Rodante Marcoleta charged with Plunder, Bribery at Ombudsman

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

 

[musicacc727]

Experienced is matter, you can see the evidence of there own area of responsibility.
You can Push Vico or anyone as your own right to choice. But you can't dictate the Majority of the People to which one is good or bad. They lived and knew base on there experienced not just like what you learn from school or media or mentor and etc.

You're contradicting yourself. You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you, and now you're talking about dictating the people for their judgment. Sharing information is not dictating belief, it never has been. Is debunking incorrect information wrong? Is exposing things that would otherwise not given attention to wrong? If we are so against information and would rather just base on one-dimensional experiences, what are we bound to accomplish?

I'll recall again one thing from history. La Solidaridad exposed abuses caused by the Spanish. The atrocities that people did not know were happening were presented to them. Similarly, Rizal's Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo exposed the abusive nature of our then-colonizers.

What do these two have in common? They didn't command the Filipinos to revolt, they merely shared information. This is the same thing that I've been doing here. I have not once said for anyone to stand for the same thing that I stand for, just sharing factual information and debunking ones that are false.

You hate Marcos and his admin, right? Well, basing on lived experiences of a handful of individuals is what made him win. Claims of a good life during the Martial Law, his father being a Genius, and such claims come from the lived experiences some individuals that were alive during his father's time, but is that enough? Is a couple of testimonies, a couple of experiences really enough for one to say that they "know" a person?

Lastly, your claim on experience. Vico served three terms as mayor. Leni served as VP, as a lawyer, and currently a mayor. Leody has been active since the Martial law. Eli is currently seated as a representative for the Kamanggagawa Partylist. All of them have experienced being a leader, but none of them had had any accusations of being corrupt, any cases of improperly audited funds.

 

[musicacc727]

Are you telling me you are super talino without using AI? Wow.

Sorry, but it seems your no. 1 bet for president is not qualified for 2028 presidency election. He's going to have to wait until 2034.

Where did you get that conclusion? In one of our discussions, you accused me of using AI, didn't you? But I didn't show the same response. Perhaps you're ashamed that you didn't remove that one artifact from your reply that clearly went against what you were trying to show?

Also, you asked for who I'd support if they were to run, a clearly theoretical question which I answered with a theoretical response as well. And it's quite bland using that as a cointerargument, don't you think? You didn't address any of the points posted in my response.

 

[KingSemreh]

While this is clearly AI generated, let me entertain your response here.

On your first statement, you left an artifact, unfortunately.

"Statistical Discrepancies and Independent Tracking
While official military press releases frequently cited tens of thousands of processed returnees, these metrics faced domestic and international scrutiny:
Inclusion of Sympathizers: Human rights organizations noted that the government's totals blended combatants with civilian supporters, village-level organizers, and rural farmers. [1, 2]
Forced / Fake Surrenders: Independent monitors like the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) documented thousands of instances where human rights groups (such as Karapatan) alleged that civilians were "red-tagged" or coerced into signing surrender papers to meet local government peace quotas"

Next, on some the laws.

Tertiary Access to Quality education was authored by Bam Aquino, currently against Duterte

UHC was authored by JV Ejercito, and co-authored by Hontiveros and Gatchalian, also against Duterte

The Senate version of the Expanded maternity leave was authored by Hontiveros, also against Duterte

Attributing the passing of these laws to Duterte being the president is kind of off course, considering most of them are authored by people currently against him.

Also, read my discussions yesterday. The success of these laws, yes, we should perhaps be thankful. But does that pardon Duterte from his sins? Should he be forgiven because he signed laws that were written by his opposers? I don't think so.

Then, the TRAIN law. I can't believe that that will be used for this discussion when it's ome of the reasons that oil prices soared to such prices during the US-Iran war.

And lastly, these achievements still do not answer the questions I posed, except for the terrorism one, which your response even has a contradiction to. Are we just bound to ignore his other issues?

Not a conclusion, you clearly stated.

Let me tell you, if you found something wrong points, does not mean the whole good thing is invalid. Isn't it?

Which point did I accused you of using AI? I don't mind if you are using it coz I use it too.

 

[KingSemreh]

Where did you get that conclusion? In one of our discussions, you accused me of using AI, didn't you? But I didn't show the same response. Perhaps you're ashamed that you didn't remove that one artifact from your reply that clearly went against what you were trying to show?

