While many leaders didn’t acknowledge the students’ demonstrations, some weren’t hesitant to express opposition.

“It appears that these schoolchildren, innocent schoolchildren, are being used as a tool by (this) left-wing group to further their own agenda,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, told public television network ETV.

Stoneman Douglas student David Hogg, who has been one of the highest profile advocates for gun control, tweeted that McMaster shouldn’t doubt students’ sincerity and that he “can’t wait to see what the history textbooks our generation writes will have to say about people like you.”

Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, said he was “totally against” the walkouts and that any school administrator who participated “will be disciplined to the strongest (degree), with every ounce of the law they will be disciplined,” The Colby Echo, the student-run newspaper of Colby College, reported.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/in-response-to-mass-student-walkouts-conservatives-largely-stay-silent/2018/03

On Saturday night, (Minnesota state Rep. Mary) Franson shared a Facebook post that referred to Hogg as “Supreme Leader.” She then shared a quote, via the conservative site the Daily Wire, from the March for Our Lives speech by Delaney Tarr, a 17-year-old Parkland survivor, who said, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile!” Franson’s commentary above that quote was “And there you have it friends … the anti gunners, the high school students who speak for all, aren’t interested in an ‘inch’. They want the mile. They want your guns. Gone.”

The kicker, though, came about 15 minutes later when she posted a link from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum website titled, “Shaping the Future: Indoctrinating Youth.” Above, she quoted Hitler talking about indoctrination. Later, as she faced criticism over linking Parkland survivors to Nazi youths, she argued that the indoctrination post was unrelated to her earlier posts and denounced the media for making the connection.

If more proof was needed that insults and conspiracy theories have mainstream power, Donald Trump Jr. liked two tweets attacking Hogg. In one, conservative TV host Graham Ledger linked an article from Gateway Pundit and suggested Hogg, whose father is a former FBI agent, was “running cover” for his father because the FBI “botched” tracking down the shooter. Trump Jr. liked another tweet peddling the same conspiracy with a post from a far-right website about the “Outspoken Trump-Hating School Shooting Survivor” that doubted Hogg was an actual victim and blamed the “Deep State media” for giving him a platform.

Given that the Parkland student-activists are still working to encourage more town hall events and more demonstrations, it seems likely these teenagers will face evermore vile personal and public attacks in the months to come. Although we cannot expect any personal responsibility from internet trolls, Americans should expect better from public officials, who have the power to lend legitimacy to the more disgraceful arguments circling around social media. But in the instances above, the public responded by rejecting the hateful arguments, and proved we have the power to hold these politicians to account.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-insults-pro-gun-people-use-against-parkland-students-david-hogg-and-emma-gonzalez.html

Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 0/4 (No.)

President Putin’s 2018 reelection campaign benefited from advantages including preferential media treatment, numerous abuses of incumbency, and procedural irregularities during the vote count. His most influential rival, Aleksey Navalny, was disqualified before the campaign began due to a politically motivated criminal conviction, creating what the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) called “a lack of genuine competition.” The funding sources for Putin’s campaign were also notably opaque.

Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies? 0/4 (No.)

Russia’s electoral system is designed to maintain the dominance of United Russia. The authorities make frequent changes to electoral laws and the timing of elections in order to secure advantages for their preferred candidates. Opposition candidates have little chance of success in appealing these decisions, or in securing a level playing field. In 2020, Putin signed a law permitting the use of electronic voting across Russia, raising concerns about the security and secrecy of ballots in the 2021 Duma polls and other future elections. Also that year, the president signed a law allowing a three-day voting period in future elections; critics argued that the expanded timeframe increased officials’ ability to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections? 0/4 (No.)

Russia has never experienced a democratic transfer of power between rival groups. Putin, then the prime minister, initially received the presidency on an acting basis from the retiring Boris Yeltsin at the end of 1999. He served two four-year presidential terms from 2000 to 2008, then remained the de facto paramount leader while working as prime minister until he returned to the presidency in 2012, violating the spirit if not the letter of the constitution’s two-term limit. A 2008 constitutional amendment extended presidential terms to six years, and a 2020 amendment allowed Putin to run for an additional two terms, meaning he could remain in office until 2036.