crobe

17 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

Complete and utter tosh, as to be expected from you. You have clearly bought into the media narrative which conflates illegal aliens who enter the country unlawfully, with legal immigration. This is too often used tactic by the left to deflect and build a false narrative. Here is what you also don't understand. American citizens, mainly black and other minorities, suffer the most due to unemployment and crime as a result of these poor hard done by culturally enriching angels seeking a better life. Please inform yourself instead of repeating Democrat talking points.

 

 

As above, you are conflating immigrants with illegal aliens. Additionally, the "original American Indians" were also "immigrants". Or did you think they were indigenous to the USA ? Their ancestors migrated from other places such as Mongolia.

 

 

That is patently false. Please inform yourself regarding the list of failed states that were no longer able to vet terrorists that the Obama administration drew up before Trump took office. 

 

 

Here we go again. More debunked falsehoods. Please inform yourself before repeating fake news narratives. Children were separated from parents to determine if they were related and not being trafficked, and was being done before Trump was president. The "cages" you refer to were actually in use and built during the Obama administration. 

 

These are matters of fact and not up for debate. Sigh ????

 

 

Stop your Trump lies - the truth came out when they finally allowed the lawmakers in.

Obama never put unaccompanied children in there.

5 minutes ago, champers said:

In Central Festival on the basement floor; a new store selling beauty products is being readied in its place. A fond reminder of home for many Brits though prices here were prohibitively high for many. They did sell the best Jaffa cakes in Pattaya. 

Yep,

Went there before Christmas to see if they were stocking Christmas Crackers - but it had been shut down

Wasn't going to go to Bangkok just for those

21 minutes ago, skorp13 said:

Great! Here comes more crime higher taxes, more over crowded doctors offices and hospitals along with higher unemployment. Welcome Joe!

Kick out all those people whose great-grandparents were not born in the US - they all came illegally

That will fix the problem

24 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Spouse can get a green card instantly (after the process) and within 4 years apply for citizenship. Children get instant citizenship. Thailand, never on both counts. Thailand's immigration policy is about 10,000 times worse than any Trump policy. 

Not so,

Under Trump proposals (although blocked by courts) he intended to remove the citizenship of people born in the US if they had illegal immigrant parents

He also separated families and put the children into cages

Much worse than anything proposed in Thailand

Under Trump criteria you should leave and take any children with you

Back to the topic at hand (Thailand, not UK)

Second day with zero reported cases officially for Chonburi

How long before the Governor and the Pattaya mayor start pushing for re-opening?

My work is global so I would probably keep a place in Thailand, but I have projects in other places so could choose to live in different countries at various times - I have already lived in 8 different countries so mostly do not want to go back there - here is where I spend most of my time up until Covid struck

 - UK - London Docklands - although my work is mainly in Oxford, Sheffield and Glasgow, London is still ideal for living and I like to be close enough to the centre without the noise and the new crossrail makes this attractive to get to/from Heathrow

 - Tallinn, Estonia - post-Brexit it was necessary to have a base in the EU - and Luxembourg was too far away from my work in Sweden - more lively than Stockholm with still a small city feeling

 - Singapore - While I do most of my work in the APAC region from Thailand, there are advantages of more business contact in Singapore, and using the company there could get PR

 - Halifax - Nova Scotia - Canada - a short commute to NY and much better environment and friendlier people - would not want to be in US permanently

 - Montiveideo, Uruguay - the Singapore of South America, much better than Brazil or Argentina for business, and good nightlife

9 minutes ago, topt said:

The name was changed 18 months to 2 years ago

Restaurant on 2 floors serving a lot more than pizza with a bar you can sit at and live music.

Not actually been in, just walked past, but the sign outside says Pizza

6 minutes ago, Nout said:

Hops bar? Or Hopf house Brewery? Is there a Hops bar on Soi 13/1...