Also, you asked for who I'd support if they were to run, a clearly theoretical question which I answered with a theoretical response as well. And it's quite bland using that as a cointerargument, don't you think? You didn't address any of the points posted in my response.

It is not a conclusion, he was born on June 17, 1989. Pasig City Mayor Vico Sotto is 37 years old.
Could you check of your own, how old is qualified to run for Presidency?
This time, he can run for Senator in 2028.

 

[musicacc727]

Not a conclusion, you clearly stated.

Let me tell you, if you found something wrong points, does not mean the whole good thing is invalid. Isn't it?

Which point did I accused you of using AI? I don't mind if you are using it coz I use it too.

It is not a conclusion, he was born on June 17, 1989. Pasig City Mayor Vico Sotto is 37 years old.
Could you check of your own, how old is qualified to run for Presidency?
This time, he can run for Senator in 2028.

You misunderstood my resoonse. I ma talking about wjen you said "Are you telling me you are super talino without using AI? Wow." You concluded that I'm claiming intellect from my lack of AI use, it couldn't have been more clear that I'm talking about that on that paragraph.

And here's you telling my argument is "puro AI lang" on one of the threads here

"With regards to Supreme Court denied Bato's appeal for a TRO, kung nanunuod ka ng balita hindi puro AI lang. Yan ang sinasabi ng mga expert sa na wrong move na ginawa ng atty. ni Bato. Bakit? Dahil hindi pweding pakialaman ng supreme court kung hindi ito connected sa ating Philippines Court of Law, since kumalas tayo sa ICC therefore denied ang pinaka mainam na remedy ng Supreme Court. Naintindihan mo na? Balik ka dito >>> SC vs ICC Lawyer <<< makinig ka baka magising ka din tulad ng iba hindi puro AI lang."

And yes, one bad thing doesn't make the whole law bad that instantly, but in the case of the TRAIN law, that one bad thing IS causing more harm than the entire law causes good, and could have been prevented had they studied it more. And for the terrorist group surrenderers, faking the number of surenderees quite literally defeats the whole purpose of the good part because it's fake.

Lastly, the word theoretical is in the literal statement I wrote. What part of it do you interpret as me saying that Vico is qualified to run during the 2028 Presidential race?

 

[KingSemreh]

You misunderstood my resoonse. I ma talking about wjen you said "Are you telling me you are super talino without using AI? Wow." You concluded that I'm claiming intellect from my lack of AI use, it couldn't have been more clear that I'm talking about that on that paragraph.

And here's you telling my argument is "puro AI lang" on one of the threads here

"With regards to Supreme Court denied Bato's appeal for a TRO, kung nanunuod ka ng balita hindi puro AI lang. Yan ang sinasabi ng mga expert sa na wrong move na ginawa ng atty. ni Bato. Bakit? Dahil hindi pweding pakialaman ng supreme court kung hindi ito connected sa ating Philippines Court of Law, since kumalas tayo sa ICC therefore denied ang pinaka mainam na remedy ng Supreme Court. Naintindihan mo na? Balik ka dito >>> SC vs ICC Lawyer <<< makinig ka baka magising ka din tulad ng iba hindi puro AI lang."

And yes, one bad thing doesn't make the whole law bad that instantly, but in the case of the TRAIN law, that one bad thing IS causing more harm than the entire law causes good, and could have been prevented had they studied it more. And for the terrorist group surrenderers, faking the number of surenderees quite literally defeats the whole purpose of the good part because it's fake.

Lastly, the word theoretical is in the literal statement I wrote. What part of it do you interpret as me saying that Vico is qualified to run during the 2028 Presidential race?

Just to remind you if you forgot what you said.
You used AI, I used AI. Why questioning how I use AI. Anong problema mo don bago ka matulog?

 

[KingSemreh]

Mga Anti-Dutertes kinakailangan ninyo siraan ang mga Duterte para lang makakuha ng atensyon at boto. Mga DDS hindi na nila kailangan na siraan kayo kasi sira na. Plus idagdag ninyo sa DDS ang iba sa mga loyalista para kay Sara. Did you see that?

Hindi lahat ng nakikisymphatiya sa mga Duterte ay binuto sila kundi mas buo ang tiwala sa kanila.
Hindi tulad ng nasa mga utak ninyo na porket pinaglalaban ang mga Duterte eh DDS na tapos kayo puro tanggi na Trolls. Babaliktarin pa na yong ayaw maniwala sa narrative ninyo ang Trolls. Haha.

