JCauto

You have yet to provide any references demonstrating that the Freedom Convoy was anything other than what I have characterized it as being - a tiny minority of truckers who were opposed both by the majority of truckers whose lives they were disrupting (since over 85% of the truckers were already vaccinated, hence the protests were not allowing them to do their jobs and transport goods across the border) and whose actions were heavily funded, influenced by and disseminated by the US Right. "All I know" is not a valid argument or counterpoint. Recall that the Right-Wing media were widely broadcasting pro-Freedom Convoy views and reports on both sides of the border - if you're a regular reader or viewer of this media, you would of course remember that information. What's important in debate is providing valid references from credible organizations. You are the one who claimed that unvaccinated Canadian truckers were the main group protesting and how the unjust vaccination rules imposed by the Canadian government were the cause of that protest. I pointed out that the rules requiring truckers to cross the border were imposed by both the US and Canadian governments in January 2022, prior to the protests. Those rules requiring truckers to be vaccinated remain in place and never changed. Hence there could ONLY be a small group of truckers who had somehow entered the USA unvaccinated prior to January 2022 who then wanted to return who were affected. From that point onwards, there would be nobody who followed the law who was unvaccinated who came in from the USA. So when you state this as the main cause for the Freedom Convoy protestors, and I challenge it with evidence that this could not be the case, you would normally either provide such evidence or concede that your point was incorrect. You don't turn around and say "you prove my point for me after you've already disproved it". That's very circular logic.

Yo! Blazes! Where's your response to this? If the unvaccinated Canadian Truckers were not allowed into the USA because of the rules of the USA, who are these unvaccinated Canadian Truckers who can't get back into Canada?

I think you may be mixing up your countries; Jagmeet Singh is the leader of the New Democrat Party, or NDP. The Liberal Democrat Party is in the United Kingdom. Try to keep up.

Wow, they still exist! Must be a bit lonelier than before though, with so many of your fellow conspiracists having mysteriously died from a coughing ailment of some sort that seemed to be going around. Can't quite put my finger on what it was... Your ridiculous claims of victory are fully expected too, the scientific community forecast that as well. You won't of course grace us with a scientific publication that demonstrates your wisdom, because of course such things do not exist. I could start listing them and fill this page, but I'll just link to a few so you get the picture. First, the Lancet, which is a highly respected medical journal from the UK: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext Next, this is a big one that is cited widely by Andrew Stokes, which looked at County level data from the USA and found that COVID-19 deaths were WIDELY UNDER-REPORTED, as per his conclusion: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003571 "In this study, we found that direct COVID-19 death counts in the US in 2020 substantially underestimated total excess mortality attributable to COVID-19. Racial and socioeconomic inequities in COVID-19 mortality also increased when excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19 were considered. Our results highlight the importance of considering health equity in the policy response to the pandemic."

Sure, this is why they become politicians. I think though that for Canada there are other cyclical forces at play where the general vox populi shifts to the Left or to the Right for longer periods of time (but fortunately does so around a fairly tight band so there aren't many extremes on either side). Canada seems to give whomever gets elected quite a long spell at the plate for whatever reasons, with Trudeau the Elder, Brian Mulroney, Jean Cretien (pardon Jean, can't find the accent), Stephen Harper and now Trudeau the Younger having terms of almost 10 years or longer. Also happened a lot in the past. When someone becomes Canadian PM you really have to mess up big to get voted out, and when you do your party has to be in the wilderness for a while before they get back in.

Privacy is dead, and I mourn its loss, but there's no escape from the electronic dragnet unless you go full no contact. I know people who are trying to do that, but only a few I think would have really succeeded because they can't do without e-mail for example. They don't participate in any internet fora, or social media or e-mail or whatever but once it's there, one of the basic rules of physics is that information can't be destroyed. It's becoming pretty difficult to escape except in Hollywood movies. I discovered for example that by moving back to my home country for a period, there had been so many refinements to the system to serve the vast majority of people that those tiny minority who were outside of that had enormous problems undertaking relatively simple administrative procedures. This is just a consequence of the elimination of the system outliers and inevitable I suppose, but the same sort of thing those people have to go through. Anyone committed and knowledgeable I reckon could find you or (much more easily) I.

