do you think that its price makes it a competitor to other streaming platforms, like Netflix?

Highways on Fire. Semesters Cut Short. A Recession. Can Hong Kong Heal?

Sources: 

NY Times

BBC

CNN

As the Hong Kong protests near the six month mark, it still seems as if there is no stop in sight for both sides. The protests drew in more support this week as bankers, lawyers and other white collar workers from the Hong Kong business district took to the streets to help protest with others. The clashing between protesters and police forces have made umbrellas and face masks a common image as tear gas and rubber bullets are returned by the police. The police even stepped past another boundary of going into universities as they stormed the University of Hong Kong, proving universities were not a fully secure location and prompting universities to tell students to not come back for the semester.

This conflict started with the Hong Kong government introduced an extradition bill in June that its citizens saw as a violation to their freedom. This sparked massive protests all over the city and eventually the bill was pulled back, but the protests had gone for long enough that the people wanted more than just the bill to be repealed and wanted a stronger promise that their rights would not be taken away.

With a protest dragging on for this long and violence on both sides, it would appear that the protesters are fighting an uphill battle because the Chinese government has the power in the situation. President Xi Jinping is letting the protests go on so that they lose popular support, but with events like a protester being shot earlier this week and unjust arrests, the protesters are able to find more support. But the protests have also caused unintended casualties, like an elderly man being killed by a brick intended to be thrown at police. However, with the Hong Kong District Council elections nearby, the protests could facilitate a swing in the Hong Kong District Council in favor of democracy. 

Questions: 

Do you think that the protesters will continue to gain popular support?

Do you believe that the protests are being conducted in the right way?

Cocaine Treasure Hunting in France

AlJazeera
The Local

The tide is high, and so are the locals. Drink the water, bring your shovels, because today we're going gold digging. 

Around 1,000 kg of 83% pure cocaine has been found washed up against the shores of southwest France since mid-October. Officials say that at this level of purity, one gram of this could easily go for $70 on the streets of France. French authorities have told the public to not touch, but to inform the police. Of course, this hasn't stopped everyone. Who knew someone would would take the time to pick up a bag of gold off the ground?

Recently, a 17-year-old was caught with 5 kg of cocaine from the beach of Lacanau. Surprisingly, he braved the 6 hour round trip drive to Lacanau from Toulouse. There seems to be nothing stopping people from taking dibs on their very own pack.

Even though this occured in France, taking a bag off the shores of France is technically considered theft by finding. At least in the United States. One cannot claim something simply because they've found it lying around. In order to lawfully claim the object(s), they must make a genuine effort to find the proper owner, and whether or not it was abandoned or merely unattended for. Again, this is according to the United States, meaning that the same law might not apply to France.

One possibility on the origin, however, points to Belgium and Spain, as most of the seized 170 tons were found there. Currently, officials don't know exactly where the packages have originated from, but appearances are going to persist for some time.

Regarding current efforts, it doesn't seem like the French government is as worried about the drugs as they can be. If the drugs make it onto the street, it would rock the black market, potentially sending aftershocks to the legal market, not relating to cocaine. Simply blocking the beach from access is not enough to keep unwanted visitors out. The same aspect applies to the security they have placed to guard the beaches. To speed up the process of beach detox, there is not really anything the government can do, other than pick up the bags when they wash up on the shore. Actively going out to sea and searching for them is too costly and would reap little success.

As of now, the French better get ready for the next great storming of their beaches since D-Day.

Cherry Blossom Festival Cancellation

BBC News
Japan Today

Since 1952, the Japanese government has annually hosted a Cherry Blossom festival, or Sakura, at Tokyo park to welcome the arrival of spring and to honor members of the public for their accomplishments. In 2019, the total spending reached around 55 million yen, or $504,000 USD.

In the last event, however, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's opposition argued that most of the invited were of his own supporters, essentially to entertain them. Questions were also raised on the proper use of taxpayers' money.

Abe has denied his involvement in the selection process, claiming that the government decides who to extend an invitation to. In response, the government stated that it would clarify the selection process in the future, even though they denied requests for past guest lists, for they were discarded and deemed unimportant. The education ministry, on the contrary, stated that it had retained all records of past events, but nevertheless denied the opposition's requests on a basis that they are merely "only recommendations and include a lot of personal information." For next year, Abe has himself cancelled the next Cherry Blossom festival as a result of the backlash.

Cancelling next year's festival seems highly unnecessary, for Abe could simply ensure that more of the opposition is included. This is, however, merely an opinion from all the way across the Pacific; Japan's customs widely differ from our American customs.

The Philippine Drug War

BBC News
AlJazeera
The Sun

Since Rodrigo Duterte's assumption of presidential office on June 30th, 2016, he has waged a war against illegal drug use in the Philippines. He has multiple times encouraged the police and the public to kill illegal drug users. Surprisingly enough, he made a promise to give free handguns to the public, as long as they would only use it against illegal drug users. Abiding by these rules would grant them immunity from going to jail if they did use the gun and kill a drug suspect. This is essentially a mass witch hunt, except with guns and vigilantes running rampant.