 

[musicacc727]

View attachment 4228724
Just to remind you if you forgot what you said.
You used AI, I used AI. Why questioning how I use AI. Anong problema mo don bago ka matulog?

Nope. I didn't use AI in any of mt responses, you can check them if you want to verify. I'm questioning your use of AI because you just proved that the admin wasn't as successful as the numbers make it look like. Also, maybe take it with a little grain of salt, because you said before that my statement was based on sources na "puro AI lang"

Also, what are you policing about my response even? Because I said that I'd put Vico as president IF I ALONE WERE TO PUT SOMEONE IN THE PEDESTAL? My statement was obviously hypothetical, isn't it? Or do you not know what a hypothetical situation is?

 

[musicacc727]

Mga Anti-Dutertes kinakailangan ninyo siraan ang mga Duterte para lang makakuha ng atensyon at boto. Mga DDS hindi na nila kailangan na siraan kayo kasi sira na. Plus idagdag ninyo sa DDS ang iba sa mga loyalista para kay Sara. Did you see that?

Hindi lahat ng nakikisymphatiya sa mga Duterte ay binuto sila kundi mas buo ang tiwala sa kanila.
Hindi tulad ng nasa mga utak ninyo na porket pinaglalaban ang mga Duterte eh DDS na tapos kayo puro tanggi na Trolls. Babaliktarin pa na yong ayaw maniwala sa narrative ninyo ang Trolls. Haha.

Isa-isahin natin 'to, ha?

Una, hindi paninira ang pagsasabi ng totoo. Hindi paninira ang court ruling na galing sa ICC, ang ebidensya na ipinapataw kina Sara, Digong, at Bato. May legal basis lahat 'yon. The same thing happened during the 2022 NLE, factual information ang inilabas against Marcos. Nakinig ba ang mga bumoto sa kaniya? No. Nagsisisi ba sila? Yes. Know the difference between factual information and mere propaganda. Inaaral ng grade schoolers 'yan.

Also, ano ba ang pinapatungkulan ng acronym na DDS?' di ba Duterte Diehard Supporters? Hindi ba 'yon ang ginagawa mo currently? At kung talaga palang buo ang tiwala mo sa mga Duterte, bakit hindi mo sila binoto? Also, trolls? Ikaw mismo ang nag-post ng definition ng pagiging troll dito' di ba? And ikaw lang ang fit sa description na 'yon. Napaka-contradicting ng pag-iisip mo.

Edit: To add lang, since you've had quite the amount of persinal call-outs, let me try one. Hindi ba ikaw yung nagsabi dati na wala ka sa Pilipinas? And you claim to be From somewhere in Mindanao. Bukas naman sa alam ko ang Davao city, mga Duterte pa rin namna ang namumuno ro'n. Why not do your expertise there? Hindi ba safe, maganda, maayos, at asensado ro'n? Most people, when migrating or working in other countries, chase those ideals, kung mayroon naman pala sa Davao City at taga-Mindanao ka naman, why not work and live there?

 

[KingSemreh]

Isa-isahin natin 'to, ha?

Una, hindi paninira ang pagsasabi ng totoo. Hindi paninira ang court ruling na galing sa ICC, ang ebidensya na ipinapataw kina Sara, Digong, at Bato. May legal basis lahat 'yon. The same thing happened during the 2022 NLE, factual information ang inilabas against Marcos. Nakinig ba ang mga bumoto sa kaniya? No. Nagsisisi ba sila? Yes. Know the difference between factual information and mere propaganda. Inaaral ng grade schoolers 'yan.

Also, ano ba ang pinapatungkulan ng acronym na DDS?' di ba Duterte Diehard Supporters? Hindi ba 'yon ang ginagawa mo currently? At kung talaga palang buo ang tiwala mo sa mga Duterte, bakit hindi mo sila binoto? Also, trolls? Ikaw mismo ang nag-post ng definition ng pagiging troll dito' di ba? And ikaw lang ang fit sa description na 'yon. Napaka-contradicting ng pag-iisip mo.

Okay. Let's us say hindi paninira.
The question is, why focusing on one Party and Pushing your own bit?

 

[musicacc727]

Okay. Let's us say hindi paninira.
The question is, why focusing on one Party and Pushing your own bit?

