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"? 

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...

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

The answer to your first question is: lots, on this forum and on many others and in many newspapers. 

 

It is pointless to speculate on whether someone else might have so cunningly and callously toppled the pound and the baht - acts clearly motivated by nothing more noble than personal greed.

 

 

Many bloated capitalists have traditionally sought to burnish their image, as well as expand their wealth and influence, by becoming "philanthropists" once they have made their pile. Mr Soros is one of the most obvious contemporary examples of the genre.

What communist claptrap is that, "motivated by nothing more noble than personal greed"? That's the basis of capitalism right there that you're discarding so casually. Someone recognizing the opportunity and taking advantage of it by mobilizing capital and making an investment intended to result in profit. Do you think Cargill should sell rice at no profit because it would be selfish to otherwise profit? Or if they get a deal where they make more than usual, they should donate the excess because they're making too much which would be selfish? Do you think "nobility" comes into play for the vast majority of investors?

I do not, although I believe that there is some way forward in the future in which that will have to be incorporated into the prevailing economic system. This was the basis for carbon taxation, that people who cause negative externalities with their economic activities have to pay to make them right. Doesn't seem very popular among capitalists though even though they accept it in numerous other situations.