Over this period of time, the country's police released a statement claiming that the estimated number of drug war related deaths was around 29,000, as of March 2019. Vice president and human rights lawyer Leni Robredo, has recently accepted Duterte's offer to oversee police and military effort to combat illegal drug use. She wearily stated that this might be one of Duterte's ploys to "destroy" her. However, this position of authority would enable her to save lives under the anti-drug administration.

Human rights groups have consistently advocated that Duterte's war is a series of crimes against humanity on the basis of mass killings and wanton destruction. Even though the police officially claim that they kill for self defense, some human rights activists accuse the police of killing unarmed suspects with flimsy evidence and tampering with the crime scene. They also accuse Duterte of specifically targeting poorer communities.

The Philippines has had an extensive history with drugs, and finally a president arrived with a plan to combat it. The war was a good idea on paper, but not its execution. But with Leni Robredo as one of the heads of the operation, hopefully this war will come to an end, whilst suppressing illegal drug use.

Republicans Ask For Whistleblower And Hunter Biden To Testify In Impeachment Inquiry

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/777914177/republicans-ask-for-whistleblower-hunter-biden-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/10/republicans-want-hunter-biden-impeachment-testimony/2554571001/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/read-house-gop-witness-request-hunter-biden-whistleblower/index.html

As the House of Representatives prepare to enter the next stage of the impeachment inquiry by holding their first public hearings starting on Wednesday, November 13th, there are tactics being used by both sides to sway the public opinion to their favor. On the Republican side, they have released a list of people to testify in an open setting for the inquiry. This list contains 9 people and of them, Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistle blower are mentioned. Of course, the Republicans are the minority party within the House, so it is up to Democrat Adam Schiff whether to approve them or not. However, this has not stopped House Republicans from threatening Schiff by stating that both Pelosi and Schiff would be "doubling down on stupid" if they prevent the Republican party from choosing people to testify. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky also has said that "if you can't call Hunter Biden and you can't call the whistleblower, that's sort of a sham. That's not really even a trial." 

Hunter Biden has been subject to a controversy regarding his position as a board member of Burisma Holdings, specifically when Vice President Joe Biden was in Ukraine. This Ukrainian gas company was revealed to have bribed the the Ukrainian prosecutor general so that he would not investigate the company. Then, after that prosecutor general was fired, Victor Shokin was put into the role but was soon fired after allegations of corruption prompted Joe Biden's push to oust him. Republicans have claimed that this was corrpution on Biden's end and have thus called for Hunter Biden to testify.

Regarding the whisteblower, the Republicans claim that the whisteblower needs their identity to be revealed for them to take their claims as credible and for the American people to see how they got their evidence. However, Adam Schiff has responded by saying that "the whistleblower has a right under laws championed by this Committee to remain anonymous and to be protected from harm."

The House Republicans' strategy at this point seems to involve dragging up more controversy and dirt on the Democrats, especially by involving Hunter Biden who has tried to clear the air up for himself and his father and by focusing more on the corruption within Ukraine rather than the call that brought the impeachment inquiry into action. 

Questions:

Do you think that Hunter Biden should testify in the impeachment inquiry?

Is the House Republican's strategy relevant to the impeachment inquiry, or does it seek to cloud the public opinion?

Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Against NY Over Tax Returns

Sources:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Federal-Judge-Dismisses-Trump-Lawsuit-Against-New-York-Over-Tax-Returns-564763541.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/11/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns/index.html

https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns 

Regarding the status of Trump's tax returns, a recent development has narrowed down the number of actions that President Trump can take to prevent his tax returns from being revealed. On Monday, November 11th, Federal Judge, Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., declared that their court does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the President Trump's lawsuit targeted at the New York officials who are laying the groundwork to require tax returns from government officials, like the president. 

The controversy over whether President Trump should turn over his tax returns stems from the stark lack of returns publicly submitted in comparison to the past presidents and the debated power of the House Means and Means committee to require tax returns of a president. This power received a stronger foundation when the New York legislature passed the TRUST act which gives New York officials the power to request President Trump's state tax returns within New York. 

In Nichols' ruling, he states that "Mr. Trump may press his claims against the New York Defendants in this Court should future events support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them, or he may opt to pursue those claims in an appropriate forum." This ruling would essentially make President Trump go directly to New York to stop them from making him reveal his tax returns. 

As the tax returns symbolize a president's willingness to put their name in better light as was the case when President Nixon came under fire for the controversy over his tax returns, it reveals the larger issue regarding the finances of the president and search to make sure that everything is "clean." This translates into people wanting to see finances for campaigns and where money is received because money serves as a promoter for lots of actions. 