O, 'di ba my argument makes sense? Why don't you recap my responses here. Ilang beses ko nang nabanggit ang mga Marcos at ang involvement nila sa mga Duterte. Nabanggit ko na rin si Sotto, and have also put clear that I also do not fully support the delays and lack of planning of the new BRC on the flood control *******. Na-last reply pa ako doon sa isang thread, if I remember correctly, that was also a response to a similar question also posted by you, nasa dulo noon 'yong ginagamit sa rally—"Marcos, Duterte, walang pinag-iba. Parehong tuta, diktador, pasista." The thing is, this discussion in nature is about the Dutertes. Sa tingin mo ba kapag pumunta ka sa basketball event, magiging main discussion nila ang football? Hindi, 'di ba? That's why the Dutertes are being discussed, because this is a discussion about Duterte and his Allies. Tulad ng sabi ko dati, if you are this impartial person who wants to police corrupt officials, write a thread about them and we'll gladly contribute too, kung tama ang arguments.

Again, presenting factual information is not in any way a use of force. Kung compelling iyong mga impormasyon para tumiwalag sa pagsuporta sa mga Duterte, labas na ako ro'n. Kung ayaw ming tanggapin na may mga kamalian at nilabag na batas si Digos, that's your call, but your belief on one thing doesn't mean that I'd stop providing insights especially on some matter that's clearly meant only to put them on a good light, especially if it had been disproven by history.

Also, just as a sidenote, I am a historian. These sort of things is literally a part of my job. Hindi unang pagkakataon ang mga ganitong pangyayari, and history has its eyes on us. May mga bagay na alam na natin ang kahihinatnan, na nakita na natin sa kasaysayan, so why repeat those known to have bad consequences?

 

[KingSemreh]

Pu

O, 'di ba my argument makes sense? Why don't you recap my responses here. Ilang beses ko nang nabanggit ang mga Marcos at ang involvement nila sa mga Duterte. Nabanggit ko na rin si Sotto, and have also put clear that I also do not fully support the delays and lack of planning of the new BRC on the flood control *******. Na-last reply pa ako doon sa isang thread, if I remember correctly, that was also a response to a similar question also posted by you, nasa dulo noon 'yong ginagamit sa rally—"Marcos, Duterte, walang pinag-iba. Parehong tuta, diktador, pasista." The thing is, this discussion in nature is about the Dutertes. Sa tingin mo ba kapag pumunta ka sa basketball event, magiging main discussion nila ang football? Hindi, 'di ba? That's why the Dutertes are being discussed, because this is a discussion about Duterte and his Allies. Tulad ng sabi ko dati, if you are this impartial person who wants to police corrupt officials, write a thread about them and we'll gladly contribute too, kung tama ang arguments.

Again, presenting factual information is not in any way a use of force. Kung compelling iyong mga impormasyon para tumiwalag sa pagsuporta sa mga Duterte, labas na ako ro'n. Kung ayaw ming tanggapin na may mga kamalian at nilabag na batas si Digos, that's your call, but your belief on one thing doesn't mean that I'd stop providing insights especially on some matter that's clearly meant only to put them on a good light, especially if it had been disproven by history.

Also, just as a sidenote, I am a historian. These sort of things is literally a part of my job. Hindi unang pagkakataon ang mga ganitong pangyayari, and history has its eyes on us. May mga bagay na alam na natin ang kahihinatnan, na nakita na natin sa kasaysayan, so why repeat those known to have bad consequences?

Pursue what you would like to happen pero make sure that your narrative is not bias otherwise nagsasayang ka lang ng laway. FYI. We toke idea from credible Lawyer hindi lang pangkalye. We listen both side also.

 

[musicacc727]

Last na, bago ako matulog. Marami dito ay nagbabasa and sumasagot hindi para buksan ang isipan at marinig ang opinion at ipinaglalaban ng iba. Sana ay baguhin natin ito. Maging bukas sana ang isipan sa kritisismo at huwag makulong sa ideolohiyang kinagisnan lamang. Hindi naman kailangang tumaliwas, hindi rin kailangang tumigil agad sa pagsuporta sa kung sino man ang sinusuportahan, pero hindi rin tama na isarado ang isipan sa ibang pananaw. Madali na lamang ngayon kumalap ng impormasyon, madali lang din tignan ang integridad ng bawat salita, pero walang silbi ang kaalamang hindi iniintindi.

And to address this, too

Pu

Pursue what you would like to happen pero make sure that your narrative is not bias otherwise nagsasayang ka lang ng laway. FYI. We toke idea from credible Lawyer hindi lang pangkalwi. We listen both side also.

