JCauto

Some people are unable to understand that issues are highly complex and open fora tend towards wide-ranging discussions that expand the original thought based on points raised. At some point, "impulse" posted that he'd never seen a gas station in a condo/apartment complex, hence we posted reasons why. So this response was pertinent to the discussion. I find it amusing that you believe one can dictate the scope of a discussion on an open forum and that it should somehow naturally be restricted to those responding. Can you show me an example of such an Eden of fora that isn't at the same time so highly restricted that it has managed to achieve popularity? This is a problem worldwide since moderation requires so much effort and no websites seem profitable enough or interested in paying for said tasks.

Can you think of a reason why? C'mon, you can do it! Why would one not put a reservoir full of fuel within a condo/apartment building complex? Any ideas? Did you know that you could install a charging station for as little as $500 for a single car in your own garage? How much do you reckon your own personal gas station would cost? Oh, and that cost comes with hardly any long-term environmental costs, no risk of leakage into groundwater or other contamination, no remediation costs once you close the site.

Good news then! https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/lithium-deposit-found-us-may-be-among-worlds-largest-study-finds

My interlocutor requested evidence of affordable, acceptable interventions from Government that worked. That they are affordable is self-evident - I suspect even you would scoff at anyone attempting to blame US Government debt on carbon credits. That it is acceptable is similarly self-evident - the markets have now risen to the point where carbon is viable, meaning that the corporate world has accepted them as a worthwhile investment in the future. The question is whether the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere will work. Given that the models that were used to make the case for the carbon markets appear to have significantly UNDER-ESTIMATED the impacts of anthropogenic global warming and severe weather impacts are upon us already, there really isn't a case for "laissez faire" or "status quo" economics.

Really? What could be easier? Have you observed how renewable energy has taken over that market for example? That's basically the result of government intervention funding the research and startups and putting priority on development of alternative non-fossil fuel energy. Have you observed the carbon markets? For the first time they're now becoming economically viable in terms of the market price providing sufficient incentive and funding. That's again the result of government intervention then the markets realizing that this is a worthwhile investment and taking it on.

If we're going to go down the path of "find the farthest Left/Right example and put that up as an exemplar" then there's not really much point in discussion. Do you think it likely I could find the opposite example in some podunk county or state? Of course I could, but it doesn't advance the discussions. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/ I have addressed your points, howsabout you address mine? This is always the way debate goes in TV, someone on the Right makes a point, we on the Left rebut it and ask a pertinent question, the person on the Right ignores that and pursues the next line of "whataboutism" or some other deflection. Proper debate proceeds more like a tennis match, whereas the posters on the Right proceed as if it is golf, where two different players are at the same place but playing on different holes without reference to each other.

So no rebuttal to the factual points made about Republican Party policy? The Democrats are not trying to "ban" gas cars, they're offering incentives for people to switch to more climate-friendly alternatives. You know, like the way Western Government policies offer companies massive incentives to continue to produce fossil fuels. Notice the difference? The Right try to prop up fossil fuels despite the obvious damage they cause to society (first observed accurately in the studies of those same fossil fuel companies in the 70's) and their method to provide incentives is to provide free money to companies. How much free money is being provided to prop up the fossil fuel industry? Oh, a MERE 7 TRILLION DOLLARS OR 7% OF GLOBAL GDP IN 2022!!!!!!!!!!! How's that square with your ideas? https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies As to "ban gas appliances", let's stick to the facts, shall we? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/13/war-gas-stoves-house-gop-ban/70297193007/

Because it's a core principle of conservative economics to try to overcome market forces with legislation! Because businesses need intervention from the government to function efficiently and correctly! LOL. Sad how lost the Right has become. There is no more "policy", just slavish devotion to a Cult of Personality.

Par for the course. Remember those Saudi jewels?

This is an integral part of "rule of law". There are appeals processes for those convicted or otherwise on the losing end of a court case. I see you lack even the basic understanding of the legal process.

I thought surely there was someone other than I on this forum who can speak Thai! Let me translate. "Cabinet seats are now up for sale, one week only! Gentlemen, please submit your bids."

