Traveler19491

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The dropping will be by the voters of those currently avoiding and denying the inevitable.....gee, we donno what's gonna happen duhh.....

No one over on that side wants to discuss the tea party people or the fact Prez Obama is back up in the polls and surveys and that the tea party is over already, and yet we're still two years out from the election and one year away from the first voting in the Iowa Republican caucus where.the God extremist Mike Huckabee is far ahead of Jeb Romney, Mitt Bush, Chris Rubio, Marco Christie and all the rest of 'em crashing around out there in the official Republican Clown Car.

So take a look at the chart up above, pinch yourselves, then get back to the rest of us down here in the real world, ok?

Who do you have in your clown car besides a proven loser named Hillary Clinton?

I have no crystal ball, and have no idea who the next President will be. However, I do find it amusing when, after having posted extensive statistical data to support his thesis, the best response you can come up with is a one line attempt at a "zinger". However, to answer your assertion about Hillary being a "proven loser", well, let's see. She WON the NY election for Senator, she WON confirmation as Secretary of State, and she is poised to WIN the Democratic nomination for President. Should she do that, current polls indicate that, for her, it will likely be a cake walk to WIN the Presidency. It would appear to me, at least by her past results, that the "proof" leans a tad in the opposite direction. Just a suggestion, but you might want to recheck that definition of "loser". You can probably find a good dictionary on line. Having said all that, I will concede the proposition that nothing is assured.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Liberals watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and read Mother Jones and Huffington Post.

What's the difference?

Only partially correct. While it is true that liberals who feel the need to get there "news" from one of the major networks will, by and large, tune to MSNBC. And you are correct that the readership of both Mother Jones and the Huffington Post are largely liberal. However, extensive research has been done on the question of liberal/conservative/corporate bias in the media, and the fact is that pretty much NO ONE on either side trusts the broadcast media. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS by Viacom, and NBC is 80% owned by GE. If you honestly think that any of these multinational corporations are hotbeds of liberalism, then your definition of "liberal" might need some tweaking. MSNBC remains on air to satisfy a market niche, which it has managed to do, ergo it will remain on the air until it fails to do so. Conservatives have a vastly larger array of informational sources that cater to their biases. In my opinion, none of the mainstream media outlets provide what is desperately needed...unbiased, comprehensive, non-partisan information that educates, but does not attempt to influence. Those sources are very rare. The honest individual will glean what he/she can from both liberal and conservative sources, sift through and analyze the information presented, and determine for himself/herself what they feel the truth to be.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Racial Resentment Drives Tea Party Membership

"At least to some degree, the Tea Party movement is an outlet for mobilizing and expressing racialized grievances which have been symbolically magnified by the election of the nation’s first black president,” writes a research team led by Florida State University sociologist Daniel Tope.

Tea party activist shows support of government shutdown by waving Confederate flag outside the home of a black family.

The study, just published in the journal Social Science Research,finds this acrimony appears to be aimed specifically at blacks rather than also targeting Latinos. While that’s somewhat surprising, “The findings suggest that, among conservatives, racial resentment may be a more important determinate of membership in the Tea Party movement than hard-right political values.

”

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/racial-resentment-drives-tea-party-membership-93419/

Agree that the Tea Party has come to represent the extreme right and the racist wing of the Republican party. Supporters should recognize that it's not what the Tea Party claims to represent, it's what everyone else thinks they represent. And a vast majority of Americans do not support the Tea Party and their views on a great number of issues. I'm sure every Democrat would be privately ecstatic if a Tea Party member were to win the Republican nomination because that would guarantee a Democratic President in 2016.

The point you make is very germane. What the Tea Party presents to the Republican candidates is a two edged sword. Any Republican hopeful of winning the primaries, and thus the nomination, MUST appeal to the Tea Baggers, as they are all hard core, and turn out to vote in the primaries in large numbers. So the candidates must position themselves to the extreme right in order to woo them. However, once the primaries are over, they then have to backpedal hard to try to appear much more centrist to try and win over the swing voters. The problem then becomes the bounty of extremist statements captured on video during the primaries that the Dems can trot out in endless attack ads. Talk about sitting on the horns of a dilemma!