Again, hindi bias ang magalahad ng impormasyon. Hindi bias ang pag-asisa sa mga pananaw. It all boils down to what you're for and against. Laban kami sa ginawang mali ng mga Duterte, and we believe that the cases filed against them are rightful, with the ICC already concluding that the case is strong enough to be tried. Kung hindi ginawa ni Duterte ang mga krimen niya, we wouldn't be against him. While from what I've seen here, those heinous acts done by Duterte are ignored by his supporters because of what he's apparently done for the country. Sabihin natin, si Joey de Leon na may mga rape jokes at tendency ng pmababastos sa kababaihan, is there anything completely unrelated that he can do to be pardoned from that case? Si Erap, ang prime example ng pangugurakot, can he be forgiven kapag may ginawa siyang extent of service? People are remembered by their actions, and for that reason, consequences will present themselves overtime.

Kung may credible lawyer na sumusuporta sa ideology mo, then good for you. But listening to both sides is not enough. Kung 'yong credible lawyer na iyan ay nakilala niyo lang dahil sumusuporta sa ideology niyo, then that's not being fair, that's being biased. Kahit makinig ka sa magkabilang panig kung may hinahanap ka lang naman na sagot o statement, then, like you said, nagsasayang ka alng ng laway.

 

[KingSemreh]

Last na, bago ako matulog. Marami dito ay nagbabasa and sumasagot hindi para buksan ang isipan at marinig ang opinion at ipinaglalaban ng iba. Sana ay baguhin natin ito. Maging bukas sana ang isipan sa kritisismo at huwag makulong sa ideolohiyang kinagisnan lamang. Hindi naman kailangang tumaliwas, hindi rin kailangang tumigil agad sa pagsuporta sa kung sino man ang sinusuportahan, pero hindi rin tama na isarado ang isipan sa ibang pananaw. Madali na lamang ngayon kumalap ng impormasyon, madali lang din tignan ang integridad ng bawat salita, pero walang silbi ang kaalamang hindi iniintindi.

And to address this, too

Again, hindi bias ang magalahad ng impormasyon. Hindi bias ang pag-asisa sa mga pananaw. It all boils down to what you're for and against. Laban kami sa ginawang mali ng mga Duterte, and we believe that the cases filed against them are rightful, with the ICC already concluding that the case is strong enough to be tried. Kung hindi ginawa ni Duterte ang mga krimen niya, we wouldn't be against him. While from what I've seen here, those heinous acts done by Duterte are ignored by his supporters because of what he's apparently done for the country. Sabihin natin, si Joey de Leon na may mga rape jokes at tendency ng pmababastos sa kababaihan, is there anything completely unrelated that he can do to be pardoned from that case? Si Erap, ang prime example ng pangugurakot, can he be forgiven kapag may ginawa siyang extent of service? People are remembered by their actions, and for that reason, consequences will present themselves overtime.

Kung may credible lawyer na sumusuporta sa ideology mo, then good for you. But listening to both sides is not enough. Kung 'yong credible lawyer na iyan ay nakilala niyo lang dahil sumusuporta sa ideology niyo, then that's not being fair, that's being biased. Kahit makinig ka sa magkabilang panig kung may hinahanap ka lang naman na sagot o statement, then, like you said, nagsasayang ka alng ng laway.

It becomes biased when you criticize and point only at one side, one party, or one team.

As you said, you are a historian.

When a historian becomes politically biased, it undermines the integrity of history. I'm not a historian, nor do I even have a degree yet. I'm still a student. However, I've heard that there are significant differences and discrepancies between the history taught in schools and what many people believe to be the actual history of the Philippines.

No one can claim to be a perfect candidate. The best anyone can claim is to be more qualified or better than the others, but that still does not make them perfect. Would you agree with that?

 

[musicacc727]

It becomes biased when you criticize and point only at one side, one party, or one team.

As you said, you are a historian.

When a historian becomes politically biased, it undermines the integrity of history. I'm not a historian, nor do I even have a degree yet. I'm still a student. However, I've heard that there are significant differences and discrepancies between the history taught in schools and what many people believe to be the actual history of the Philippines.

No one can claim to be a perfect candidate. The best anyone can claim is to be more qualified or better than the others, but that still does not make them perfect. Would you agree with that?

It's bold for yiu to claim that we criticize only one point, party, or team, when again, this is a discussion about the Dutertes. Naturally, it will ne filled with criticism against the Dutertes. Similarly, we won't bring up Duterte in a discussion about, say, Gloria. I have been an activist since EDSA II, and I've criticized and showed my insights towards every president that sat since then. This is a discussion about the Dutertes, it's just natural for it to be about them.

