Is President Duterte becoming more and more a dictator?

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 minute ago, robert k said:

I think what you are saying is guilty until proven innocent. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Yes.  Its the basic premise behind income tax and money laundering.  You have to PROVE your money is legit.  Not to me, but to certain authorities that check that sort of thing.

[robert k]

3 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Yes.  Its the basic premise behind income tax and money laundering.  You have to PROVE your money is legit.  Not to me, but to certain authorities that check that sort of thing.

I thought you said everyone who "reports". Do you need to "prove" to just anyone who asks, just any reporter?

Even if Duterte was asked by a governmenta entity, that still wouldn't mean he had to make it public knowledge.

Edited September 8, 2016 by robert k

[Gratefuled]

1 hour ago, robert k said:

Not true, the US started out as federated states with no strong central government. It would be one solution to the corruption of the centralized government, they would no longer have the power to sell the population out. Every little polity would be able to cut their own deal with foreign investors.

This may be true and I know that many countries do have federalism. None of them have the problem with Muslims that the Philippines has. If this is what the people want, then they should not cry when Muslims become a majority and get control over territory to rule under Sharia Law. Non Muslims will be persecuted just like they are now in the little islands below Zamboanga.

[Gratefuled]

34 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

And that's the problem.  Everyone who reports on Duterte's finances says "maybe" because he is not being straightforward about it.  In a culture that thrives on corruption, Duterte knows that question is going to be on everyone's mind.  Why not full disclosure if its something as simple as inheritance?  It is ludicrous for him to suggest he will get rid of corruption when he will not even vaguely explain where his vast sums come from.  I believe in keeping things simple.  If a person won't explain where they got their money from then the simplest explanation is an illegal source.  

Would you have us believe he is unfaithful in his marriage, shoots people on a whim but is impeccably in-corruptible with his sources of income?  Ludicrous I say.

In truth, I care not where he got the money from.  I'm just not good at swallowing BS and being told its sugar. 

Very well said and I concur.

[robert k]

1 minute ago, Gratefuled said:

Very well said and I concur.

Precisely who has Duterte shot on a whim? Since you concur?

[Gratefuled]

1 minute ago, robert k said:

Precisely who has Duterte shot on a whim? Since you concur?

Actually, he hasn't shot anyone that anyone can prove. He just claims the credit.

The DDS ( Davao Death Squads) went around killing suspected drug users and dealers. 

No one complained and no one cared. Whether it was done "on a whim" or not he took credit for it.

[AlwaysRt]

45 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Why not full disclosure if its something as simple as inheritance?

Maybe.... because this is the Philippines and inheritance is anything but simple. Showing where an inheritance came from could itself lead to a dozen or more lawsuits of the "Where is mine? Pay me off" variety.... Maybe

[Dave Hounddriver]

23 minutes ago, robert k said:

Precisely who has Duterte shot on a whim? Since you concur?

Its in my post.  Follow the link.  Read where he shot someone in university simply because he was being a bully.

 

Edit:  For the sake of simplicity I will quote the pertinent sentence from the article:

Quote

Duterte claimed publicly to have shot a fellow student while in law school for allegedly bullying him because of his Visayan origins. 

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Dave Hounddriver

[Dave Hounddriver]

39 minutes ago, robert k said:

I thought you said everyone who "reports". Do you need to "prove" to just anyone who asks, just any reporter?

Even if Duterte was asked by a governmenta entity, that still wouldn't mean he had to make it public knowledge.

These are good points and absolutely true.  In a similar matter, another world leader did not need to show his birth certificate, but it would have lessened the public clamor if he had.  So while Duterte is not required to explain his financial affairs to the press or the public, it would surely put people's minds to rest . . would it not?

[robert k]

17 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

These are good points and absolutely true.  In a similar matter, another world leader did not need to show his birth certificate, but it would have lessened the public clamor if he had.  So while Duterte is not required to explain his financial affairs to the press or the public, it would surely put people's minds to rest . . would it not?

Actually I doubt that it would. The press would just pick another issue. Answering the press on this issue might just encourage them to go farther. Like feeding a skinny stray dog, they would always come back.

Bullying has been a hot topic in the US over the last few years with young people committing suicide over it. I would never commit suicide so it looks like the other alternative happens also.

Edited September 8, 2016 by robert k