In a free society, as the dear PM is wont to have us believe we live in, the primary responsibility of the press is to ask difficult questions that will expose weaknesses or dangers in either proposed or existing legislation. Whenever a political "leader" reacts as Dear Leader did in this instance, it leads one to wonder why; what is so wrong about asking about the "sweeping nature" of the legislation? Seems as if this reporter touched a nerve. As to the PM's response, stating that the Thai people needed to learn about "rules" instead of focusing on the restriction of their rights...perhaps they're getting tired of having their rights restricted? Seems the PM is way too concerned about introducing rules, and not so concerned about restricting rights. And, as has been noted by Caveat Emptor, the a particular word that is restricted on this forum, but it seems that it's only those types of people who shout, "I don't have to answer why! I will pass it!" Actually, Dear Leader, in a free and transparent society, you actually DO have to answer "why". And why, you ask, should you have to answer, "Why"? Because you are responsible for the welfare of your people, and they need to know that they can trust you. But when you start refusing to disclose the "why's", or any other fact/reason/purpose/etc., they just might start thinking that, no, you can't be trusted. Food for thought, Dear Leader.

Regulating "hate speech" is nothing more than censorship clothed in a publicly palatable disguise. The problem with attempting to outlaw "hate speech" lies in the definition. As the article points out, who gets to decide? There can be no open and shut definition, ergo the very real risk of such a law being abused. Every individual must be free to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive. The Catholic church silenced Galileo and Copernicus because they did not agree with them. Galileo and Copernicus dared to challenge what was then considered to be Biblical orthodoxy. Today's religious right would do the same to scientists researching evolution, or medical treatments involving embryonic stem cells. This is the logical extreme of regulated speech. A government armed with any law that permits the silencing of speech in whatever form becomes way too powerful. The responsibility for silencing hate speech should lie with the public, and not government. Individual citizens must confront the hater, and expose the speech for what it is...worthless words intended only to cause pain, or inflame passions. This must be the responsibility of each citizen in a free society. Once that responsibility is ceded to the government, we lose a large measure of our freedom.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Dont be duped, this was a fake terror attacked destined to tighten the grip of the system on the people even further and bring us one step closer to a profitable (for some) global war on Islam.
Meanwhile france has now completed its own little patriot act and democracy is turning into a dictatorship of classes in a round of applauds.
Wake up people!
We are so near the caricatural model described in 1984 that i am wondering when the 3rd player of the permanent war, probably china, with or against india, will start to make its move.
Meanwhile democracies in the weat are rotten and manipulated to the core, the whole news and media system is corrupt, useless and sells illusions on a massive scale, and people there vote mindlessly for thei own demise.
We are the people, this is our planet, let us not let that happen.
There is only one way: hide your assets, stop voting and paying taxes, let the system drop.
We have been conditionned to fear a scenario where goverment in europe tumble and fall, but this is also an illusion. We are the people, we made our countries, we can do it again. What we need is to get rid of those who live to ride on our backs. They manipulate each of our world using tricks and illusions. We have the power to stop ot by stopping oir involvememt altogether.
It seems scary, it is not. Most our needs are illusions, and our weaknesses.
Man-up and stop believing in all tue crap in the news! Got off the system or be its unknowing accomplice... Well... Now you know, no more excuses...

While I would agree with a few of your points, especially the ones about governments using terrorism as an excuse to increase surveillance, politicians being corrupt, and the media being useless, you then proceed to give forth with a screed positing that "we" the people can remake our governments, yet demanding that everyone drop out of the "system". I'd really be curious how one remakes the "system" without being in the "system". If everyone drops out, what you will have is anarchy, not exactly a solid recipe for remaking democracy. What needs to happen is for people to not buy into the manufactured sound bites that pass as news, educate themselves via non-partisan, impartial news sources, study the issues, and then vote. You complain that western democracies are corrupt, and your rant sounds as though you want to abandon democracy. However, since ancient Greece, democracy has proven to be the only form of government that gives the individual citizen a voice. The greatest political weapon an individual has is their vote. The only possible alternative is violent revolution, and given the armament possessed by today's governments, that's not really a workable solution. Yes, the people need to wake up and start voting in their own self interest, and not the interests of the oligarchs. That would be nice. Some accurate spelling and grammar on your part would also be nice. Makes your argument much more readable.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<snip>

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

" It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, "

Besides your theory being ridiculous, it has also been ruled unconstitutional in accordance with "that constitution thingy".