And also, I've been in this field for years, and the thing is, Historians are not writers. We do not simply write history, because while history must be viewed on both sides, it also views the motivation behind the actions that each side took. If you want a History that simply tells what happened rather than also discussing why it happened, then you wouldn't be taught that the Spanish made the Filipinos suffer, triggering a revolution, but instead be taught that the Spanish colonized the Philippines, and the Filipinos fought for independence. It might come as similar, but you lose context, and context is important in History. History leans on factual information, it doesn't side anywhere, but it's natural for a discussion to discuss one thing in focus and reflect what that one thing has done, and once points are said, Ethics also comes to play, which History also uses to provide context for the morality of an action, because that matters, too. The reason why you only see us mainly criticizing the Dutertes is the same reason why most of your responses here are about defending Duterte. It's not the right place to discuss a different person here because the discussion is about Duterte. If I were to use your metrics, I can call you biased too, because you've only been defending Duterte, but not discussed why the other candidates or those against him are wrong.

To address your claim that History isn't taught the same way as some lived experiences, it's again because History discusses events from hundreds of years ago; there can never be one conclusive, detailed history, only similar contexts. There would naturally be variations. Since you are a student, I'm assuming you weren't alive during the Martial Law, what have you heard about Marcos Sr's leadership? Which one do you believe is true? There are people that claim they lived their best lives then, and there really are projects to prove that—Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, San Juanico Bridge, Manila Film Center, the various artworks commissioned from many Filipino artists, but isn't it just natural if they're overshadowed by his wrongdoings? The military abuse, economic regression, billions of pesos worth of debt, intentional declaration of Martial Law, disappearances, death of media personnel that opposed him, and many more. And that's not being biased, that's being critical. Some teachers may talk about Marcos badly, and some will rally that he was good, but does that mean we just get to ignore about the proofs presented by the academe? Same with Duterte, you claim that he was among the best presidents in the country, but should you really ignore every proofs presented here? Every discussion you've responded to?

History isn't one-sided, it presents both sides, but actions and people with evil intentions naturally attract hot eyes, because who would want to support something or someone evil?

And yes, there is no perfect candidate, but perhaps it's time that we also consider what makes the candidate we support evil, not just how they are somewhat the "lesser" evil. Every election, many candidates get overshadowed by big names, but it isn't because they are worse that other candidates, it's because voters fail to recognize them and only view the one or two candidates that have already been famous.

You said in one of our discussions that we shouldn't call you a DDS, citing that you didn't vote for any of them, but considering what you'd said here, I'm guessing it's because you were not yet allowed to vote last election. Know the difference about not voting and not being able to vote.

 

[KingSemreh]

It's bold for yiu to claim that we criticize only one point, party, or team, when again, this is a discussion about the Dutertes. Naturally, it will ne filled with criticism against the Dutertes. Similarly, we won't bring up Duterte in a discussion about, say, Gloria. I have been an activist since EDSA II, and I've criticized and showed my insights towards every president that sat since then. This is a discussion about the Dutertes, it's just natural for it to be about them.

And also, I've been in this field for years, and the thing is, Historians are not writers. We do not simply write history, because while history must be viewed on both sides, it also views the motivation behind the actions that each side took. If you want a History that simply tells what happened rather than also discussing why it happened, then you wouldn't be taught that the Spanish made the Filipinos suffer, triggering a revolution, but instead be taught that the Spanish colonized the Philippines, and the Filipinos fought for independence. It might come as similar, but you lose context, and context is important in History. History leans on factual information, it doesn't side anywhere, but it's natural for a discussion to discuss one thing in focus and reflect what that one thing has done, and once points are said, Ethics also comes to play, which History also uses to provide context for the morality of an action, because that matters, too. The reason why you only see us mainly criticizing the Dutertes is the same reason why most of your responses here are about defending Duterte. It's not the right place to discuss a different person here because the discussion is about Duterte. If I were to use your metrics, I can call you biased too, because you've only been defending Duterte, but not discussed why the other candidates or those against him are wrong.