Yeah, sorry dude, references before BS. "No foreign interference"? That's easily debunked with the most basic google search. Link to a credible source please. As to "the (Canadian) truckers were being forced to be vaccinated if they wanted access to Canada", please note the following sentence. THE USA DOES NOT ALLOW UNVACCINATED CANADIAN TRUCKERS TO ENTER THE USA AND HASN'T ALLOWED THIS SINCE JANUARY 2022!!!! So whom is it you are referring to that can't get into Canada from the USA? How did they get there in the first place? How many people are we talking about, and as per the rules, they're only allowed one entry anyway at which point they're not allowed to enter the USA until they get vaccinated. Or are we talking about people who lie about their vaccination status to get into the USA thereby breaking the law so then have to produce evidence of said lie when returning to Canada? Boo hoo. Do the crime, do the time. So there is a certain phrase applicable here, but I won't Say That For Usual reasons.

Oh really? So after your long explanation, you finally arrive at the fact that he will be in government until 2025 after winning an election and forming a long-term coalition majority government (with the furthest Left-Wing party, the NDP) which is how parliamentary systems work. Seems a bit wordy to come around to the same conclusion. What you don't understand is that the "Freedom Convoy" truckers were a tiny minority who were opposed by the majority of truckers and the population at large whose lives they were disrupting over a BS protest instigated by people who had no understanding of the issue they were protesting against (COVID-19 vaccination mandates and lockdowns) and which was heavily supported via funding and media amplification from the Right-Wing in the USA. These Canadian protesters included a similar cast of clownish characters to those who emerged from the swamp in the USA including the self-appointed "Queen of Canada", a Filipina QAnon nutter who seems to be able to command a number of the protesters and a few others who are noted fraudsters. During their court appearances, the husband of one of the main organizers seemed confused as to which country he was in, citing his 1st Amendment Constitutional Right to free speech as the basis for the protest. Sure, tie your wagon to this motley crew if you like, they make Roger Stone appear dignified and composed.

Yes, you can tell by the way he was summarily drummed out of power by an enraged populace after his first term. Wonder how he ended up with a majority government until 2025? These "Freedom Convoy" idiots were causing a public nuisance at the direction of Far Right organizations and individuals. If they want to live life in a Right-Wing dystopia, the should move South.

Actually, you'd be interested to find that the "if old enough to vote, old enough to die in a war" movement was actually the main driving force in lowering the voting age in the USA to 18. You'd be even MORE interested to discover that the movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was almost entirely a Republican one post-WWII, with Eisenhower making the case during the State of the Union address in 1954, then eventually being made into a Constitutional Amendment and signed into law by Nixon. The first two states who lowered their voting ages to 18 (during WWII) were Georgia and Kentucky. So it is something Republicans can embrace as one of the social justice initiatives that they were responsible for. This is what I referred to in my previous posts about the lack of any coherent political philosophy and policy within the Republican Party today. They are more than likely unaware that they were the ones who fought for the right for 18 year-olds to vote and now that this is politically disadvantageous, they're trying to RAISE the voting age! Eisenhower and even Nixon were Republican Conservatives - you could understand their likely leanings on any question of politics based on their philosophy. You can't even do that today, since the policy is whatever nonsense DJT spouted, and that could be diametrically opposite of what he said yesterday. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/voting-age-26th-amendment

Sure, we can post videos of idiots from either side from now until the earth finally starts cooling again but it's not really an argument or debate point. It just shows there are extremists and people who are confused on both sides, particularly the further you get towards the extremes. I think you already made that point. I don't need to watch Jordan Peterson videos or other such things here as counterpoints to actual written words.

We're having a conversation, no? I'm not playing "gotcha", you posited an argument that had two sides, one was Right, the other was "Woke". While most people who are "Woke" are Left, being "Woke" is not a political philosophy. That was my point. Apologize if you feel that I was trying to play games, because I wasn't.