In earlier days, paying to vote was called a Poll Tax. It was thrown out in the 1960s by the Supreme Court.

You're going to have to come up with a better source to raise your funds than a voting tax on the citizens.

And then you make this little suggestion, also throwing aside "that constitution thingy".

"Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home."

Would you propose all elected officials be elected on the first Tuesday of November every six years or would you stagger the elections, to maybe one sixth of all elected officialdom each year being elected and installed into office? If once every six years, how do you handle the office shuttle on the changeover period in January? Do the outgoing incumbents have to vacate their offices before the end of their terms or can the incoming politicians share the quarters for a month or so?

The other small problem is how to get the incumbents to be responsible to their constituents unless they have to face re-election every few years. Would you require them to punch a time clock or sign an attendance register to make certain they aren't playing golf all the time? Hold their pay if they don't put their time in?

It would seem your theory might have a few loopholes but you and yours on this forum can probably solve that with a little brainstorming.

Does your six year requirement also apply to the States or are they permitted to run their own lives?

Give it some thought and get back to us. I look forward to your input.

Thanks for your appraisal of my suggested "improvements" on the existing system. I would disagree with your characterization of my suggestion vis-a-vis a campaign tax being ridiculous, however, not being a Constitutional scholar (and my reference to "that Constitutional thingy" was a poor attempt at levity) I can't speak knowledgeably on whether or not taxing the public to support a national campaign fund would pass Supreme Court muster...it was just a suggestion. But it should be noted that this would not be considered a "poll tax", which you correctly observed was thrown out by the Supreme Court as that was a direct tax on an individual's right to vote. This would not be a tax on voting, but a tax to support a fund that would serve to provide each taxpayer/voter with an equal voice in the election process, eliminating a currently unbalanced system that favors the "haves" to the disadvantage of the average citizen, much the same as the poll tax favored the whites and disadvantaged African Americans. I'm sure that you are aware that we currently pay for the election process (voting equipment, registrars, and all of the personnel and equipment used to support each and every election) out of tax revenues, so I suspect that a campaign fund tax would not be unconstitutional, anymore than using the tax revenues from religious pacifists to support the military, in violation of their religious beliefs, is unconstitutional, or using a pro-lifer's taxes to pay for health insurance for government workers that provides abortion coverage is unconstitutional. The tax would be going to pay for a system, not for a vote.

As far as your objection to a six year "shuffle" of offices, and your query about what to do to accommodate the outgoing/incoming officials, what do you think happens every TWO years now, with outgoing/incoming Senators and Representatives? They seem to get along just fine making the transitions. But no, I think the best thing would be to continue having an election every two years, with one third of the offices coming up for election. You would simply begin by having those offices that were normally up for election be elected as they would have been under the existing system, and continue until all 535 offices had been completed. Thereafter, one third of the offices would face election every two years.

No, the states would not be forced to employ the same system. However, were it to show real improvement, I feel that it wouldn't take long for state and local voters to demand similar changes.

Now, how to hold elected representatives accountable to their constituency...the "Congressional Record", published by the Government Printing Office on a daily basis and available to anyone, does a somewhat adequate job of reporting on who was/wasn't present on any given day, and what input they had into that day's business. There are plenty of watchdog groups that monitor the Record, looking for slackers and reporting on them. Additionally, the media love to expose a politician who is spending his time playing and not working. The benefit of my suggested term limits is that it would open the arena to individuals who have a genuine desire to serve, and would provide a level playing field to permit them a realistic chance to be elected, regardless of their resources. There would, of course, have to be some mechanism to weed out the pretenders/wannabes/fruitcakes. Perhaps, as is the case now, a verified number of signatures on an application/petition, high enough to limit potential abuse. Also, by freeing a representative of the need to raise campaign funds, you would free up 1/3 to 1/2 of their daily time, now used for fundraising, that could then be devoted to doing actual work. The good politicians are going to use some of that time to devote to the concerns of their constituents, and to communicating with them.

As I noted, my suggestions are certainly far from perfect, but I genuinely feel that if something along these lines could be employed, we could potentially see some real improvement in our political system, and not the current gridlock generated by nothing more than pure partisanship. Additionally, a system like this would open the field to a real multiple party system, as smaller parties wouldn't be excluded due to the vast disparity in resources. As I said, I'm no expert, but the current system ain't working. The only thing it is doing is to push us farther and farther along to a real plutocracy/oligarchy.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

Limited public funding campaign sounds good but what about Networks like FOX that run a 24/7 republican campaigns, posing as news, attacking the opposition?