Questions:

With personal finances and administration finances being examined more over time and a presidential election looming for the next year, would it be justified to make finances more transparent to the public?

Do you think the lawsuit against New York is justified even though they haven't exercised their power to require state tax returns?

Michael Bloomberg Entering 2020 Presidential Race With An Unconventional Strategy

Links to Original Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president.html

In an unexpected move, billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg has decided to run for President, having filed the paperwork necessary to enter the Democratic primary in Alabama. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, has previously played with the idea for running in the 2008 and 2016 elections but now has officially declared his candidacy. Because of his late start, he has decided on a rather risky move of skipping the first four traditional state contests(Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina) to focus on the bigger states. Also important to mention is that Bloomberg is currently 77 years old, meaning this will probably his last chance to run.

Bloomberg's entry has made waves in the Democratic field, with the relative unease surrounding current Democratic candidates. Still it's far too early to say Bloomberg will have any substantial impact, as he needs to prove he can appeal to a wider audience than the elites. Bloomberg's approach is also completely unprecedented, as instead of doing the typical door-to-door style of campaigning, he has chosen to rely on costly, grand advertisements to win the appeal of bigger states. This is completely possible based on Bloomberg's massive fortune, but this style of campaigning has drawn criticism, suggesting he's trying to buy the Presidency.

Overall, while I see the potential of this high risk high reward strategy, I don't believe it will work out. I feel as though his campaigning will be seen as trying to corrupt the system with money, so he will fail with gaining sufficient support from bigger states. This is definitely something to keep an eye on though, as previous billionaire candidates like Ross Perot and Trump have been able to either mobilize mass support.

Do you believe Bloomberg has a realistic shot at the Presidency?
What do you think about his strategy of appealing to bigger states?

White House Official Testifies Quid Pro Quo Demand Made to Ukraine's President

Links to Original Articles:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics/transcripts-released-fiona-hill-alexander-vindman/index.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/8/20955480/impeachment-vindman-testimony-trump-demand-quid-pro-quo

It has been made a fact that Trump has asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens but now that the full transcript of the July 25 phone call has been released, it brings extreme concern regarding Trump's actions. Because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Zelensky had an established desire to meet with the President at the White House to strengthen political ties. Trump promised the meeting on the terms that they deliver an investigation, which seems to be a pretty evident quid pro quo.

Even in the limited release readout from September, it describes Trump pressuring Ukraine to probe into the Bidens in exchange for more US military aid. This added on with the frozen $400 million in security aid for Ukraine that was released with suspicious timing seems to further prove the quid pro quo theory. National Security Council Ukraine expert Lt. Alexander Vindman, who was on the July 25th call, brought up the point that the Ukrainians were unaware of the freezing of the aid, as when learning about said holding of the aid they asked what they needed to do, indicating that the funds were frozen with the intent to pressure Ukraine into an investigation.

This event is a threat to American democracy itself, as the President is involving a foreign power to deal with his political opposition. There is such an excess of incriminating evidence that it seems almost surreal; in what world do we live in where our President is dangling financial aid and political meetings to another country in exchange for boosting his own reelection chances. Anyway this evidence is all out now and will be present at the impeachment inquiry so we'll see how it all plays out.

Should this information be sufficient reasoning for impeaching Trump?
Would Trump's actions here classify as quid pro quo?
How has this information impacted, if at all, your opinions on the impeachment trials?

Surge of Fascist Nationalism in Italy

Article 1
Article 2

In response to the rising waves of hate speech, Liliana Segre has appealed to the Italian parliament to increase its efforts to combat such speech, including the establishment of a specialized committee. She, of many, have been subjected to direct anti-Semitic messages from Mussolini and Fascism sympathizers. Ms. Segre has reportedly received as many as 200 hateful messages a day. Even so, she is not afraid, but rather "shocked by these tensions and by this entire situation."

To make matters more solemn, Ms. Segre is an 89-year-old Holocaust survivor, who was sent to Auschwitz at the age of 13. Prior, she and her father fled to Switzerland in 1943, but were arrested and given up to the Nazis by Italian border guards. The two were sent to Auschwitz, immediately separated, and her father shortly died thereafter. Ms. Surge survived long enough to be moved to Ravensbrück in Germany, and finally one last time where the Soviet Red Army liberated the interned.

In the end, the proposal for an increased effort to combat hate speech was ultimately successful, however fearful that this would be the start to an extremist movement of censorship. League Party head, Matteo Salvini, also stated that he might seem racist to the proposed committee, since he has made a stance of keeping "Italians first" by curbing migrant entrance by sea. Regardless, Salvini and the party firmly stated that such speech and taboo nationalism were always worrisome.

