JCauto

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.

Why? Why not just answer the questions I posed? This woman didn't run any pranks or make other people's lives difficult or otherwise break the law or harrass other people as far as I can tell and there was nothing in the story to indicate she did or that she has otherwise done anything wrong. There was no indication of it in the article and you've not provided any evidence she did anything other than her business as an influencer. You just started slamming your fists into the keyboard because as an old person you find "influencers" to be absurd and don't participate in that economy and furthermore the idea of a pretty young woman being able to make an independent living outside of paternalistic boundaries bothers you. If she did something "radical", then she is liable for the impacts she caused and laws she broke. We don't expect society to engage in individual vigilantism to enforce the law. And as to your example, there was a NYC influencer dude who told his thousands (or millions) of followers that he was going to give away a large amount of stuff in public in Times Square and caused a riot. He has been charged and will likely face significant legal sanction because he DIDN'T take any precautions or pay for security for his stunt. That's just normal procedure.

So if I decide you're a real piece of work, start stalking you and harrassing you, you shouldn't be entitled to any protection under the law even when I start escalating my harrassment? Oh no, says you, I'm not doing this for work purposes, I just write posts on ThaiVisa to troll others! Therefore not fair? But if this WAS your work, then no problems, I can harrass you all I like? I had previously mistaken you for someone capable of rational thought, but I was incorrect.

Laughably incorrect and completely irrelevant.

Oh My! You weren't referring to the GOP? Who then was the person whom you were referring to when you wrote this? On 8/26/2023 at 1:07 PM, thaibeachlovers said: Remember a certain president with his WMD untruths? Caused the deaths of many, unlike Trump, who never started any wars. So if one wants to talk about causing disgrace, look elsewhere. WMD = Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was the Colin Powell presentation you're referring to that was critical to the justification of the US invasion of Iraq. Correct? Are you really unaware of whom the President of the USA was during this episode and which political party he belongs to?

Why you're absolutely right! Who was the lying leftie libtard who did that!?!? Oh, that would be the noted Liberal George Dubya Bush! Which political party was he a member of?

When I used to travel a lot for work, I had to take with me a considerable amount of computer hardware, including a total of over 18TB worth of portable hard disk drives. We're told not to pack these valuable electronics in our checked luggage, which I have always found a bit odd - who is going to be able to access them other than airport workers? But I suppose experience has demonstrated that that's exactly who will access them and take whatever valuable is inside, given their ability to x-ray and observe whatever goodies might be hidden. Therefore I end up with two carry-ons, one with my laptop and half of the drives, the other half with my backpack and papers. Nobody has ever tried to stop me or charge me because of this, even Air Asia. Both are likely over 7kg, but what else am I to do?

So, where be them facts regarding the so-called "stolen election" you keep going on about? Why was he unable to produce enough evidence to convince 31 separate courts that this occurred including judges appointed to the bench by DJT hissownself? Why keep the clear and obvious evidence of the fraudulent election instead of showing it to the judges? If the so-called "corrupt judges" then decided to ignore this evidence, why not release it to the public where it's obvious veracity would instantly turn public opinion to his side? Oh because he's got nothing, nada, zip, zilch, bupkus!

Yup. By the way, remember when for the last 8 years or so Thaksin has been the evil one who must be prevented from returning for his original sin of Thai politics, how he was anti-Monarchist, how his regime was the most corrupt ever, how he destroyed "democracy" through accumulation of too much power...those same people just kissed the ring and handed it back to him because of the REAL threat, actual democracy. They're so afraid of that, they'll take Thaksin back over actually allowing the will of the people to prevail.

The "honorable members of the RTP"? So you're proposing the status quo?

Your ignorance is remarkable. You believe "Jews" were a monolithic group politically? And as a group, you believe they leant more Right than Left in pre-war Germany? I'm not at all sure that was the case.

I don't suppose you actually know any of these imaginary "rational Democrat" voters? Because nobody on the Democratic side of the fence feels that Biden won't finish his term and would have still voted for a potted plant over Trump. It's kinda like when the GOP people say "everyone knows" or "people tell me that" or any other amorphous and meaningless term that boils down to "I have no evidence but will make this bold assertion anyway".

You need to follow your own logic, but instead you're too busy tying yourself into a pretzel to broadcast your illogical and out-of-date viewpoints. Are you aware that the majority of immigrants to the USA are legal ones who go through the process and are rated on a scale based on education, job experience, age, etc.? These tend to weed out the poor and heavily disadvantage and prioritize the best possible candidates. The refugees and other hardship cases are not the majority. So why does it surprise you that immigrants out-perform those who were disadvantaged from the start? You live outside of the experience of immigrants and POC but are perfectly comfortable drawing completely irrelevant and incorrect assertions about them.

You wrote "Do you have any facts that support your claim about the 1.9 - 2.3 trillion dollar tax cut that disproportionately went to the wealthiest Americans and corporations?" I responded with comprehensive evidence. You observed that post and wrote "Wow, no facts provided, juet a link to an opinion piece, I'm shocked." despite the only opinion piece being the one supporting your viewpoint and the facts being comprehensive. You then moved on to your next tedious attempt to shift the goalposts, where you try to pretend that Biden did something illegal...like I said, you're a boring troll.