Perhaps you're confused? "Wokeism" or whatever other thing you wish to call it is not a political movement. It's not got an economic policy or outlook. Nobody is running in the "Woke" Party. It doesn't sit somewhere on the political spectrum between Communism and Fascism. There is no leadership council or caucus. What being "woke" is about it recognition of a broader view of history and individual's rights to determine how they wish to express themselves (often sexually, but also in terms of being able to be seen and heard on the public stage) and how they wish to be addressed by others. The broader view of history is one that brings into focus the people who had been usually left out because they were society's "losers", people of colour, Jews, etc. Jews for example fought long and hard to have the Holocaust memorialized and written into history textbooks because they knew that otherwise it would get lost in the sands of time and they would have to face the horrors again. You can now see that a majority of young people in the USA now do not know about the Holocaust or its scope, hence they're now open to being manipulated by anti-semites like Kanye West and gleefully jump on that train without understanding why this is wrong. This is why history is important, and why people whom you refer to as "woke" are fighting to have a clearer and truer history that doesn't omit things like slavery and the disenfranchisement of black people and how that contributes to their current problems within that society. So yes, fortunately, we're finally becoming a bit more of an enlightened society in terms of recognizing the past injustice that has been visited on the vulnerable. And it has spread even to the point where you, thaibeachlovers, have to be careful in what you say since you can no longer freely offend or hurt someone by carelessly bringing up things that demonstrably affect them. However, I am guessing that this isn't something that has ruined your life or caused you anything other than the most minor of inconveniences. And if you actually HAVE encountered a "Woke" person who corrected you on their correct pronoun, I'm guessing you probably did, just because you're probably a decent person who would be polite to the other person you were talking to. That's really what the core of "Wokeism" is - being considerate to other people and taking their situation into account so you don't accidentally offend them. No wonder this is such a horrible terrible thing that you equate it to Communism! The entire core of Conservatism these days is based entirely on "pishing off the Libs" rather than any coherent policy (hard to have coherent policy when you have individual autocrats spouting off with whatever pops into their head) hence you have extended this to the point of being a political philosophy somehow. It would be laughable if it didn't expose the anger and hatred that underlies the entire Right.

Including the current government, PM and Defense Minister?

Just basing what I wrote on your response, where you mentioned setting up multiple girls, your preference for the ones from Buriram, your intentions to never marry but to continue to support your various paramours. As I said, that's your choice, nothing wrong with it. I have a wife I've been with for almost 30 years and have never regretted that decision. I don't hang out in the bars any more, although I used to, but I am not claiming sainthood. Sounds like you're feeling a bit sensitive about your lifestyle - understandable, I'm sure there's lots of chatter when you go back home, just ignore it.

Yeah, yeah, look at you, paying girls who could be your grandchildren for sex, what an activist! This is another Conservative trait that I've observed; when seeing a "Lib" who is actually doing what they say they should do and dedicating their working life towards improving the planet, then make fun of it and attempt to coopt it because there's nothing that annoys them like people not living up to their negative preconceptions. The ol' Swiftboat manoeuvre, another part of the new Conservatism where there are no principles other than "winning" and "pishing off the Libs". For the record, there's nothing wrong with your choices to move to Thailand and become a sexpat and indeed I hope that the girls who put up with you are profiting fairly from the commercial exchanges you have. Good choices to learn the language and not to marry one, that's seldom something that works out. My chances for working in Africa are gone as I've worked entirely in Southeast Asia for over 30 years now so have some reasonable expertise to offer, language skills and have lots of work available. Sometimes the winds of fate take you where you didn't know you wanted to go.

Sure, but I decided over 30 years ago that I was going to work towards social justice (there's a phrase you know!) in the Third World and tried to go to Africa to do so but they sent me to Thailand. Fool that I was, I delayed trying to reroute myself back to Africa but that was for naught. Then found myself in Thailand wondering how I could be so clueless. But, like me, surely you're also someone who got an engineering degree and came over here, learned the language and worked with the local folks in rural Isarn, right? You read and write Thai like I do, correct? You never married a bargirl, yes?

LOL. I don't believe I was talking to you, but yes, you certainly would share those same beliefs. What both of you don't seem to "get" is the difference between an activist and someone who is in favour of something and provides verbal support. Those people (the latter) are not activists. They're like you, bystanders on the sidelines commenting and making their views known. Like wearing a Rainbow shirt or flying a Trump flag. Those are not activists, they're just people expressing their opinions. The "act" in "activist" stands for "action" meaning you take it beyond blah blah blah and into the streets to do something. The January 6 protesters were activists because they moved beyond attending a rally and into sedition against their own country for example. I am an activist - I do get in my petrol car to drive to the airport to fly to Southeast Asia where I work in issues related to climate change. Does this mean I should row a boat across the Pacific to avoid the carbon emissions? Of course not, that would be senseless in terms of efficiency. But you're not talking about me, you're talking about people who are not activists, just ordinary people who are concerned about the future. As to your laughable attempt to move the goalposts, the Right is what has moved towards fascism far far far more than the Left has moved anywhere near communism.

