By David A. PhillipsIn the past few weeks, two important debates have taken place.
One was held in South Korea, where the two candidates were in a heated debate over their economic policies.
The other was held at the White House, where President Donald Trump took the stage to announce his plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and to increase his own tax revenue.
The debates were watched by millions of people in the United States and around the world.
They were followed by thousands of thousands of people worldwide, who watched the debate online, in their homes, in the car and in their cars, in schools, on airplanes, and everywhere else.
The debates were the latest installment of a growing phenomenon in which the public, and especially the mainstream media, are becoming increasingly aware of and interested in a new kind of information that has become available through the internet.
It is a kind of “digital journalism” that is a combination of traditional journalism, such as news coverage of important events, with social media, such that there is an immediacy to the information and a variety of views.
This new form of information has become a powerful new form in the world of journalism.
But what does this mean for our daily lives, and for our political and economic policies?
It could have far-reaching consequences.
It is possible that the debates will become the main means of presenting and influencing policy decisions made by the president of the United State.
The White House has already stated that it would be open to engaging in such a process.
In a recent interview, President Trump stated that the president’s goal is to have a major event on the internet as soon as possible.
What if we can make a statement in such an event?
This is the kind of thinking that has taken place at the highest levels of our political leaders in recent decades.
It will be very interesting to watch the debates unfold.
What can we expect to see in terms of what the president will be proposing and how he will propose it?
Will he be more willing to be a participant in the debate?
Or will he try to control the debate itself?
I will be a little bit of an optimist, because the president has the power to change the way this debate unfolds.
He has a lot of influence.
But what about the other party?
The other side could be much more cautious.
They may want to avoid this kind of confrontational debate.
In that case, the question will be whether the president can persuade the other side to change its policies.
Or will his policies continue to be shaped by the forces of the mainstream press, which will remain the major media, the dominant media, and the dominant politics, and they will continue to shape the policies of the president?
I will try to make this point by way of a few examples.
For the past year, the American media has been reporting on the fact that the Republican Party, the major party in the U.S. Congress, is losing seats.
The polls are showing that the Republicans are losing votes in both the House and the Senate.
That has been a consistent story throughout the election cycle.
In fact, in this year’s election, Democrats, who have dominated the political arena for years, are actually leading in the polls in the House of Representatives, while Republicans are trailing them in the Senate, and in many states, they are tied in the states.
The American press has largely ignored the fact.
And there have been no protests, no marches, no demonstrations, no protests outside of Republican offices.
In the last few weeks in the news, we have seen the establishment media attempt to turn the spotlight back on the Republican party, and on President Trump, and to paint him as an extremist.
This effort is being led by the Washington Post, which is now trying to spin the election results in a way that would give Republicans a comfortable majority in the US House of Representative.
The New York Times, the other major U.s. mainstream news outlet, is also running a series of articles highlighting the factionalism within the Republican leadership.
And the Wall Street Journal, which has long been a strong supporter of President Trump and of his presidency, is reporting on what it calls the “deep divisions” within the Trump administration.
In other words, there are deep divisions within the administration, between the more traditional members of the administration like the secretaries of defense, and between the administration’s “Trumpian” wing, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and even the president himself.
In my opinion, the mainstream news media has failed to properly reflect the realities that exist in the White house, and that exists in the Republican government as a whole.
It has failed miserably in portraying the President of the US as an extreme ideologue and as a person who is determined to take on the establishment.
I believe that there are legitimate questions that need