![](https://assets.aseannow.com/forum/uploads/set_resources_40/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
JCauto
-
Posts
1,772 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by JCauto
-
-
42 minutes ago, Srinivas said:
democrats in four states got whiplashed by PV this week.
if you think the videos are fake you should be concerned.
Nah, everyone knows this guy's a fraud. Only ones to be "convinced" are the ones who believed the BS in the first place. Trump's gambling that the Base is as big as he believes, i.e., that it's a majority of Americans. It's not even close. Anyway, look forward to your prevarications on Monday.
-
8 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:
There is no proof over Trumps phone is there it's just something appearing to be made up! Plus how did they hack an iPhone the FBI can't seem to do it?
However, plenty of proof over Clintons emails, the disappearing server, and their Peodo friend, then there's Bills confirmed lying and his abuse of an intern?
People should fairly judge President Trump on his many big achievements!
https://www.businessinsider.com/president-trump-continues-to-take-calls-from-his-iphone-2018-10
Incorrect, it appears to be both true and something that the NSA and others are very concerned about. So, getting back to your point, you're quite concerned about this, right? When we speak of "hacking iPhones" there's a range of different issues, one is whether you can access a phone without a password which is what the FBI apparently has trouble with. There's being able to access calls on an insecure phone, which would presumably be different than accessing a phone without a password. Anyway, as a person concerned with security as you are, you're obviously not in favour of this, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
So again, these senior White House officials and Trump family members using insecure and private e-mail servers is something you'd be very worried about and would like an investigation into, correct?
Confirmed lying? You're really bringing that up? Seriously? How many lies did Bill tell? Is it over 6,000 like the current President?
And, for the record, we do judge President Trump fairly on his big achievements. His gutting of environmental regulations and rejection of climate change and science - we judged them as incorrect and setting back efforts to save the planet to the point where millions are now already doomed. His blowing up the deficit to give away money to wealthy people and then claiming the need to eliminate health care and social security - we judged this as hypocrisy at its finest given the years of railing against the Democrats for deficit spending. His abrogating international agreements to free up dictators and autocrats to do whatever they wanted including torture and murder of journalists - judged it as setting back human rights and democracy by decades. How about setting the people of the USA against each other to the point where White Supremacists are engaging in regular terrorism and feeling bold enough to be openly racist - well, we don't think that's positive or fair and will continue to work towards a just society for everyone regardless of their background, race, gender, religion, etc.
Sorry, have I missed any of his "big achievements"?-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:
Well the Clintons do appear to have been close to a number of sex offenders and Peado kinds.
Yes she didn’t breach national security by using GMail yes right no way she did! Like Billy boy never has sexual relations with Monika no Sir!
So Judge Roy Moore doesn't bother you? Should be pretty apparent that politics attracts the worst sort of folk, and that this is a bipartisan characteristic. But sure, try to paint the Democrats as the party of paedophiles, I'm sure that won't backfire.
Oh, and national security breaches are another issue you're concerned about? What's your opinion of Trump using an unsecured iPhone that the Chinese and Russians have apparently had access to? I know, you're completely outraged. Fair enough, it's important to be consistent, otherwise you know, you'd be seen as a partisan troll...
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Credo said:
I have no idea what you are on about. Why would they try to charge the border? Have you been to any major border crossings lately? Most of them are very well protected and fortified. Then remember that the President may send up to 15,000 troops to protect the border.
That's actually my point. There is no "threat". The people in the caravan are poor and desperate, no doubt comprising a mix of economic migrants and actual refugees with a genuine case for asylum. There are rules in place to deal with them legally. There's more than enough security without any additional troops to prevent these people from going illegally through the border.
The entire reason for the brouhaha is political scare-mongering. If they were honest and wanted to have a dialogue about immigration, labour needs, minimum wage, 14th Amendment etc., then have it. Put it forth as your policy and engage in honest debate. Instead we have BS statements about unilateral abolishment of the 14th amendment with full knowledge that such a thing could not possibly be done.
There is no serious attempt to discuss these issues or their consequences, only dog-whistling to White Nationalists and the Base.-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Credo said:
You are wrong. They cannot apply for asylum outside the US. They have to present themselves to the Border officials and request asylum. That is where the process begins.
Okay. So they get to the border then, and apply for asylum. Are you expecting them to charge the border and get through?
-
26 minutes ago, 55Jay said:
Sure. The last caravan earlier this year had a high degree of success.
1,500 set out for the border.
