Latest news with #ProgressiveParty
Style Blueprint
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Style Blueprint
2025 Progressive Party: High Notes & Highballs
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, The District Nashville invites you to its annual Progressive Party — this year, themed High Notes & Highballs. This all-inclusive evening will unfold across three of downtown's newest hotspots: Blueprint Underground Cocktail Club, Category 10, and Bankers Alley Hotel. At each stop, guests will enjoy curated cocktails, chef-crafted small bites, and music, offering a taste of Nashville's historic core while supporting The District's ongoing revitalization efforts.
Korea Herald
21-07-2025
- Business
- Korea Herald
Mandatory USIM encryption, penalties for safety negligence
Proposed bill: Partial Amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act Proposed by Rep. Kim Woo-young (Democratic Party of Korea) ● This bill would expand requirements for mandatory encryption, currently limited to personally identifiable information and biometric data, to include USIM-related data. Proposed bill: Special Act on Construction Safety Proposed by Rep. Moon Jin-seog (Democratic Party of Korea) ● This bill would impose a business suspension of up to one year or a penalty surcharge of up to 3 percent of sales on construction firms, construction engineering businesses, and architects whose negligence in fulfilling safety management duties results in a fatality. Pending bill: Partial Amendment to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Proposed by Rep. Lee Yong-woo (Democratic Party of Korea), Rep. Shin Chang-sik (Rebuilding Korea Party) and Rep. Jung Hye-kyung (Progressive Party) ● This bill would strengthen limits on corporate damage claims against unions and redefine 'worker' to include union organizers and members, while broadening the scope of 'employer' to include persons having de facto control over the working conditions of workers. Promulgated bill: Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum and Alternative Fuel Business Act Competent authority: Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy ● Effective July 1, the amended law extends the reduced surcharge on natural gas imports for petroleum refiners, exporters, and importers of non-power generation natural gas through the end of the year, setting the surcharge at 20,605 won ($14.79) per ton. Administrative announcement: Partial Amendment to the Employment Insurance Act Competent authority: Ministry of Employment and Labor ● The draft amendment would revise the eligibility criteria for employment insurance by replacing the previous 'working hours' standard with an income-based threshold, thereby allowing part-time workers to enroll. The Korea Herald republishes a weekly legislative report by local law firm DR & AJU LLC to provide the latest information on bills approved, proposed, pending and set to be promulgated. — Ed.
USA Today
10-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
One year after Trump's attempted assassination, how politics has changed
What becomes a legend? On that list would surely be an assassination attempt that grazed the ear of a former-and-future president, prompting a flash of fist-pumping defiance that became instantly iconic. One year ago, the shooting of Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was an extraordinary news story in the moment − and an event that would reverberate for him and in the American landscape. Violence isn't new to the nation's politics, of course. Four presidents have been assassinated in office − Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield in the 19th century and William McKinley and John F. Kennedy in the 20th − and every modern president has been the target of serious assassination plots. Ronald Reagan was seriously wounded by one. In the space of 17 days, Gerald Ford faced two separate attempts by women with guns, in one case an attack that left a bystander shot. But none of the failed or forestalled attempts has had more continuing impact and attention than the shooting on July 13, 2024. Trump's defiant response helped clinch a campaign that had begun heading his way. It increased his stature with such prominent figures as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, not to mention a rising number of male voters. Surviving such a close call emboldened the new president himself once he moved back into the Oval Office. And it bolstered the view of Trump and some of his supporters that even God was on his side. Like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump's miraculous luck Not since Teddy Roosevelt has a current or former president embraced surviving an assassination attempt with such fervor, as a sign of something meaningful and important. In 1912, Roosevelt was a former Republican president campaigning for another term as the nominee of the Progressive Party he had formed, nicknamed the Bull Moose Party. He avoided serious injury when a bullet fired by a would-be assassin was slowed by passing through the candidate's metal glasses case and a thick copy of his speech ("Progressive Cause Greater Than Any Individual") before penetrating his chest. "I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot," he told the crowd outside the Gilpatrick Hotel in Milwaukee, "but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose!" He delivered his full speech before getting medical attention, then carried the bullet in his body for the rest of his life after doctors determined it would be too risky to remove it. More than a century later, Trump, another former Republican president seeking a second term, was