💡 Trivia 75% of Filipinos prefer candidates who assert PH rights in WPS SWS

Seventy-five percent of Filipinos prefer candidates who believe that the Philippines should assert rights against China’s aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea (WPS), a commissioned Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey showed.

Read more:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[plhbg1]

lahat naman gustong mag assert haha palitan na lang ang question kung sino ba may gusto ng gyera sa WPS para ma tingnan natin ang pulso ng bayan

 

[hardcorepoetry]

Bloodbath agad? The dds mindset, so primitive

 

[Well1AmNichtDiePerson]

Mga politiko lamang ang target ng survey. Ito ay upang malaman ang damdamin at nais ng mga Pilipino sa mga politiko dahil tungkol ito sa eleksyon.

Mga politiko lamang ang makikinabang sa survey tulad ng 2016 eleksyon.

https://phcorner.org/threads/atin-i...sical-send-off-before-heading-to-wps.2304095/

Source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

I digress:

lahat naman gustong mag assert haha palitan na lang ang question kung sino ba may gusto ng gyera sa WPS para ma tingnan natin ang pulso ng bayan

Walang may gusto ng giyera. Ngunit kung ito ay iyong nakikita at inaasahang mangyayari sa hinaharap ay mainam na i-alay ka na lang kay CN upang hindi ito matuloy at upang maging matagumpay ang kapayapaan.

 

[plhbg1]

Walang may gusto ng giyera. Ngunit kung ito ay iyong nakikita at inaasahang mangyayari sa hinaharap ay mainam na i-alay ka na lang kay CN upang hindi ito matuloy at upang maging matagumpay ang kapayapaan.

yes walang may gusto ng gyera kasi di nila pwedeng sabihin in public yan jusko, dun ka mag base sa fact na inuuna pa umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka

 

[Well1AmNichtDiePerson]

Mga politiko lamang ang target ng survey para sa 2025 Mid-term eleksyon. Mga politiko lamang ang makikinabang sa survey tulad ng 2016 eleksyon.

Para sa mga kandidato ay ang bad publicity is still good publicity. Ibig sabihin ay gumagawa ng ingay ang pangalan nila sa kahit anong posisyon sila pumanig patungkol sa issue.

https://phcorner.org/threads/carpio-sees-dissonance-in-survey-results.2292349/

Source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

I digress

lahat naman gustong mag assert haha palitan na lang ang question kung sino ba may gusto ng gyera sa WPS para ma tingnan natin ang pulso ng bayan

Walang may gusto ng giyera. Ngunit kung ito ay iyong nakikita at inaasahang mangyayari sa hinaharap ay mainam na i-alay ka na lang kay CN upang hindi ito matuloy at upang maging matagumpay ang kapayapaan.

yes walang may gusto ng gyera kasi di nila pwedeng sabihin in public yan jusko, dun ka mag base sa fact na inuuna pa umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka

Saan nagmumula iyang disappointment mo sa buhay?
Sino ang nagsabi na gusto nila ng giyera?
Pinatunog na ba nila ang war drums at ikaw lang ang natatanging nakarinig o nakaalam?
Anong taon ba iyan binabanggit mo nang mabili na ang laruang armas?
Meron ka ba mga bilang ng mga aramas at ano ang mga klase nito?
Sa taon na ???, naproteksyonan mo ba ang iyong bakod nang mabili na ang iyong armas mula sa mga nais mang-angkin ng iyong nasasakupan?

 

[plhbg1]

Saan nagmumula iyang disappointment mo sa buhay?
Sino ang nagsabi na gusto nila ng giyera?
Pinatunog na ba nila ang war drums at ikaw lang ang natatanging nakarinig o nakaalam?
Anong taon ba iyan binabanggit mo nang mabili na ang laruang armas?
Meron ka ba mga bilang ng mga aramas at ano ang mga klase nito?
Sa taon na ???, naproteksyonan mo ba ang iyong bakod nang mabili na ang iyong armas mula sa mga nais mang-angkin ng iyong nasasakupan?

some things are not explicit, they may just be implied somewhere in the timeline, take note na meron tinatawag na circumstantial evidence which do not literally tells the crime but just lay down the favorable circumstances for the crime to proceed, di lahat ng crimes may direct evidence kaya ginawang valid ng courts ang circumstantial evidences

 

[Well1AmNichtDiePerson]

Katulad ng 2016 eleksyon, at sa mga politiko na kumandidato sa 2025 Mid-term eleksyon ay meron nakinabang. Si Marcoleta ang aking tinutukoy na nagbitiw ng pahayag na walang WPS at nang siya ay kinundena ng marami ay ngbigay din ng pahayag na meron WPS.