This proposal is a right step towards suppressing toxic nationalism, arguably stemming from WWII Italy's Fascist movement. For sure, it would discourage this kind of mindset, but to an extent. It all depends on how the new committee conducts itself and its combatant techniques. Considering Salvini's intent on immigration, the Italian parliament would self-evidently have lasting turmoil throughout this war.

US-China Trade War Possibly Deescalating With Phase 1 Trade Deal

Links to Original Articles:
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/10/26/business/26reuters-usa-trade-china.html?searchResultPosition=3
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-phase-china-trade-deal-schedule-191028135526354.html

In light of Trump's proposed increase in tariffs to Chinese goods on October 15, China and the US have been engaging in negotiations that could potentially set up a long term resolution to the ensuing trade war. Originally, Trump threatened on October 1st to raise tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports from 25% to 30%. In response China agreed to purchase a sizable portion of farmed American agricultural goods. In "a gesture of good will," Trump agreed to initially delay the tariffs to October 15th and later totally cancelled them after positive talks between the 2 countries.

Trump hopes to finalize a phase 1 trade agreement for the approaching Chile summit which would include a lift on the Chinese ban on US poultry for the US importation of on Chinese poultry and catfish products. Besides these confirmed agreements, both sides aspire to lift existing tariffs implemented in exchange for the purchasing of more agricultural products. This phase 1 deal if implemented should hopefully continue to further deescalation of the trade war.

This seems to be a possibly monumentous agreement as it could be a turning point to economic stability between China and the US. I'm still a little concerned about the dangerous approach Trump used by threatening China with increased tariffs, but it seems it will pay off with a step towards agreements. I'm optimistic that the end of the trade war is approaching, but until a formal agreement is reached there's room to be skeptical.

Do you agree with Trump's approach to resolving the trade war?
Could this phase 1 agreement be a step towards total deescalation?

Suicide or Homicide?

NYT Article

Dr. Micheal Baden declared that some of the sustained injuries of Jeffery Epstein in his apparent suicide would make a lot more sense in the case of homicidal strangulation rather than a suicide by hanging.  While Dr. Baden has been known for taking a critical point, he has also worked on many important cases such as the assassination of JFK, the OJ Simpson murders and the Aaron Hernandez.  He is obviously an expert in his field of practice, studying dead bodies.

While the original Doctor to oversee the autopsy simply put it as it "can be seen in suicides and homicides."  This is quite a brief and not very clear argument to allegations that someone killed Jeffery Epstein in a high level prison.  While this is only a conspiracy theory, it is quite odd that Jeffery Epstein happened to kill himself while on suicide watch only a week before.  It is also quite suspicious that the cameras just happened to stop working at the convenient moments when Jeffery Epstein was killing himself.  There has to be a point when we stop believing the people in power.  They are sometimes wrong... or have other motives.

This man held parties that were basically rape parties.  The fact that he was connected to so many of the rich elite such as Donald Trump, the Clinton's and Prince Andrew and might have had dirt on the people literally ruling the world is crazy.  And the fact that he just died under such suspicious circumstances really concerns me as a person of the world.  I believe everyone needs to be held accountable and for the powerful to possibly run around and eliminate people that have information that could bring them down is crazy.  Another thing that is crazy to me is how trusting the media and people are in the authorities that actually carried out the investigation.  I believe that everything should be met with some sort of skepticism and yet this case was only in the news for less then a week.  Nothing seems to add up, and Micheal Baden plus many others seem to think the same.

What do you think of the Jeffery Epstein case?
Are you skeptical of what happened?
Do you think it is too crazy of an idea that Jeffery Epstein was murdered?

Democratic Party Pushes Impeachment Inquiry

CNN Article
NYT Article

The Impeachment Inquires have resulted in Trump being called into the House of Representatives after five long weeks.  Democrats have been uncertain whether they would want to call for a Trial or not because of public opinion but in the last 10 days it has shifted a great amount, well enough to want to call a trial.  The vote came out 232-196 with two Democrats voting against impeachment.  They cite their reasons as not wanting to anger any Republicans in their district as they have the majority.  It also can be noted that they both voted for Trump in 2016 and cite that they do not believe enough evidence has been presented to be able to impeach Donald Trump.

The split between impeachment and acquitting is very partisan.  There are, mentioned before, two Democrats that do not want to impeachment and one independent, cast out by the Republican party, that does want impeachment.  This only shows the amount of polarization that has happened as almost 15 years ago you would have a lot of Representatives cross voting across party lines.

This is obviously a historic moment in American History.  This could be the next Watergate, or yet another call for scandal as many people point out, there isn't a whole lot of evidence.  None the less, this will be a moment in American History if we decide to let someone who has obviously been involved in shady business prevail.  To me this will truly be the confirmation that Democracy has died here in the United States.

What do you think about the impeachment of Donald Trump (if you don't mind sharing)?
Do you believe that he can be impeached with a Republican majority in the senate?