122 arrested for illegal entry.
401 requested asylum.
374 of them passed the initial screening, eligible to file formally.
DOJ stats so far this FY indicate 85% of eligibles don't file.
22% of the ones who do file, are approved.
According to PSF, so far 3 from the last caravan have been approved. 1 disapproved.
The Immigration system is already backlogged.
I also wouldn't object to abolishing the 14th Amendment.
The 2nd could use some updating.
So what's your point? Like the last caravan, there was no threat, and the people can expect to be processed similar to the previous one?
Whether you approve of abolishing amendments or not, there's a very clear process to do so, just a very long and complicated one. You know that, no doubt, as does the President. So why is he pretending he can just abolish the 14th Amendment when he knows he can't? Why is he not campaigning on the abolishment of the 14th Amendment if this is so important?
The answer, as you know, is fear-mongering and to continue to try to divide the nation while inflaming his (not so bright) base with non-existent issues that are based on lies.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, 55Jay said:
He was asking how many illegals YOU would take in. Is your wife an illegal Latina, or was she? If she's a Thai (seeing how this is a Thai forum), what does she, or your spawning habits, have to do with this topic?
Many of "our" (?) ancestors came in here (see below). They queued up for Customs and Immigration. It was far from perfect. Still is. But there was a process, and there still is.
That is the point here, after all. Illegal Immigration. Not bathrooms, transgenders, guns, or your regurgitated insults.
I would allow them to follow the law, which as I understand it includes having the people who are claiming asylum apply for entry outside of the USA, be vetted and processed and then either admitted or rejected. That is what the people in this caravan are intending to do as I understand it. The idea that they'd somehow be able to stroll across the border and walk into the local welfare office is amusing, but only in the sense that it demonstrates how facile the viewpoint of the Right is on this issue.
So illegal immigration is way down, the defenseless families in the caravan don't have any way of getting across the border and are expected to apply for asylum in the usual legal way, and you are freaking out about it all and sending in the troops. Oh, and are all for the one promising to abrogate the sacred Constitution that you've apparently got a life-or-death attachment to with the stroke of a pen. I actually hope he does somehow abolish the 14th Amendment without Congress or the States, that will enable the next President to dispose of the 2nd Amendment too.-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Srinivas said:
There you go! See? You CAN provide evidence of your own assertions rather than make it a job of your readers. Well done!
And it's a fence. Covering around a third of the length of the border area. Not a gigantic 30-foot high wall closing the border off. And that a significant number of senior Democrats voted for it seems to contradict your assertion that Democrats are for open borders, no?
-
9 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:
How many are you going to take in and look after?
Proud to say I've taken one in (my wife) and produced two offspring with her, so that's 3 that wouldn't otherwise be back in my home country. The wife is likely going to open a business here eventually, the kids are getting through university and will be productive citizens.
So how many generations does your line go back, Mr. Patriot1066? All the way to the Magna Carta? I'm betting your ancestors were not at all unlike the folks in this caravan, and like them, your ancestors came with little and produced much, becoming a net benefit for their new country and forming the backbone of the nation.
Regardless, I'm not afraid of a bunch of desperate refugees unlike the manly gun-totin' Right, whose delicate sensibilities can't even handle someone who's transgender going to the toilet nearby.-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Srinivas said:
im using your own terms. wall/ fence
personally I dont care. call it whatever you want. a,safespace!
Oh, look at the Right-Wing snowflakes! They need a safe space from all those dirty dirty immigrants. Help! There's a caravan of desperate people coming to seek asylum, send in the army to protect me!
-
4 hours ago, Srinivas said:
bill and hillary proposed a border wall when it was election time.
As did Fienstien, Schumer all said same as Trump.
want videos, easy to find yourself though. In their own words.
LOL. Here's a completely unfounded assertion I made up out of thin air. It's now your responsibility to research this and point out that it's not true.
-
Should be easy enough to catch the other participants. Just look for guys with styes in both eyes.
-
3 hours ago, tomta said:
The trouble is, Robblok, in the long term we are all dead. You want paradise and would condemn us all to hell until it arrives
That's a good summary.