If you want to be pedantic it is Hops Brew House - it is a bar and also pizza I think

4 minutes ago, Why Me said:

Two years later same question re getting PP photos at CW. Reason a couple of photo shops on Sukumvit have shuttered recently so wondering what the situation is at CW in these times.

Still shops on the ground floor - open at 7:30am

2 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Corporate America is fighting back, not just the tech companies who are banning 45 and his minions.

 

-PGA refuses to hold any events at 45-owned courses

-Marriott will no longer donate to any pol who pushed the 'vote fraud' conspiracy

-Forbes says it will assume that what comes out of any company that hires any former 45 Press Person is a lie (includes spicer, sanders, mcenany)

-Amazon's AWS tossed off parler, and both Google and Apple Playstores stopped carrying the parler app

 

Elsewhere, Scottish Parliament members want 45 banned from entering the country, viewing him as every much the threat of a jihadi terrorist

But the UK PGA golf (Royal and Ancient) still plans to have its trainee sessions at Trumps Turnberry course in Scotland in March - probably due to COVID this will be cancelled though

17 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

It doesn't look that way to me.  Frankly, the Constitution only mentions removal from office after a conviction not any other kind of punishment such as disqualification from future office holding.  So, I wonder if disqualification from office is actually constitutional.  But the Senate has clearly imposed disqualification in the cases of a couple of judges who were impeached and convicted establishing precedent.  But since the Impeachment clause does not mention disqualification where would be the requirement that conviction is required before disqualification can be applied.  Also, the voting requirements are completely different: two-thirds vs a simple majority.  There doesn't seem to be any text linking the conviction to disqualification.  And since conviction is required for removal, but after the end of Trump's term of office, removal is no longer applicable, I don't see the case for the requirement of conviction at all.

Actually it does, the text is

"“judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

This is of course after the conviction

13 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Sounds logical enough, but I don't see the textual basis for such a requirement.  If they can indeed impose disqualification for future office then where is that tied to conviction in the Senate under articles of impeachment.  If they can do it at all, then they can do it without conviction as it appears to me.

This is the crux of the argument and you are quite right to point it out.

From my reading of the articles of the senate, the requirement is for a super-majority for a conviction (whether that is 67 senators or a super-majority of those present is not clear to me), but only after the conviction could any sentence be pronounced

It is possible that a simple majority could then be enough for disbarment from future public office 

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Since Acting Secretary Christopher Miller was regrettably unable to take the call from Governor Hogan, he can hardly be expected to know the purpose of the call.

 

As to how likely Miller is to stop a bullet for his Commander-in-Chief I assume Trump put him in that position after the election after vetting him for just that talent.

 

In any case Trump can always pardon him.  Now might be the time for Trump's legal advisors to explain to him that in fact he can grant a pardon to all  4,000 members of his administration with the stroke of a pen.  And why wouldn't he?

 

Nothing is going to happen to Miller.

Again, respectfully, that argument does not hold

There are records of both Mayor Bowser and Capito Police Chief Sund calling in to the DoD, and this will be recorded. 

The calls to the DoD were transferred to the acting Secretary who, it seems, refused to take the call, and any argument he may have that he was unavailable will of course beg the question "what was more important that he could not take the calls"

The Senate will probably hear this evidence when it reconvenes to look at the impeachment only on the 19th, so too late for Trump to issue a pardon - if he issues a pardon in advance it is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

My own view - Miller is going down or taking someone else down in the process

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

But by the oath of omerta Mr. Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who was appointed on Nov. 9 after (Senate confirmed) Secretary Mark Esper was pushed out, will not rat out his Commander-in-Chief.  It will be found that Acting Secretary Miller was fully occupied with meetings at the time and therefore unable to take the call from Governor Hogan.  And proving otherwise will be very difficult.