spared serious injury by his own seemingly miraculous twist of fate. He happened to turn his head to point to a chart showing illegal border crossings at the instant a bullet fired by a sniper on a nearby rooftop whizzed by, grazing his ear. Had it come an inch closer, the injury could have been catastrophic; instead, it required only stitches and a bandage, though he says his ear still throbs from time to time. A man in the audience was struck and killed in a series of gunshots before a Secret Service sniper killed the shooter. Days later, in his acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention − in Milwaukee, site of Roosevelt's near-miss and just three blocks from the former site of the Gilpatrick Hotel − Trump recounted the assassination attempt in dramatic detail. His right ear was covered with a folded white bandage. "I stand before you only by the grace of almighty God," he told the spellbound audience. He vowed never to speak of the shooting again, a promise he would break within weeks. Now, every visitor taking the White House tour walks by a painting that depicts the moment he rose after being tackled by Secret Service agents, pumping his fist in the air. With blood streaking down his face, he shouted "Fight! Fight! Fight!" "Some new artwork at the White House," the official White House account posted on the social media platform X, with emoji eyes. President Barack Obama's official portrait was moved to clear the prime space in the foyer of the State Floor for the new painting. High-top sneakers and expensive perfume recall the day "It was the hand of God," Trump told journalist Salena Zito the day after the shooting. "He was there." In her new book, "Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America's Heartland," being published July 8 by conservative imprint Center Street, Zito writes that the shooting fueled the then-78-year-old's determination to get big things done in office − even more than during his turbulent first term. At the time of the shooting, President Joe Biden was in free fall after a faltering performance in the June 27 presidential debate raised questions about his mental acuity. He would eventually withdraw as the Democratic standard-bearer. Two weeks after the debate, Trump's extraordinary response to the shooting prompted some skeptics to take a second look at him. Later that day, Musk announced he was endorsing Trump. His machismo may have been especially appealing to some male voters. On Election Day, the Pew Research Center calculates he carried men by 12 percentage points after only breaking even in 2020. And there's this: A company Trump owns sold out of its $299 limited-edition high-top sneakers that showed an image of his bloodied face on each side − "eye-catching and unapologetic," the description said. Last week, the site began to offer $249-a-bottle cologne with a name peculiar for perfume but distinctly Trumpian: "Fight Fight Fight."
AllAfrica
09-07-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
China's influence is now shaping decisions in South Korea's legislature
On July 3, South Korea's National Assembly passed a resolution condemning China's unilateral installation of steel-frame structures in the West Sea (also known as the Yellow Sea) – in an area that falls well within South Korea's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The vote was overwhelming: 252 in favor, none against. But seven lawmakers abstained. While the resolution was non-binding, it carried powerful symbolic weight. Territorial sovereignty is not a partisan issue. That seven legislators declined to support a resolution defending South Korea's maritime rights raises uncomfortable questions. China, which continues its encroachment on South Korean sovereignty, is likely to view this political hesitation as a green light to act more boldly. The seven abstaining lawmakers came from the Democratic Party (Kim Young-bae, Lee Ki-heon, Hong Kee-won), the Reform Party (Shin Jang-sik), and the Progressive Party (Yoon Jong-oh, Son Sol, Jeon Jong-deok). Lawmakers from the Democratic and Reform parties offered no explanation. The Progressive Party claimed that 'escalating tensions' was not the right approach, though the resolution was restrained in tone and it was China that initiated the provocation. All seven represent left-leaning parties, and while abstention is not equivalent to endorsement, it reflects a troubling reluctance to push back against Chinese violations. Although the steel-frame structures China erected are not minor marine markers, the Chinese Embassy in Korea describes them as 'deep-sea aquaculture facilities in China's coastal waters.' Yet they sit within the Provisional Measures Zone – a disputed area where China holds no recognized jurisdiction. They are part of a broader salami-slicing strategy – a slow, incremental encroachment tactic designed to change facts on the ground without triggering outright conflict. This is the same playbook Beijing has used in the South China Sea. By installing permanent infrastructure in the region, Beijing appears to be asserting de facto control under the guise of civilian use. Despite official protests from South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a near-unanimous resolution in parliament, these seven lawmakers refused to join the national consensus. This may be the most visible sign yet that Beijing's influence in South Korea has moved beyond soft power and into the very machinery of representative government. Over the past decade, China has systematically cultivated elite relationships in liberal democracies – through financial leverage, academia, media and party-to-party ties. South Korea's geopolitical importance makes it a prime target. The abstentions suggest that this strategy may be paying off. Conservative lawmaker Yoo Sang-beom condemned the abstentions. 