Robblok has no practical advice, only principles that are impossible to be applied and which couldn't exist within the Thai context. To me this is a null position.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Oh God, it just gets worse. After the ridiculous claim of the plane in the Cambodian jungle, we now have a guy looking at a DEM and saying "I think it's the plane!" DEMs, or Digital Elevation Models, are used in maps to show terrain. On land, most use the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission data which has a resolution of 30m. In the ocean, they don't have satellites that penetrate deeply, so instead of showing water (boring) they show a representation of the ocean floor from bathymetric maps. These are very low resolution and prepared a long time ago. There's no way they've been updated, or that they would have the resolution sufficient to show a plane if one were there. And that assumes the plane somehow landed in the ocean without breaking up.
This is even dumber than the last one.-
4
-
4
-
2 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:
Playing sort of a moderate devil's advocate -
Perhaps, it should be agreed upon by Junta and Thaksin apologists/defenders alike, that there is no middle ground here and comparative [less superlatives] don't apply regarding these situations.
A closer and fair examination might suggest that they're all cut from the same cloth, yes?
Not much difference, if any...
Sure, I've said that all along.
Only difference is that one was elected by the majority of the population, and given another election with no restriction would overwhelmingly win again. The other has soldiers, guns, tanks, military aircraft and ships. And a compliant urban middle class willing to forgo the rights of the majority for their own convenience and benefit while denigrating them as buffalo.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, scorecard said:
re-read your own posts...
Speaking of disingenuous...
-
5 hours ago, robblok said:
I did not know you were a die hard red supporter ?
You seem to agree with me that whoever is in power goes after their enemies and not their own even if they break the law. (both applying the law selectively) That admission in my eyes clears you of being a die hard red supporter. Thaksin and his are as much a problem as the junta. They both abuse the system and id rather see them both go or at least both get punished every time they break the law until they follow the law.
When that happens i won't comment on junta or PTP.. too bad i doubt it will happen. I
I don't know to whom you are referring specifically, I can only judge based on this thread where you mentioned it, so I presumed that those of us who are taking the Red side in this debate are. I don't see anywhere in this thread that you will find someone claiming what you claimed.
As to your contention that they're the same, no, I disagree. One was elected, the other seized power on the basis of having guns.
-
28 minutes ago, robblok said:
It seems so hard for the die hard red supporters to ever comment on failings in their own party. They only see the failings of the junta. They don't see that the reds want exactly what the junta does and would do so in a heartbeat given the chance. They are all crooks.
This is just disingenuous, and I'm disappointed that you would attempt to characterize our arguments as such. If you can point to a single post where I or others supporting the Reds not acknowledging the crookedness of Thaksin, then kindly point it out. You won't find one.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
55 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:And you seem to want to ignore that Thaksin and his family are part of the elite. They want it all for themselves though which has caused the upset with the others. Just see how PTP ignore laws, lie, admit to lying and then lie some more, cheat and importantly how they react to when they have lost elections. Thaksin was very open that democracy wasn't his goal. He failed in creating the grip his mate Hun Sen has achieved for his family and cronies in Cambodia.
Hardly the honest bastion of democracy you seem to suggest now are they?
They're part of a very different Elite, not the Old Guard. Thailand functions very much on a patronage basis, and the Elite maintain said position by ensuring that benefits accrue to their clients. When the Old Guard (and military) are in power, the Yellows provide support and gain benefit whereas when Thaksin was in power it was the Reds. Thaksin's greatest sin, and the one that he will never be forgiven for, was to demonstrate to the people in the Northeast and North how consolidated political power could bring a large increase in investment/funding into their provinces rather than to Bangkok, the Central and the South.
When exactly did the PTP lose an election?
I don't know what your straw man about Hun Sen has to do with the topic at hand.
-
1
-
2
-
12 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:
I agree that capitalists whose lust for profit produces "negative externalities" should be made to pay. How much do you think Soros should be made to cough up for the damage he inflicted through his destruction of the pound (where he reportedly made a billion dollars in a single day) and the baht?
I see nothing he did there that wasn't within the rules, and I pointed out in another post where the fault for those currency devaluations lies - with the governments who made poor decisions and cost their people a large amount of money. If you have a beef with the Banks for the LIBOR manipulation and any other number of things, I'm completely with you. How many billion did they make with that? But that was unfortunately yet another example of their being able to avoid proportionate punishment for breaking the law and profiting individually and institutionally by doing so. Let me ask you - if Soros stayed away, would the Thai Baht be 25 Baht still today? How long would it have taken for the inevitable devaluation of the Baht to occur? Your argument makes no sense from an economic point of view.