https://phcorner.org/threads/atin-ito-ship-defies-chinese-harassment.2302208/

Source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

I digress

lahat naman gustong mag assert haha palitan na lang ang question kung sino ba may gusto ng gyera sa WPS para ma tingnan natin ang pulso ng bayan

Walang may gusto ng giyera. Ngunit kung ito ay iyong nakikita at inaasahang mangyayari sa hinaharap ay mainam na i-alay ka na lang kay CN upang hindi ito matuloy at upang maging matagumpay ang kapayapaan.

yes walang may gusto ng gyera kasi di nila pwedeng sabihin in public yan jusko, dun ka mag base sa fact na inuuna pa umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka

Saan nagmumula iyang disappointment mo sa buhay?
Sino ang nagsabi na gusto nila ng giyera?
Pinatunog na ba nila ang war drums at ikaw lang ang natatanging nakarinig o nakaalam?
Anong taon ba iyan binabanggit mo nang mabili na ang laruang armas?
Meron ka ba mga bilang ng mga aramas at ano ang mga klase nito?
Sa taon na ???, naproteksyonan mo ba ang iyong bakod nang mabili na ang iyong armas mula sa mga nais mang-angkin ng iyong nasasakupan?

some things are not explicit, they may just be implied somewhere in the timeline, take note na meron tinatawag na circumstantial evidence which do not literally tells the crime but just lay down the favorable circumstances for the crime to proceed, di lahat ng crimes may direct evidence kaya ginawang valid ng courts ang circumstantial evidences

The statement is very telling and invoking right to self-incrimination. Thus, it is very self-evident on ambiguity and generalizations. Stating an ambiguous statement or generalization will always lead to confusion and casts doubt because it lacks clarity, it is irrelevant, and flawed reasoning based on flawed facts. And the message is always misunderstood or misinterpreted. On most occasion, this will result to a comedic effect and unhealthy discussion.

Indeed, circumstantial evidence is based on facts but are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts. Using flawed facts follows flawed reasoning and thus flawed decisions and the spread of flawed information.

Reasonable facts are still required or needed that allows the court to infer on that fact based on other facts before they come to a decision and arriving to a sound conclusion. Ignorance is bliss due to lack of diligence or just avoiding exposure to unpleasant information. Thus, scrutiny of facts gives assurance that it is consistent, reliable, reasonable, credible and relevant.

 

[plhbg1]

Indeed, circumstantial evidence is based on facts but are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts. Using flawed facts follows flawed reasoning and thus flawed decisions and the spread of flawed information.

lol your opinion regarding the facts being biased or not doesn't matter haha wala kang mandato for that, just let the courts decide, the only thing that's left is the fact that circumstantial evidences (no matter how weak they are) are still considered valid

 

[Well1AmNichtDiePerson]

Ito ay naganap bago matapos ang 2025 mid-term eleksyon. Meron sariling agenda si Cong. Marcoleta. Ngunit nag-backfire ito in some way or degree or manner. Bad publicity is still good publicity. Ang ingay ng pangalan niya. Text book style ng mga politiko. Very templated at merong pinag-gayahan. Gusto niya ang moment na merong nakatapat na mikropono sa bibig at kamera sa mukha. Mukhang meron bumulong sa tenga niya. Gustong mang-budol at mauna sa karera.

Background:
Ang politician/lawmaker ay participant sa isinasagawang hearing ng House tri-committee, which is made up of the committees on public order and safety, public information, and information and communications technology. Ang layunin ng isnasagawang pagdinig ay upang i-examine ang mga paraan kung paano labanan ang paglaganap ng false information sa digital age at i-evaluate ang mga epekto nito sa public opinion at national security dahil sa malawakang pagpapakalat ng disimpormasyon at mga diumano'y malisyosong content sa bansa.

Ang politiko/lawmaker ay tatakbong senador sa 2025 Philippine Senate elections bilang independent candidate.

Source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

I digress

lahat naman gustong mag assert haha palitan na lang ang question kung sino ba may gusto ng gyera sa WPS para ma tingnan natin ang pulso ng bayan

Walang may gusto ng giyera. Ngunit kung ito ay iyong nakikita at inaasahang mangyayari sa hinaharap ay mainam na i-alay ka na lang kay CN upang hindi ito matuloy at upang maging matagumpay ang kapayapaan.

yes walang may gusto ng gyera kasi di nila pwedeng sabihin in public yan jusko, dun ka mag base sa fact na inuuna pa umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka

Saan nagmumula iyang disappointment mo sa buhay?
Sino ang nagsabi na gusto nila ng giyera?
Pinatunog na ba nila ang war drums at ikaw lang ang natatanging nakarinig o nakaalam?
Anong taon ba iyan binabanggit mo nang mabili na ang laruang armas?
Meron ka ba mga bilang ng mga aramas at ano ang mga klase nito?
Sa taon na ???, naproteksyonan mo ba ang iyong bakod nang mabili na ang iyong armas mula sa mga nais mang-angkin ng iyong nasasakupan?