To address your claim that History isn't taught the same way as some lived experiences, it's again because History discusses events from hundreds of years ago; there can never be one conclusive, detailed history, only similar contexts. There would naturally be variations. Since you are a student, I'm assuming you weren't alive during the Martial Law, what have you heard about Marcos Sr's leadership? Which one do you believe is true? There are people that claim they lived their best lives then, and there really are projects to prove that—Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, San Juanico Bridge, Manila Film Center, the various artworks commissioned from many Filipino artists, but isn't it just natural if they're overshadowed by his wrongdoings? The military abuse, economic regression, billions of pesos worth of debt, intentional declaration of Martial Law, disappearances, death of media personnel that opposed him, and many more. And that's not being biased, that's being critical. Some teachers may talk about Marcos badly, and some will rally that he was good, but does that mean we just get to ignore about the proofs presented by the academe? Same with Duterte, you claim that he was among the best presidents in the country, but should you really ignore every proofs presented here? Every discussion you've responded to?

History isn't one-sided, it presents both sides, but actions and people with evil intentions naturally attract hot eyes, because who would want to support something or someone evil?

And yes, there is no perfect candidate, but perhaps it's time that we also consider what makes the candidate we support evil, not just how they are somewhat the "lesser" evil. Every election, many candidates get overshadowed by big names, but it isn't because they are worse that other candidates, it's because voters fail to recognize them and only view the one or two candidates that have already been famous.

You said in one of our discussions that we shouldn't call you a DDS, citing that you didn't vote for any of them, but considering what you'd said here, I'm guessing it's because you were not yet allowed to vote last election. Know the difference about not voting and not being able to vote.

You can hold your own beliefs, just as we hold ours. If you believe that this specific family is evil, while we believe the true evil lies elsewhere, then what is the purpose of our discussion?

 

[musicacc727]

You can hold your own beliefs, just as we hold ours. If you believe that this specific family is evil, while we believe the true evil lies elsewhere, then what is the purpose of our discussion?

This is from my response yesterday night.

"Last na, bago ako matulog. Marami dito ay nagbabasa and sumasagot hindi para buksan ang isipan at marinig ang opinion at ipinaglalaban ng iba. Sana ay baguhin natin ito. Maging bukas sana ang isipan sa kritisismo at huwag makulong sa ideolohiyang kinagisnan lamang. Hindi naman kailangang tumaliwas, hindi rin kailangang tumigil agad sa pagsuporta sa kung sino man ang sinusuportahan, pero hindi rin tama na isarado ang isipan sa ibang pananaw. Madali na lamang ngayon kumalap ng impormasyon, madali lang din tignan ang integridad ng bawat salita, pero walang silbi ang kaalamang hindi iniintindi."

Beliefs are not absolute, we all know that, but we ought to discuss exhaustively the reason why we believe certain beliefs. This discussion will only be without purpose if either of us admits that we're not willing to listen and consider alternative viewpoints. And by the looks of your statement, that we should hold our beliefs, it seems like you believe and will believe solely in the viewpoint you're used to, in that case, feel free to not respond to me. You have used all sorts of name-calling in this discussion, throughout multiple people and contexts, and if that narrow narrative is all you have to present against factual and properly structured arguments, then go and hold onto your beliefs tightly. We present factual info, show proper counterarguments, if you can't take that and would rather ignore everything else for the sake of holding onto your beliefs, then that's a skill issue. And in the case that you do not want to discuss anything because you'd rather hold only to the beliefs you have, then don't respond, nor should you expect us to stop giving factual points.

Edit: Let me just give a TLDR and a bit of salt to this. Yes, the discussion is pointless now that you've stated in your response you'll hold your beliefs regardless of the things presented to you. But do remember that most of these arguments stemmed from you defending the Dutertes, while we present counterarguments. A discussion is meant to, well, discuss something, and part of that is both parties having an open mind. If you refuse to listen to anything and just want to be in your own bubble of beliefs, that's not my fault, not my problem either. Remain confined if that's what makes you happy, but don't expect people to just shut up when you present arguments that asks for response.

 

[KingSemreh]

This is from my response yesterday night.

"Last na, bago ako matulog. Marami dito ay nagbabasa and sumasagot hindi para buksan ang isipan at marinig ang opinion at ipinaglalaban ng iba. Sana ay baguhin natin ito. Maging bukas sana ang isipan sa kritisismo at huwag makulong sa ideolohiyang kinagisnan lamang. Hindi naman kailangang tumaliwas, hindi rin kailangang tumigil agad sa pagsuporta sa kung sino man ang sinusuportahan, pero hindi rin tama na isarado ang isipan sa ibang pananaw. Madali na lamang ngayon kumalap ng impormasyon, madali lang din tignan ang integridad ng bawat salita, pero walang silbi ang kaalamang hindi iniintindi."