Should there be stricter rules in the banking, commodities trading, financial markets and other big money enterprises? Of course, they've already crashed the economy once and continue to threaten the current one like a gigantic black cloud. But they not only avoided any serious sanction, they've already managed to further water down the already too weak rules that were put in place to prevent a re-occurrence. That's why the most important thing to me in Western politics is to get money out of politics to the maximum extent possible. It's turned into just another market to conquer. Soros and his influence is nothing compared to the banks, the money he controls is peanuts compared to they and the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson or any other number of Right-Wing Rich Dudes doing similar things for what they believe in. The reason people focus on him is they want to have a Leftie Boogeyman to blame.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, robblok said:You seem to be thinking along the same lines as me, because you describe exactly what I have described before. They all prosecute the other side when in power and forget about their own.
That is a major failing, and a reason why we are in the mess we are. But that s for me a reason to start prosecuting people and then in the end pressure will mount to prosecute their own too. At least that is what I hope will happen. The way it goes now just does not work as you rightly pointed out.
Guess you and I just have a different solution for it, mine is starting to prosecute to get changes. Yours is to wait till they prosecute the junta. Like you I want to see them all prosecuted but i just don't wan't them to wait and start right away. Then hopefully pressure will mount to also prosecute those on their side. By not doing anything nothing will ever change.
If a crime is committed do something about it, even if its on the side you like.
So you observe correctly that there's an endless cycle of prosecution of the other side, and your solution is to continue this cycle, while hoping that the side in power will somehow develop a conscience and prosecute their own. Okay. I think it will just continue the cycle. The evidence is on my side as this is what has happened 100% of the time over the course of decades. How, exactly, do you expect this mob to suddenly develop a conscience and prosecute their own? Or the next one for that matter?
The hope was that maybe this General would be the one who finally broke the cycle, brought about reconciliation, involved both sides, had clean hands, set it up for resumption of democracy and stood aside. How do you think he's done in those respects? How have every other military government done in those respects? It never happens. Until the military and old guard consent to genuine democracy and an end to the coups, and learn to develop relationships and alliances with the majority rural population towards a greater good, it won't happen. And the reason it won't is that the urban population keep supporting this minority Elite rule because they're able to gain from having those people in power rather than the rural people.
-
1
-
2
-
40 minutes ago, scorecard said:
And your just trying to divert from the subject at hand.
And yes all people who break laws should be investigated and if guilty punished.
That's quite an insight and shows a deep understanding of Thai politics. Thanks. By the way, it's "you're" in this case.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, robblok said:You fail to understand the basics of the law.. charming but a different view of mine.
When you don't apply the law and keep saying that others have to be punished first there will never happen anything. Fact is the law needs to be applied in Thailand to clean this mess up, if you want any progress people should stop protecting criminals on their side and go after all criminals.
Your views are outdated just supporting one side while all of them are crooks like you said.. so they all should be punished if we ever want some change. Postponing punishment because they did not start with someone you like is just foolish and keeps change from happening.
Your views are similar to those of red light jumpers who say that they first have to go after drunks as they are more dangerous.. and in the meanwhile nothing happens to improve road safety. Maybe you get it now.
You are a bit of a broken record. Thanks for ignoring all of my points.
Your analogy is an apt one, but not in the way you think. Thaksin/Junta are the red light jumpers and the drunk drivers; the military and entrenched elite continuously disrupting democracy to usurp power is the underlying cause of the road safety issue. This Junta, that Junta, the other Junta, Thaksin, Banharn, Chatchai, the list goes on and on and on. As I noted, other than Anand, there are nothing BUT red light jumpers and drunk drivers. They prosecute the "other side" when they're in power, then get prosecuted by the "other side" when the other side are in power. The basic respect for rule of law is zero because it's not applied universally, nor will it be respected until it is. Until the military are not exempt from the law and stop interfering with the democratic process, nothing will change.
-
2
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, robblok said:I recall the case of the watches.. maybe you did not recall it but i made numorous posts there complaining and attacking the junta. Maybe you should open your eyes and see they are all crook and should all be checked. That i feel Thaksin is a crook does not make the junta any less a bunch of crooks.
I don't see why the laws should not be used to go after crooks. By not wanting any action against Thaksin and others the mess keeps on going. Laws should be followed and all should be punished. Thaksin and junta and you have to start somewhere. By constantly clinging to the mantra let the junta be punished first it gets worse and worse and undermines all laws.Let Thaksin be punished first then the complaints will swell and the junta will have to be judged too.
I want both sides to be punishes and I comment on both sides their crimes.