An argument which will not hold

The duty of the acting secretary is to inform his superiors of the request - if he fails to do so he can be charged - possibly with aiding an insurrection

If he did inform his superiors then the call from the official line is recorded

If he called from a non-government line then both will be culpable 

It depends if he is willing to dive under the bus for Trump once the heat is on

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

There were at least separate instances.  The one you refer to was the authorization of the DC National Guard to go to the defense of Congress.  Apparently, that authorization was refused by Trump and ultimately issued by Pence, who, however, lacks authority give such permission.  

 

The other instance was the request by Governor Larry Hogan to the Secretary of Defense for authorization to send Maryland National Guard troops as requested by Rep. Steny Hoyer to the defense of Congress.  The Acting (and unconfirmed) Secretary of Defense declined to take the call from the Governor and never took any action.  In a later phone call with the Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary advised the Governor to go ahead and send the Maryland National Guard to the Capitol.  The Secretary of the Army had no authority to give such permission as Governor Hogan undoubtedly knew.

 

So, at no time did the Trump administration actually legitimately authorize the use of any National Guard troops to protect the Congress.

 

Wednesday was intended to be the American Reichstag Fire.

What will come out in the investigation is whether the acting Secretary of Defence, who failed to respond to the call, did indeed run this up the chain to the President.

"According to the timeline, the D.C. National Guard troops did not leave the D.C. armory until 5:04 p.m, and arrived at the Capitol at 5:40, four hours after they were first requested by the mayor."

Above courtesy of CBS News

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

While I think the delay in calling in the D.C. National Guard or authorizing the entry of the Maryland National Guard into the city is indeed evidence of a conspiracy to commit insurrection, I haven't seen any evidence tying either decision directly to Trump nor do I expect to see any.  Trump, like any crime boss, takes pains to isolate himself from incriminating evidence.

There is testimony on some of the news channels that the pentagon officials, after the requests from the local police forces and mayor, could not authorize the deployment for 90 minutes as they were waiting for higher authority from the President. In the end the authorization came from the Vice-president (Pence).

If it turns out that Trump did indeed delay the deployment then it is damning

When I thought my visa was not going to be renewed I was prepared to pay 6,750 baht for a covid test and about 15,000 for a flight, so if there is a western vaccine (pfizer/moderna/Astra-Zeneca) available for around 10,000 baht then I would surely be willing to pay for it.

As in most other countries I think the Thai government should be buying supplies to vaccinate its people for free - starting with the most vulnerable.

As long as that is happening and I am not taking a vaccine which should have gone to someone else in more need, then I would be prepared to pay

19 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

But we didn't leave. As we are frequently reminded, Scotland was not an EU member. It was dragged out against its very clear wishes when England and Wales decided the rest of the UK had to do what they chose.

 

I have no doubt that the EU will be very happy to allow an already very aligned new member to come into the fold on very reasonable terms. 

 

That said, it will be up to the people of Scotland to decide how they wish their future ties with the EU to look. 

To be serious for a moment

If the Scots were to vote for independence and seek to rejoin the EU then there would be some specific issues

 - The British fishing waters are 62% Scottish under maritime law and the EU would seek access to these waters under any new accession deal, just as they did in the 1970s with the UK. This would probably not be a problem for Scotland if the catch is landed in Scotland as the major market for sea-fish is to Europe. The other world markets are mainly for salmon etc.

  - The EU may insist on Scotland adopting the Euro - however, again this may not be a problem as the trade-off between the Euro and the pound is not now clear post brexit - the value of sterling may be hit more than the Euro

 - Edinburgh may have a good case to become a major financial centre if the UK loses passporting rights - Edinburgh may be preferable to some institutions rather than relocating to Dublin, Frankfurt or Paris

 - A lot of other companies based in the UK may also seek to have a "head office" in Scotland for access to the EU markets - including airlines etc.

 - The main headache will be the trade border - similar to the issue with Ireland but without the threat of the Troubles returning - the main problem will be stopping goods traveling into Scotland from England to take advantage of no tariffs if there is not a free trade deal between the EU and the UK. Scotland may have to impose import duties on goods coming in from England which will be difficult to police