Unfortunately, due to that whole First Amendment thing, there is little that can be done to curb the non-stop pollution emanating from the likes of Faux Gnus. However, the one thing that would put a monumental crimp in their ongoing efforts to misinform the public would be to reinstate the equal time provisions of the FCC regulations. Were that to be done, Faux Gnus would be out of business in a month.

One interesting tidbit about FOX...seems that they are co-owned by the Saudis. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=57587 http://www.kingdom.com.sa/investments/media-and-publishing/news-corporation

Gotta wonder how the far right manages to deal with that.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

You're quite correct in stating that the vast majority of the public is opposed to public funding, but that is due to the fact that the public has been duped into believing that they are better off permitting politicians to raise their own money...not considering the fact that any politician must then be beholden to the person or entity that provided the moneys necessary for them to win their job. It also remains in the best interest of the politician to retain the status quo, as that assures them of consistent victories (incumbents are re-elected somewhere near 90% of the time). A ship of this size and momentum is going to take a considerable amount of time to alter course. But that doesn't mean that the work shouldn't begin. The current system benefits only the plutocrats, and if the average citizen is to ever again realize his/her inherent rights and benefits, then the system has to change.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Could this announcement simply be the start of a media campaign to put the blame for (yet another) year of falling tourist numbers and lower than expected economic growth on something other than the powers that be?

Seriously doubtful, although I'm sure that the Thai tourism folks will use this to their propaganda advantage. The ruble has lost half its value, and I know that if the dollar lost half its value, and I were only getting 16 baht to the dollar instead of 32, that'd put a bit of a crimp in my lifestyle. The Ruskies just can't afford the luxuries right now. But their currency will recover, although it make take some time to get back to its former value, and when that happens, Pattaya will be back to its old (rather forlorn) self.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

"He said this would not lead them to abuse their power...". And we can be certain that this is true because he's using the same logic my Mom used to use when she would tell me, "Because I said so!"

Also, isn't it interesting that corrupt cops can extort millions in bribes, polluting the very concept of justice, and suffer the crushing humiliation of "transfer" (with full salary), but stand accused of lese majeste and they'll hunt you down wherever you are and imprison you until you rot. Seems fair.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Traveler19491 - As is usually the case with many polarizing issues both perspectives can be argued effectively as there is validity to each argument. The death penalty issue pro or con is an opinion it cannot be reduced to a singular perspective accepted by every individual.

Personally I could exist in almost any environment and find some happiness so I don’t share your perspective that a life prison sentence is satisfactory retribution for certain murder cases. I believe in an eye for an eye and the act of ending another individual’s life being the ultimate insult to humanity fitting of retribution in kind. A murderer should expect nothing less.

Thank you, for an intelligently stated opinion. While we don't share perspectives on this issue, me feeling that a truly evolved civilization does not need to resort to an "eye for an eye", I can certainly understand, and respect, where you're coming from. Might be nice to share a couple of beers and debate this some time. At least, at the end of it, we could part on friendly terms.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

as was said by a smart guy ..better 10 guilty go free than the execution of 1 inoccent man.....

And then the 10 guilty go off and kill another 10...

This is precisely why I oppose the death penalty. A simple Google search will confirm that the vast preponderance of research on whether or not the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent shows this not to be the case. While there are a very few isolated studies to the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that the death penalty does little, if anything, to deter would be criminals. Life in prison, without the possibility of parole, is a much more effective means of dealing with the scum we are forced to live with, and is, in my opinion, a far worse fate. To those who would espouse the position that life in prison is equivalent to a paid vacation, I would simply point to my son's own experience. A very hard headed kid, he spent two years in maximum security for possession with intent (he was sentenced to five, knocked down to three for his voluntary surrender upon learning of the warrant, and reduced another one for his voluntary participation in a "boot camp" program that was extra hard on the participants, and earned them credit for good behavior and completion of the program). My son has related how hardly a day went by that someone wasn't beaten to a pulp by other prisoners, knifed, or gang raped. If that's your idea of a vacation, you might want to change travel agents.

