If South Africa goes through with the forced land grab without compensation I can't see any reason why sanctions wouldn't be put on them since that's pretty much exactly what happened with Zimbabwe.
Easy but I hadn't heard of the Nation Brands thing. Not surprising though.
However, and this is at least the 2nd time this has appeared on a quiz, did Kim actually threaten to nuke Guam? Or did he just announced that they were going to test fire an (unarmed) ICBM that would splash down in the water near Guam? There's quite a huge difference between those two things.
I'm not sure about their exact statements. But is there a huge difference, really? If a person is known for experimenting with weapons and generally agressive behavior, and that person tells everyone he's planning to let some of his new bullets end up in my vicinity, I would regard that as a not-so-subtle threat.
The last one is total BS. Facebook stated that those ads were from "russian-based operatives", with no evidence at all of any tie with the russian government, and 50% of them were run after the election. But this is enough for someone to claim that Russia meddled in the US elections...
That's the red-scare argument: "blame it on Russia". It doesn't matter if you lost elections mainly due to your own mistakes, you blame others, and resort to conspiracy theories to justify your defeat.
As if Russia was the only country "interfering" in US or other western elections. It's amazing (and frightening) how people are deluded to think only Russia "interfered" in recent elections (US included). Various countries both friends or foes to the US, interfered to some extent in western countries elections.
I'd say 250k Facebook ads story is catnip compared to US-based billionaire Soros' spendings to change politics oversea, eg in Hungary his homeland.
What I don't get is why it's considered to be so wrong, even if it is true. I mean, Facebook ads? Really? There's a massive Russian conspiracy to influence people to vote for Trump, and they're supposedly using Facebook ads. First, most people on Facebook are the kinds of people who'd vote for him regardless (e.g., older, conservative, white, middle- and upper-class Americans). And second, if Russia is willing to interfere in the election, it's much more likely they would follow the route of ballot stuffing or similar.
One thing that makes me happy is that the complaints from the left and right sides of the political spectrum seem to be relatively balanced on JetPunk. Oddly, however, both extremes seem to converge on a pro-Russian viewpoint: the left as apologists for Communism and the right as apologists for Putin. Generally, it would seem that the Russian government has been a source of discord and hatred for some time. We'd do well to ignore and resist them.
Revisiting this two years later, I am inclined to think that this was a non-event over hyped by the media. The Russian spending on the U.S. election really was a tiny fraction fraction of the total campaign spending. People were shocked that Trump won (myself included) and were looking for someone to blame. The Russians certainly meddled, but I doubt it swung more than a tiny fraction of the votes.
Because of the way the US voting system is set, even a small fraction of votes in the right states can make a ton of difference. And even if they didn't make a difference, the fact that a foreign power tried to have / has influence on the US elections and doesn't get punished sends a loud and clear signal to anyone interested in doing so for their own reasons.
However, and this is at least the 2nd time this has appeared on a quiz, did Kim actually threaten to nuke Guam? Or did he just announced that they were going to test fire an (unarmed) ICBM that would splash down in the water near Guam? There's quite a huge difference between those two things.
As if Russia was the only country "interfering" in US or other western elections. It's amazing (and frightening) how people are deluded to think only Russia "interfered" in recent elections (US included). Various countries both friends or foes to the US, interfered to some extent in western countries elections.
I'd say 250k Facebook ads story is catnip compared to US-based billionaire Soros' spendings to change politics oversea, eg in Hungary his homeland.
2. No
3. No
“Anholt-GfK Nation Brands Index”
hint: Anholt