₦airaland Forum

bigwig071:
go and listen to the son of Hamas's leader you will understand the truth and stop using your data mostly on porn sites e get why

oz4real83:
Terrorist alert , terrorist spotted . When Hamas broke into Israeli territory and killed 1400 persons and kidnapped over 200 persons, you didn't create a single thread to condemn their actions. I just checked your profile, out of all the threads there, only one talked about Tinubu while the rest are anti-israeli threads, you and your gang go cry tire oo

Enemiesmasquera:
Mumu Africans what do you have to offer Israel ? Israel will be fine without you all that live in shithole continent

Onyiiobi7735:
Jerusalem, Jericho,Ramallah, Hebron and even Gaza are historically Jewish lands, and the Jews must regain their original territories.

The creation of Israel was ordained by God and nothing will change it.

Kpatakpata:
Buhari was like a plague and Naturaldisastercombined

AnyanwuSilas:
Hypocrite have you ever talked of southern kaduna, benue, plataeu etc where fulani jihadists kill and sacked communities then occupy their land. I never supported any NATO base coming close to rusia. It's because you're evil that's why you're rating buhari over jonathan.

AnyanwuSilas:
Bloody hypocrite, you also told us that Buhari is the best president Africa ever produced. Fulani bandit.

28 Oct 2023
Turkey’s Erdogan tells pro-Palestinian rally Israel is ‘an occupier’
Addressing hundreds of thousands of supporters, Erdogan accuses the West of being the main culprit in the war on Gaza.
At a massive pro-Palestinian rally in Istanbul, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Israel was an occupier in its war in Gaza, and repeated his stance about Hamas not being a terrorist organisation.

“I reiterate that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation. Israel was very offended by this … Israel is an occupier, Erdogan speaks clearly because Turkey does not owe you anything,” he told hundreds of thousands of supporters on Saturday.
People gathered at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport for a rally organised by Turkey’s governing AK Party to protest against Israel’s continued bombardment of the Gaza Strip and call for a ceasefire.

Demonstrators chanted pro-Palestinian slogans and waved Turkish and Palestinian flags at the event dubbed the “Great Palestine Meeting” on Saturday, as Israel pushed forward with its “expanded” ground operation amid a near-total communications blackout in the Gaza Strip.

The rally was attended by leaders of other political parties, as well as high-profile media and sports figures – some of whom were expected to take to the stage during the event, local media reported.

Erdogan told the crowd that Western powers were “the main culprit” behind the Israeli army’s “massacre” of Palestinians in Gaza.

“The main culprit behind the massacre unfolding in Gaza is the West,” said.

‘End the genocide’
Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from the rally, said this was “by far one of the strongest speeches that we’ve heard” from the president.

Protesters were seen wearing headbands with inscriptions such as “We are all Palestinians”, “End the genocide”, or “Be the voice of Palestinian children”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/28/turkeys-erdogan-tells-pro-palestinian-rally-that-israel-is-an-occupier

Dvdpity:
Mr get a life. Their currency is gaining strength, which shows that their economy is growing, nigeria that has ashwos at every corner, how has it helped it's economy? Morally degenerate Muppets.

Taliban creating mass surveillance network in Afghan cities
26- 9-2023
11 hours ago
XFacebookShare
Afghanistan's Taliban administration is creating a large-scale camera surveillance network.

The Taliban say that they have been maintaining security since they regained control of the country in 2021. They report that they have focused on cracking down on Islamic State militants.

The administration revealed last month that it has installed more than 62,000 surveillance cameras in Kabul and other cities. Residents in the capital say cameras have been set up in some neighborhoods.

Reuters news agency reported on Monday that the Taliban have discussed potential cooperation with Chinese telecom giant, Huawei.

Amnesty International and Afghan citizens are voicing concerns. They say that such a monitoring system could erode people's privacy and threaten freedom of expression.

But the Taliban have rejected those claims. They say that violating or surveilling someone's private space is not allowed in Islamic law.
Resources
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230926_35/

The consensus among political scientists is that two structural features strongly favor a two-party system as opposed to a multi-party system. The first consists of a variety of laws that limit ballot access and otherwise penalize third parties. For instance, congressional rules all favor the Democrats and Republicans.
If someone from a third party or a person with no party affiliation is elected to Congress, they must choose to be affiliated with one of the major parties to get assignments to standing committees.

Presidential candidates from the major parties can receive public money to run their campaigns. But when a third-party candidate runs for president and wants public funding through the Federal Election Commission, they have to receive that funding after the election is over because the amount is tied to how well they did in the last election.

Third parties complain loudest about ballot-access restrictions, which are barriers to getting a candidate on the ballot so voters don’t have to write in their name. They argue that were today’s ballot-access restrictions in place in the 1850s, the Republican Party never would have risen to become a national party.

As political analyst Richard Winger points out, the first ballot-access restrictions began in the late 1880s and became progressively stricter in the 1930s and the 1960s.

(2) Natural experiments have shown that when ballot-access restrictions were lowered, the major parties faced significantly increased competition from third party and independent candidates. (3)
Ballot-access restrictions include filing fees, early deadlines to declare candidacy, and signature requirements.

The latter is perhaps the most onerous burden on third parties. Many states require independent and third-party candidates to secure enough signatures on petitions in order to get on the ballot. Simply put, “The greater the share of the electorate required to sign nominating petitions, the fewer minor-party and independent candidates appear on the ballot.”

(4) A third party that wants to run candidates for all the House seats across the country would have to collect millions of signatures. The Democrats and Republicans are relieved of this burden. Collecting these signatures is expensive and time-consuming. Together, filing fees and signature requirements stunt electoral competition, especially in races for the House of Representatives.
Continue reading @
Curt Burnette
Ballot access restrictions, campaign finance, congressional committee assignment, The Duverger’s Law etc.

Reading:
" The consensus among political scientists is that two structural features strongly favor a two-party system as opposed to a multi-party system. The first consists of a variety of laws that limit ballot access and otherwise penalize third parties. For instance, congressional rules all favor the Democrats and Republicans. If someone from a third party or a person with no party affiliation is elected to Congress, they must choose to be affiliated with one of the major parties to get assignments to standing committees.

Presidential candidates from the major parties can receive public money to run their campaigns. But when a third-party candidate runs for president and wants public funding through the Federal Election Commission, they have to receive that funding after the election is over because the amount is tied to how well they did in the last election.

Third parties complain loudest about ballot-access restrictions, which are barriers to getting a candidate on the ballot so voters don’t have to write in their name. They argue that were today’s ballot-access restrictions in place in the 1850s, the Republican Party never would have risen to become a national party.

As political analyst Richard Winger points out, the first ballot-access restrictions began in the late 1880s and became progressively stricter in the 1930s and the 1960s.

(2) Natural experiments have shown that when ballot-access restrictions were lowered, the major parties faced significantly increased competition from third party and independent candidates. (3)

Ballot-access restrictions include filing fees, early deadlines to declare candidacy, and signature requirements.
The latter is perhaps the most onerous burden on third parties. Many states require independent and third-party candidates to secure enough signatures on petitions in order to get on the ballot. Simply put, “The greater the share of the electorate required to sign nominating petitions, the fewer minor-party and independent candidates appear on the ballot.”

(4) A third party that wants to run candidates for all the House seats across the country would have to collect millions of signatures. The Democrats and Republicans are relieved of this burden. Collecting these signatures is expensive and time-consuming. Together, filing fees and signature requirements stunt electoral competition, especially in races for the House of Representatives. (5) "
Continue reading @
https://slcc.pressbooks.pub/attenuateddemocracy/chapter/chapter-44/