Perhaps it was another poster. These are rolling discussions. I asked the question, you're on the other side of the rolling discussion, figured you could probably answer it too.

Look past this particular case and you will observe the face of another very real problem in this country - anyone can easily sue anyone else for defamation and the courts will just let it proceed. This has been used as a means of suppression of opinion over and over and over again, almost inevitably by the wealthy and powerful against anyone criticizing they or their business, whether that criticism is absolutely warranted or not, and with consequences heavily weighed against the criticizer. This is another manifestation of the sorts of legal basis for the powerful to maintain their power indefinitely and extends so far that one cannot safely post a valid review of a hotel or restaurant without risking actual jail and damages. This is why a certain political party who won elections are not sitting in power while those who clearly lost are and their stated reason for doing so.

No, I support rule of law. It's pretty unambiguous. I see that you're once again projecting your own opinions onto those of your political opponents. Yes, I understand this, pretty much every Republican policy is projected from the basis of "I know what we are doing/would do, therefore it's reasonable to assume our opponents are doing the same thing and therefore we're justified in getting out in front of it." Except that, with the evidence that there is no longer any realistic policy base for what passes as leadership other than "winning" or "against woke-ism" or "abortion bad" or "dog-whistling past the (electoral) graveyard", there's no coherence in any of it. Do I think that Kyle Rittenhouse should have been guilty? I do think so based on what he did, but I understand that the current laws of the USA as stuffed into the ballot box by the Gun Lobby make it that he was not. I have faith that in the vast majority of cases the Judge and Jury will rule according to their understanding of the law. That we dislike that law is self-evident and that we would rather change that law than come up with a basis to circumvent it or ignore it in favor of achieving our desired result is exactly what my post was about. The current divide between Republican and Democrat is as much about process versus results. Republicans believe in achieving outcomes that they desire in any way possible; illegal, immoral or unethical means are just towards that end so are acceptable. Democrats do not. I actually think poor young Kyle is not that bad a kid, just one who's been manipulated his entire life, first by his gun-nut moron parents and then by becoming the face of the Right. He's just a kid. So no, I don't believe in rule of law only when it suits me. But of course, I asked that question of you, and you have declined to answer it as is generally the case with my Right-Wing interlocutors. (Edit: changed "then" to "than")

He also knows whether we're happy or not. He can't understand why we don't fly "Biden" flags and wear his name on our shirts. We don't believe in personalities, we believe in social democracy, systematic justice and rule of law. That means taking care of the poor and the planet while keeping things moving economically. Check into the "Doughnut Economy" model for example.

It is hard to find articles that actually achieve making the reader stupider than they were prior to reading it. This is one of those rare cases. What a bunch of <deleted>!

First sentence - you're correct, he would absolutely weaponize the Justice Department and go after his enemies. Second sentence - "most" will support it. Surprisingly, you're correct again! I don't know anyone on the Left who would for example support not prosecuting Biden should it come out that he actually was involved in Hunter Biden's...whatever thing it is he was involved in. I think we'd be all for prosecuting anyone who tried to break the law and don't care who it is, even if it's AOC (whom I quite like politically). Third sentence - if there were laws broken, then those who did it or organized it should be in jail. That's the position of the Left, we believe in this "rule of law" thing. What "election denialism" are you referring to and what law did that break? What evidence is there that the Biden administration "encouraged the surge" and what law was broken that you can identify? Do you think people who break the law should go to jail even if you support their politics? Could you give us an example of who would fall into that category for you? That's the fundamental difference; you actually understand that Trump both lost the election and tried to overturn it (sedition), supports dictators over democracies, and have no doubt he tried to sexually assault the various women (rape, libel). Despite wanting to throw any poor person who jaywalks into jail, you'd completely be okay with tossing out all of the charges and voting a seditious felon into office despite his killing over a million Americans with his botched COVID response and running up a massive deficit in a giveaway to already wealthy people. The so-called "party of law and order" now wants to dispose of the FBI and arrest judges who rule in ways different to what their popular opinion is.