some things are not explicit, they may just be implied somewhere in the timeline, take note na meron tinatawag na circumstantial evidence which do not literally tells the crime but just lay down the favorable circumstances for the crime to proceed, di lahat ng crimes may direct evidence kaya ginawang valid ng courts ang circumstantial evidences

The statement is very telling and invoking right to self-incrimination. Thus, it is very self-evident on ambiguity and generalizations. Stating an ambiguous statement or generalization will always lead to confusion and casts doubt because it lacks clarity, it is irrelevant, and flawed reasoning based on flawed facts. And the message is always misunderstood or misinterpreted. On most occasion, this will result to a comedic effect and unhealthy discussion.

Indeed, circumstantial evidence is based on facts but are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts. Using flawed facts follows flawed reasoning and thus flawed decisions and the spread of flawed information.

Reasonable facts are still required or needed that allows the court to infer on that fact based on other facts before they come to a decision and arriving to a sound conclusion. Ignorance is bliss due to lack of diligence or just avoiding exposure to unpleasant information. Thus, scrutiny of facts gives assurance that it is consistent, reliable, reasonable, credible and relevant.

lol your opinion regarding the facts being biased or not doesn't matter haha wala kang mandato for that, just let the courts decide, the only thing that's left is the fact that circumstantial evidences (no matter how weak they are) are still considered valid

It is not an opinion but applying logical reason for a chain of events that may occur in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline. By stating, using flawed facts follows flawed reasoning and thus flawed decisions and the spread of flawed information, the end result will inevitably be garbage of information or flawed facts. And reusing that garbage of information does not make anything or change for the better. It just makes things worse for the events that may occur in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline.

By simply asking, are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts? Basically, stating that a need to re-evaluate the facts extends beyond the court but is crucial in everyday life of a person or society.

I assume that the disappointments and frustrations of a person's life are some things not explicit but may just be implied somewhere in the timeline.

Reasonable facts are still required or needed that allows the court to infer on that fact based on other facts before they come to a decision and arriving to a sound conclusion. Ignorance is bliss due to lack of diligence or just avoiding exposure to unpleasant information. Thus, scrutiny of facts gives assurance that it is consistent, reliable, reasonable, credible and relevant.

• Was there a court case that the court decided and with final verdict based on circumstantial evidence because of "umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka" in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline?
• Was there an ongoing court case about "umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka" that should not be discussed in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline?

If the answer is no or none then the fact is, it's pure gossip or "chismis", spreading false information, a fallacy, a propraganda and no factual truth in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline. However, by simply asking the same question, are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline?

 

[plhbg1]

It is not an opinion but applying logical reason for a chain of events that may occur in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline. By stating, using flawed facts follows flawed reasoning and thus flawed decisions and the spread of flawed information, the end result will inevitably be garbage of information or flawed facts. And reusing that garbage of information does not make anything or change for the better. It just makes things worse for the events that may occur in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline.

By simply asking, are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts? Basically, stating that a need to re-evaluate the facts extends beyond the court but is crucial in everyday life of a person or society.

I assume that the disappointments and frustrations of a person's life are some things not explicit but may just be implied somewhere in the timeline.

Reasonable facts are still required or needed that allows the court to infer on that fact based on other facts before they come to a decision and arriving to a sound conclusion. Ignorance is bliss due to lack of diligence or just avoiding exposure to unpleasant information. Thus, scrutiny of facts gives assurance that it is consistent, reliable, reasonable, credible and relevant.

• Was there a court case that the court decided and with final verdict based on circumstantial evidence because of "umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka" in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline?
• Was there an ongoing court case about "umutang ng armas kesa umutang ng irrigation facilities para sa magsasaka" that should not be discussed in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline?

If the answer is no or none then the fact is, it's pure gossip or "chismis", spreading false information, a fallacy, a propraganda and no factual truth in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline. However, by simply asking the same question, are the facts still relevant for the current timeline or just biased facts in which not explicit but may be implied somewhere in the timeline?

it is still an opinion bossing, even the judges deciding on cases are still the judge's opinion, yung difference lang nila is that they are reasonable enough, even COA is making opinions in their audits, they are still opinions no matter what and that is why a higher court's opinion can override a lower court's opinion kaya nga may appeal feature ang judgement, opinions are actually judgements made

so you're entitled to your own opinion and courts are also entitled to their own opinion, ang difference lang is that court's opinion is executory, sayo hanggang ngawngaw lang hehe

 

[sanskuro]

Atin ang WPS