Are people's knowledge of history that bad? This wasn't something that archaeologists discover, it was something that happened around 100 years ago. Balfour Declaration ring any bells? The United Nations didn't even exist <deleted>!

What on earth are you going on about? This is patent nonsense. When do you think these Jews were unable to send their kids to university and so converted to Islam or became Druze or whatever other preposterous thing you're posting about. The Palestinian people (who also have a right to self-determination) are in no way "lost" Jews or anything of the sort any more than the Black Israelite Hebrews claiming to be are.

Just so things are clear <insert rolling eyes emoji>... https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism No, criticism of Israel is not automatic grounds for accusations of Anti-Semitism. However, the following is: Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. I think that is a reasonable list that differentiates these actions from simple criticism of the Israeli government (something I as a Jew also partake in although I am not Israeli nor have I ever been there). Mick - so just mentioning Israel brings religion and Jews into the equation, does it? Does mentioning Ireland bring buggering priests and buried children's bodies into the equation automatically? Obviously it should not, any more than mentioning any country and connecting it to any religion which anyone could do with almost any other country. Why is it you feel this is the only place where there is such a connection? I would ask you to re-read the list above and re-think through your processes that got you to that strange place.

At least you post honestly most of the time even if we disagree on substance. Many of your brethren are far more cynical than you in that they refuse to be honest about their own cynicism and acceptance that nothing will change and there's no point. This is to me one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals (in the context of their US designations). Liberals do believe in working towards a better future and for the improvement of conditions for others. Conservatives do not see much in the way of hope for the future and are not particularly concerned about others. This is demonstrated in their lack of coherent policy other than "does it <deleted> the Libs off?".

Pretty easy to tell from your responses. What are your main issues - the hypocrisy of "virtue signaling", gay people's rights outside of your country mattering to you somehow, worker's who are treated brutally outside of your country mattering to you somehow, "wokeness". These are all positions that identify you as an Conservative. "Virtue Signaling" was Alt-Right code invented to minimize people's feelings of empathy for others. That you find it odd that people would care about disadvantaged "others" in countries outside of your own demonstrates a similar callousness that is a trademark of Conservative commentary. The "war on Woke" is the latest Conservative rallying cry to minimize any discussion or understanding about the injustices suffered in the past by non-White non-male people. It's not exactly something you are hiding carefully.

I would recommend not attempting to apply logic or reason to Thai politics, especially when the former Prime Minister is the one carrying the water for the Coupmakers to ensure all is whitewashed to become "legal". This, ironically, was what Chuan was derided for when he was PM, his adherence to legal principles over practical consequences and unwillingness to make things work. Now he's somehow ended up being the guy putting up the Christmas windows for those who simply seize power and use it whenever they feel like and use people like him to make it all look nice to casual passers-by. Pathetic end to a hopeless political career, the Thai version of the Vampire Lestat.

"Activists" are not the ones virtue signaling, they're in the streets. If you're outside of your house engaging in these issues in some manner, whether it be the work you do, the protest you attend, the defense of the people being abused by others (although to be fair this can be also done online although clearly this is a lower level of engagement and of impact) then it's possible you are an "activist". I don't think someone with rainbow shirts or flags or symbols on their FB page is an activist although they MAY be if that support translates to actual action. There's nothing wrong with signaling one's support for a cause, and you'll note that similarly anyone stumping for the Right is usually designated as a "Conservative Activist" or whatever. But those are people who are, you know, being active. They're not just typing on a keyboard. Those typing people, who are by far the majority, are signaling their support for that cause but are unwilling to go beyond that. They consider that support virtuous, but I expect that the Conservative supporter similarly considers their support of those causes to be virtuous. So it's not "virtue signaling" since that's obviously the reason one would signal in all cases. You are trying to make that a pejorative by labeling that as "virtue signaling", meaning it's the person trying to impress others about their viewpoints being correct but being unwilling to do anything about it or even believe in it. How do you know they don't? I expect that the Conservatives like yourself who "virtue signal" believe what they type. But if you similarly aren't attending protests about Drag Queens reading to children or whatever then you're not an Activist.