I would also point to Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. McVeigh wanted to be executed rather than spend his life in prison. So, we gave the murderer what he wanted. IMHO, the scum bag should have been forced to spend his life in general population, his life one endless progression of terrified days. The death penalty is forever. Since 2000, in the US alone, there have been 24 people released from death row after having their convictions overturned. That's 24 innocent people who would have died.

I am sure the guy who rapes and murders your children will be happy to hear you support him in his bid to avoid the death penalty.

Your "pithy" response is so typical of the small minds who fail to grasp what the death penalty is all about. It is not a deterrent, but state sanctioned revenge. Now, were I prone to seek revenge, then the last thing that I would want my child's murderer to have is the escape afforded by execution. No, those of us possessed of an IQ higher than a tomato are not seeking revenge, but justice. Justice is not served by putting the scumbag to death, but by forcing him, or her, to live in hell for as long as possible. Were my child to be murdered, I would experience an exquisite sense of equanimity each time I sat down to enjoy a nice steak, smothered in sauteed onions and mushrooms, coupled with a fine wine, knowing that his, or her, sorry ass can only look forward to more swill tomorrow. Every time I make love to my girlfriend, I will do so with the satisfaction of knowing that he, or she, has most likely had to endure a gang rape at some point in the not too distant past, or perhaps may get to enjoy such tomorrow. Each time that I walk out of my front door and, lock it, on my way to some pleasant endeavor, it will be with the satisfaction of knowing that he, or she, is on the other side of locked bars, and will never, ever enjoy the freedom that I enjoy, but will have their every action monitored and dictated to them. Every time I find serenity in a beautiful landscape, a lovely waterfall, a breathtaking sunset, it will be with a smile on my face, knowing that he. or she, will, once more, gaze on institutional walls, and that will be their landscape forever.

Death would release them, spare them the torment of perpetual isolation, permanently subjected to humiliation, trauma, harassment, physical and mental abuse, and such will be their fate for every single one of their remaining days on this earth. That, my minimally intellectually functional friend, is justice. A six foot deep hole is way, way too good for them. And on the off chance that they are not guilty, then I will have the satisfaction of knowing that my values afforded them the opportunity to regain their just freedom. You, on the other hand, have no problem with denying the innocent true justice, and are happy to condemn the innocent to death in your near sighted quest for revenge. Lame. But then I wouldn't expect much more from a person of such limited intellectual capacity.

What is the OP babbling about?

Kinda hard to tell. Some grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling would be nice.

Thanks for one of the best posts I've read on TV in a long time. I've only lived in CM for a little over a year, but I absolutely love it here. For me, it has pretty much everything. I'm more of a city boy that a country kid, and Chiang Mai has just enough city to keep me happy without being overly congested. Yes, the traffic is getting bad, especially during "rush hour", but I've learned to just stay off the street between 3:30 and 5:30. But the people are some of the friendliest of anywhere I've been in Thailand, and, as others have noted, there's just an atmosphere that is welcoming. I live in the Chang Puak area, and just about everything I might need is within a five minute walk. Thais still smile at a farang, and are very congenial. The countryside is a ten to fifteen minute ride away, and road trips are a joy. I have been privileged to visit a lot of Thailand, but Chiang Mai is now my home, and I have zero desire to go anywhere else.

Here's a suggestion: "Congress (or in this case, Parliament) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis added). It's worked pretty good in the US for the last couple of hundred years, and then some. The moment you start trying to guarantee the "quality" of speech, or of the press, then you're right back at the beginning...whose definitions do you use? When it comes to speech, regardless of the source, it should be completely free and unfettered. It's an absolute guarantee that you are not going to like some of it. But then much of what you do like is going to be despised by someone else. One person's garbage is another person's treasure.

The problem with trying to pass hate speech legislation is...who gets to determine what constitutes "hate"? Just more fodder for those who wish to exercise control.

Three years ago, i lived in a hill tribe village 39 kilometers in the mountains east of Mae Hon Song.

No electric in the village except at the school (solar).

I was amazed how many times different groups gave blankets to villagers, but still nobody had blankets!!!

Because they were taken to MHS and sold on the sunday markets.

Next cold season they got more!!! What a joke that was.

