(TFC) – The Sheriff of Polk County, Florida endangered citizens, subverted relief efforts, and increased chances of looting in his community with a single Tweet today. In the hopes of portraying himself as a tough, no-holds-barred kind of Sheriff, he…
(Sputnik) – The United States always interfered in Russian elections, doing so especially aggressively in 2012, the same thing happens in all former USSR countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. “[They did it] in 2000, and in 2012, this always happened. But especially aggressively in 2012.…
The Gambia’s autocratic president, Yahya Jammeh, who once claimed a “billion-year” mandate to rule, has agreed to concede defeat after a shock election loss to a real-estate developer.
Jammeh has ruled the tiny west African nation for more than two decades. If he goes ahead with a peaceful handover of power, challenger Adama Barrow will become its third head of state since independence in 1962.
The head of the Gambia’s electoral commission, Alieu Momarr Njai, said Jammeh would concede on Friday. A video of his speech has already been recorded and is being edited, sources told the Guardian.
Government Has Blocked Internet, Threatened Protest Ban
Gambian authorities should respect the rights of Gambians to peacefully express their views on the outcome of the December 1, 2016 presidential election. Prior to the vote, incumbent President Yahya Jammeh warned that protests against the election would not be permitted and the government blocked internet communications and international calls.
Although the two-week election campaign was peaceful, and included many large opposition and government rallies, President Jammeh responded to a November 29 media query about possible protests following the elections, saying, “In this country we don’t allow demonstrations.” At about 8 p.m. on November 30, the government blocked all internet services in Gambia as well as incoming and outgoing international calls. Online messaging services, such as WhatsApp and Viber, have been blocked for several weeks.
You’ve probably heard it before: the argument that the Trump base has been created by the socio-economic policies of the 1980s that went on to disenfranchise a nation; that only someone so viciously uneducated and/or poor could even consider voting for Trump.
These narratives suggest that the neoliberal economic and social policies set forth by Thatcher and Reagan are responsible for creating this conglomerate of poor racist, sexist people left to gather at the bottleneck of American society. Jobless and without hope. In any case, we could only be left to conclude that these so-called victims of neoliberalism are the ones voting for Trump.
President-elect Trump is a populist candidate with severe fascist undertones. So how can Americans concerned with liberty and freedom turn his election into a positive thing? How can we use a candidate whose campaign promises included shredding the Bill of Rights? We selectively support him.
The Republican party will view the Trump win as a mandate due to the electoral votes involved and Trump’s ability to power through projected Clinton wins. So, is it possible to force the Republican establishment to adopt any of Trump’s policies based on this perceived mandate?
This November, I chose not to vote for a presidential candidate, but maybe not for the reason you’d think.
I didn’t choose to withhold my vote from one candidate because I wanted to help their opponent; I realize that’s illogical because voting isn’t a zero-sum game.
I didn’t do it just because I know my vote isn’t decisive, either; I’m fully aware that I have somewhere around a 1-in-60 million chance of affecting the outcome of the Presidential election.
I chose to not vote for a Presidential candidate because I’m an advocate for liberty, and after some consideration, I realized my reasoning was rooted in my understanding of the virtues of a free market.