'There can be no neutrality when sovereignty is at stake,' he said. 'Those who cower before China and abandon even the most basic resolution to defend our seas are unfit to represent the people.' This resolution wasn't about militarism or nationalism. It was about affirming that a neighboring superpower cannot unilaterally install structures inside South Korea's EEZ without consequence. Silence, in this case, is submission. If Beijing is the long-term challenge, Washington is doing little to help. In fact, the US may be worsening the problem. On July 7, the Trump administration notified Seoul that it would impose a 25% tariff on imports from South Korea, citing trade imbalances and economic security. This comes at a time when South Korea's economy and political system are already being swayed by Chinese influence. The US decision undercuts a key democratic partner precisely when it needs support, not punishment. Even traditionally pro-US voices in South Korea are struggling to justify American actions. Tariffs like these not only strain the alliance but create room for Beijing to exploit Seoul's frustration and push its narrative of American unreliability. The broader security environment offers little comfort. North Korea remains nuclear-armed and unpredictable. Japan, still constrained by its pacifist constitution and domestic priorities, plays a minimal role in collective regional defense. South Korea is finding itself increasingly isolated. Its primary strategic partners are either absent, indifferent, or actively punitive. That vacuum is precisely the condition in which Beijing's incrementalism thrives. Between alliance fatigue and authoritarian pressure Seven abstentions on a symbolic vote may seem insignificant. But when combined with growing Chinese influence, American economic pressure, and weakened regional cooperation, it signals a deeper unraveling. Whether these lawmakers acted out of fear, ideology, or indifference, they owe both the public and the international community a clear explanation. In the absence of one, the public – and Beijing – will be left to draw their own conclusions. Hanjin Lew, a political commentator specializing in East Asian affairs, is a former international spokesman for South Korean conservative parties.
CNA
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CNA
Commentary: Elon Musk has launched his own party – US history suggests it will fail
NOTTINGHAM, England: To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed. This makes Elon Musk's launch of his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with US President Donald Trump even more intriguing. What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box. Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level. But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person. A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away. The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9 per cent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self. Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level. When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high. In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether 'I often wish there were more political parties to choose from' describes their views, 37 per cent of respondents answered: 'Very well' and 31 per cent answered: 'Somewhat well'. In another poll, 25 per cent of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests. So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel. ODDS STACKED AGAINST THIRD-PARTY INSURGENCY The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place. Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support. The other multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn't even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf). Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it's a vanity project or lacks true mass appeal. There is also the fact that to run successfully you must have media coverage. The media tends to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a 'chicken and egg' situation where you need success to help raise money and media coverage, but it's difficult to be successful without first having money and media coverage. The final reasons are that of the open primary and ideological flexibility of the main parties. Trump briefly considered running as president for the Reform Party back in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system that both main parties use meant that he could impose himself on the Republican Party despite most of the party elite despising him. Why bother starting your own party when you can run for one that already exists? It could now be argued that the Republicans have effectively become the Trump or MAGA party, although whether this will survive his presidency is open to debate. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. Whether he's willing to invest in the long term to turn this into more than a vanity project remains to be seen. He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice like few others. But, having been born outside America, he can't run for president. If he's serious about electoral success, he'd have to find someone to run, and that would mean, effectively, they'd lead his party. Musk's public persona suggests that he does not play well with others. Founding a third party isn't impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake it seems difficult to see how one could succeed.