Have just returned from a trip to Chiang Rai and the night time temperature was never lower than 22 c . The roads are superb, and I guess that is because they depend on government work, annual handouts are part of the system I expect. I can't see how there can be a market for blankets unless they are bought back into stock for next year by the organisations who supplied them.

Last year it was 6 degrees in my house several morning in a row. I have nice warm blankets on a big comfy bed. But I am surrounded by folks that sleep on a mat on a bamboo floor. I am pretty sure the blanket they got that year was especially appreciated.

In a country that has no social safety net and almost no consideration for the needy, I am amazed to see posters from first world countries begrudging these people a few blankets. Yes some of them are not needed, but if they do get sold I am sure the money they get is useful. Why don't you save your ire for the officials that probably skimmed half of the budget before the first blanket was bought?

It certainly is nice to see a post on here by someone who is not judging the hill tribes by western standards. Yes, it is entirely possible that these people may be selling the donated blankets. But it is also entirely possible that those blankets are sold out of necessity. Food for my kids now, or hang on to the blanket just in case it gets cold again six months from now? As the Christmas season is upon us, it is remarkable to see how many Scrooges there are.

What is conveniently overlooked in all this flowery rhetoric is that the Bush-Cheney administration could not have taken the action they did without the broad approval of the Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.

At the time the vote was taken in 2002, there were only 49 Republican members of the Senate. Without at least one vote from either a Democrat or an Independent, the Iraq war Resolution would not have passed and the Iraq war would never have occurred.

A total of 29 Democrats voted for the resolution, and they were: (from link provided below)

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

Notice any prominent names on that list?

The Congressional members were fully briefed by the intelligence community prior to their votes. They didn't go into this blindly.

Sen. Levin voted against the resolution and now it is his "gotcha" moment and perhaps a little payback for his own Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution being defeated by a Senate vote of 75-24. He wanted the action to be approved by the UN.

This is all the dying swan song of the Reid controlled Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Bravo, you got your facts straight about the 29 Democrats who voted for the resolution. Just one problem...what did they base their decision on? The only information available to them was the information conveniently provided by the Bush administration's intelligence community. Information manufactured to provide exactly the scenario that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika wanted them to have. So, faulty decisions based on faulty information.

I have to admit that I do find it interesting that many of the same posters on here who jump to the defense of the police whenever race is an issue are the same ones who bitch the loudest about "racism" directed at farang, who complain the most vociferously about the disparity in treatment by the Thai police of farang and Thais, and who moan about the absence of rights for farang. However, these same folks have zero problem with the treatment afforded blacks by the American police. A twelve year old black child is shot by a white Cleveland police officer withing 12 seconds of the officer arriving on scene and encountering the child playing with a toy gun that had the orange tip missing. Two years prior, the same officer failed his firearms qualification training, the trainer noting that, "He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts, nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal."

A 22 year old black man was killed by white police officers in a Walmart in Dayton, OH for the crime of walking around the store carrying a toy air rifle he had picked up in the toy aisle. White officers, called by a suspicious white couple, opened fire WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF TELLING HIM TO DROP THE WEAPON.

Now, the pro-cop gang is going to chime in that the twelve year old should not have been playing with a toy gun absent the orange tip, and the 22 year old shouldn't have been carrying the air rifle around. So my question to them would be, Why, then, is it OK for so called "Open Carry" advocates, openly brandishing loaded assault weapons and handguns, to walk around shopping malls, restaurants, and supermarkets, all crowded with unarmed individuals, but none of them is gunned down? Why? Because virtually every single one of these Rambo wannabes is white. No cops running in, guns blazing.

Mind you, my nephew is a city cop in Knoxville, Tennessee. I want him to be safe. If he encounters someone who poses a genuine threat to his safety, I want him to defend himself. I am perfectly well aware that the vast majority of police officers are honest, dependable people doing a dangerous, and mostly thankless job. They deserve to go home to their families at the end of every shift. But there is a small fraction of those officers who are out of control. They do not deserve to be protected by their colleagues, or the system. The danger now is that the public will lose trust and respect for the good cops. That would not be a good situation.

Well its true, fit in, embrace the country 100% or F off

So we can safely assume that you speak Thai in public, and at home?

so who is this rich "businessman" that seems to think he own the whole village ?

Pretty sure he's the guy with legal title to the land.

And you know this because you know the guy and have seen the title, right?