When I noted your consistency, I was referring particularly to your inability to understand the basic issue. That is that the A-maart will never let majority rule because they've lost the demographic ability to win elections and so rely on the military, courts and rigging elections through disqualification to maintain power.
Any discussion about breaking laws and punishing crooks simply demonstrates your inability to understand the culture in Thailand. All ruling regimes, with the sole exception of the Anand Panyarachun Government that was installed after Suchinda's coup, are corrupt. All Thai people acknowledge this explicitly. However, according to the Yellow worldview, Thaksin was somehow too corrupt, and too power-hungry, and by being able to take over the entire political structure he would be able to make laws any way he wanted and evade taxes and engage in endless corruption and somehow rig the political system forever-more such that he'd be able to rule for life and turn the country into a Republic. Therefore it was important that the military take over to prevent this possibility from occurring and to punish this one-of-a-kind trickster who would somehow bring complete ruin to the country should he have been allowed to remain in power.Instead, in both instances, his political party has been replaced by someone with complete power, who grants no political freedom for anyone other than his own supporters, who implicitly supports the Yellow side who put him in power and who he is clearly courting so that he can remain in power. His government has been completely non-transparent, the press is not allowed to report on bad things and there are military courts for those who displease the Generals. And, of course, they've taken the constitution that was lauded as one of the most progressive of the many previous constitutions and ripped it up and replaced it with one of their own, enshrining all sorts of new power for the military. There is also, surprise, lots of corruption too. So exactly how is this vision any different than the supposed hell that Thaksin was going to bring? The economy is doing worse, so there's that...
There is only one difference, and that those who have always been in power remain so, and anyone from outside that circle who attempts to be elected with enough support to challenge that will be removed as soon as a reasonable excuse to do so is presented and the old regime is then installed to take over by the military. This is the fundamental problem of Thailand. It only ends when the military no longer enjoys amnesty for coups and citizens who lose elections stop demanding them. "The Junta will have to be judged." How and by whom? Why has it NEVER happened with all the other coups? You already know the answer.
Where exactly does the "law" fit into this? You're looking at this from the point of view of Western institutions and rule of law. It's charming, but completely irrelevant to Thailand.-
1
-
5
Trump's final campaign stretch rattled by twin calamities
in World News
Posted
Regarding the economy, congratulations, after two years Trump has managed to equal the economy of 2015. Real wages are stagnant (slight decrease of 0.2% on average) due to inflation on the rise as a result of tariffs and the long-term outlook is clouded by the massive increase in the deficit due to the tax giveaway to the wealthy. This by the way is from that left-wing site Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/08/11/trumps-economic-scorecard-higher-inflation-flat-wages-and-a-ballooning-federal-deficit/#75c0439322fa
Not sure the Canadian government is engaging in murder, although it's possible I suppose. And what would constitute "proof" of influence? Would it be having Trump stickers plastered all over your van including targets over pictures of people explicitly identified as evil influences by Trump? Would it be suggesting people go after any media outlets who he doesn't like and then people who are Trump supporters mailing pipe bombs to those people? Probably not in your view. How about statistical analysis of the number of journalists killed worldwide or incidents of authoritarianism or democracies that went down or other data? Probably not in your view. So what would you accept as "proof"?
That you don't care about murder in other countries or other people, that demonstrates a lack of empathy and respect for human rights and the human condition. That's probably not healthy from a personal point of view, causes a lot of internal stress and repels the kind of people who would otherwise be supportive and positive.
Ah yes, the ol' "how can we trust scientists who get paid for their work?" question. Uh, you're aware that any scientist who could disprove climate change would be incredibly wealthy right? Oil companies would buy him his own tropical island. And using that logic, you should only trust scientists who don't get paid - you mean unemployed scientists? Who is it that would know about the science of climate change other than people who study it? How do you study it if you don't get paid? It's absurd.
You at least have the logic to recognize that human activity is wrecking the planet, so why would you question the hard science of thousands of people that's been peer reviewed and has found similar things in numerous different fields is a bit bizarre. Perhaps it's the terrible consequences that you don't want to think about? Anyway, you're already there in seeing what's happening, would be interested to hear what your proposed solution is as I suspect you don't think much of carbon taxes.
I don't call people who want to reduce immigration "White Supremacists" automatically. That was in reference to his "big achievements". If the government wishes to reduce immigration, there's a number of perfectly legal things they can do and which they are doing. None of them require armed soldiers or demonizing different religious or ethnic groups.