Beliefs are not absolute, we all know that, but we ought to discuss exhaustively the reason why we believe certain beliefs. This discussion will only be without purpose if either of us admits that we're not willing to listen and consider alternative viewpoints. And by the looks of your statement, that we should hold our beliefs, it seems like you believe and will believe solely in the viewpoint you're used to, in that case, feel free to not respond to me. You have used all sorts of name-calling in this discussion, throughout multiple people and contexts, and if that narrow narrative is all you have to present against factual and properly structured arguments, then go and hold onto your beliefs tightly. We present factual info, show proper counterarguments, if you can't take that and would rather ignore everything else for the sake of holding onto your beliefs, then that's a skill issue. And in the case that you do not want to discuss anything because you'd rather hold only to the beliefs you have, then don't respond, nor should you expect us to stop giving factual points.

Edit: Let me just give a TLDR and a bit of salt to this. Yes, the discussion is pointless now that you've stated in your response you'll hold your beliefs regardless of the things presented to you. But do remember that most of these arguments stemmed from you defending the Dutertes, while we present counterarguments. A discussion is meant to, well, discuss something, and part of that is both parties having an open mind. If you refuse to listen to anything and just want to be in your own bubble of beliefs, that's not my fault, not my problem either. Remain confined if that's what makes you happy, but don't expect people to just shut up when you present arguments that asks for response.

Since we support the positive side of the Dutertes, we do not ask anyone to share our beliefs. Have you ever seen the Dutertes boasting about how good they are, instead of simply doing good things for their constituents? We look at the actual positive impacts, not just our personal beliefs about the Dutertes, unlike what you—as an anti-Duterte critic—call 'blah blah.'
It seems you are implying that we need to learn from you to know what is better than what we already know and believe.

Edit.
In addition to above statement, Duterte's is not our God in Politics how better than those you mentioned as your bits in presidency candidates.

 

[musicacc727]

Since we support the positive side of the Dutertes, we do not ask anyone to share our beliefs. Have you ever seen the Dutertes boasting about how good they are, instead of simply doing good things for their constituents? We look at the actual positive impacts, not just our personal beliefs about the Dutertes, unlike what you—as an anti-Duterte critic—call 'blah blah.'
It seems you are implying that we need to learn from you to know what is better than what we already know and believe.

The better interpretation to this is that since you support the positive side of the Dutertes, you don't want to even glimpse at the negative side at all. This discussion has never touched the grounds of them boasting anything. You believe in their positive side, we show you the negatives because we believe it matters just as much. Is that much hard to understand? I never told you any sort "blah blah", you can check every single one of my reponses, where I addressed points you presented.

You do not need to learn from me, but it doesn't take much to listen. Whether you change your opinion or not is still up to you. Your previous statement implied that you're not even willing to consider things that we say here. If you can't face criticism, then what are your arguments even worth?

And an edit to address your edit.

The candidate I brought forward to you, have you given me any convincing that they're not good? Duterte may not be your god in politics, but you're certainly willing to break even moral values just to support him.

Killing, rape, and genocide is wrong, aren't they?

 

[KingSemreh]

The better interpretation to this is that since you support the positive side of the Dutertes, you don't want to even glimpse at the negative side at all. This discussion has never touched the grounds of them boasting anything. You believe in their positive side, we show you the negatives because we believe it matters just as much. Is that much hard to understand? I never told you any sort "blah blah", you can check every single one of my reponses, where I addressed points you presented.

You do not need to learn from me, but it doesn't take much to listen. Whether you change your opinion or not is still up to you. Your previous statement implied that you're not even willing to consider things that we say here. If you can't face criticism, then what are your arguments even worth?

In politics, criticism creates a good output only when it comes from independent watchdogs, an active civil society, and the public holding leaders accountable. When criticism is used purely as a weapon between rival political factions, it results in political instability rather than better governance.

I don't mind who the leader is, as long as there is real good governance and fair policies - not just sweet-coated speeches, but actual good deeds.

Please note that I am from Northern Mindanao. For generations, numerous Presidents came and went, yet Mindanao was always left behind. When Duterte - who is actually from Mindanao - became President, people expected him to favor his home region. But did he deprioritize Mindanao? The answer is no. He simply practiced fair policy. Even with more support sent to the south, Luzon still remains far more developed than Mindanao. What might look like a small development to outsiders was a massive, historic milestone for us.