It's not really much of a point. First off, what you're actually saying IS that people don't really love Biden. That was known to be the case during the election, and yes, absolutely, the election was more about "Anyone But Trump" than it was "I like Biden". I don't recall a single soul on the Left claiming that they "love Biden", and it's hard to find one even now that he's in power. What that tells you is the majority of American voters would rather have a wax figure from Mme. Tussaud's than a lying cheating conman who has no respect for the law. That's a valid point of view. Imagine how lopsided the election would have been had the Democrats offered up someone inspiring? Now the wax figure has 4 more years of wear and tear - and everyone would STILL rather vote for an animatronic tall White robot than they would Donald Trump. You take that to mean that people don't love Biden. Newsflash - they never did! But do they want instead four more years of unending soap opera and giveaways to the Rich while continuing to stoke the divisions within American society? More pretending that climate change is a "Chinese hoax" as their Red states burn and their power grids give out? More broadcasting Russian propaganda and stabbing democratic allies in the back so you can personally profit? Don't think so. But let's both hope that ol' Joe, Mitch, Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the dinosaurs get medically compromised to the point where they finally start retiring and getting out of the way of progress. We want a REAL lefty in there, boy will you ever be surprised when you discover what that's all about. Y'all still think Obama was one (he was Center-Right).

Well, it's one thing to milk cows in front of TV cameras for entertainment, quite another when it's testimony. If I were a prosecutor, knowing Trump's character and love of performance I'd want cameras there because he won't be able to resist saying things that will be perjury and damning for his defense.

Understandable. The Government's complete lack of fiscal responsibility is really biting them in the butt and they're becoming desperate to find ways to stop the bleeding. What they're proposing in the new banking laws will not just lead to an exodus of banks, but of businesses as well.

This is incorrect. The cost of imprisonment within the general prison population is relatively low compared to the cost for the courts to convict for the death penalty (much more difficult and drawn out process), the costs to the courts for the appeals processes to play out (necessary with such a strong penalty that cannot be revoked) and the costs for the special quarters required for the condemned (Death Row is way more expensive than general pop). Just put them in the general population, where their costs are the same as others and their stay will likely be...short and unpleasant due to prisoner justice. So we're in agreement sort of, convict them and put them in the general population where their costs are lower and their lifespan is measured in non-solitary prison yard visits.

So no response to the issues raised - that it is always more expensive to try to prosecute people with the death sentence due to the endless appeals and process that is rightfully in place for when the State takes a measure so extreme, that there are often miscarriages of justice particularly when there are disadvantaged groups who are being accused (I failed to mention that before), that sentences of life without parole have extraordinarily low cases of people escaping and re-committing crimes and by definition they're not eligible for parole so can't do so otherwise, that the Buddhist nature of Thailand means the death penalty is contrary to the basic morales and principles held by the majority of the population, etc. You won't find justice in quickly convicting and killing people who are accused - this has been shown over and over again to be a slippery slope. Sure, seems a no-brainer for scumbags like these. But once you make state-sanctioned death quick and easy, you can bet your life that it will be misused as has happened repeatedly in the USA for example.

New Government! COME AND GET IT! Trough is now open for business! Get your snouts in boys!

It's a pity that you can't point to any reasonable evidence that the Death Sentence is either a deterrent, saves any costs to society or otherwise is beneficial compared to life sentences without chance of parole. Much better to just go off on a rant against lefties whom you dislike (again without any evidence) rather than present any cogent arguments. To explain - a life sentence without parole means these two have zero chance of ever doing this again. Not having the Death Sentence means not having endless appeals and therefore lower costs to the public even with the costs of incarceration (at least in the developed world, not sure about Thailand). A supposed Buddhist society should certainly not be choosing to execute prisoners, something fundamentally and explicitly against the credo of the state religion.

The master of deflection again refuses to engage in substantive debate, situation normal. You always have reasons for never answering any points but just moving on to the next bit of nonsense. Oh, plus the egregious misogyny and assumption that this young woman is selling sex, which totally doesn't indicate any paternalism on your part.