Si Thea01

3 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You are coming accross as increasingly desperate.  You post a quote from the link where the government make a statement attributing the hack to Russia yet you go on to claim that there is not evidence, well they did not pluck the idea out their backsides, they only release statements attributing things to other nations when they have all the evidence, which by the way is in the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.

 

Doesn't this state that all electronic voting machines in the US can be hacked?

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/09/20/which-voting-machines-can-be-hacked-through-the-internet/

 

And as I have repeatedly said, there is no evidence that votes have been compromised, there is fear, a justified fear considering that other aspects of the process were interfered with by Russia.

 

Now, why would anyone have a problem with ascertaining whether or not they have been, regardless of whether or not there is evidence to suggest there is?  Just what is it that Republicans are fearing?

I took the quotes from what you listed as your overwhelming evidence and what has been alleged is not evidence of anyone or any country's government involvement.  I at least know what evidence is and a report stating this and that is certainly not evidence.  Either you are naïve or truly have no idea what people do in certain positions when they have certain masters, maybe both..

So you presented the Homeland Security report as your be all to end all evidence, which says the machines cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet. Then, when this is pointed out you run off and find another post, of course to suit your agenda, which contradicts what the Homeland Security report advises and tell people that they can be hacked. So if you're on about no votes being compromised why throw this additional report into the fro, what are you trying to prove, that I'm wrong and you're right. 

So which is it, Homeland Security is right or they are wrong and the other report is correct.  Whatever way you go, you really have no idea so who is getting increasingly desperate, not I, all I have to do is point out the total contradictions of what you want to throw up as your overwhelming evidence.   What is it you do not understand? 

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I didn't say Russia as it is irrelevant, all that matters is there was outside intervention.

 

The claim of overwhelming evidence comes from the Departments of Homeland Security and office of the director of national intelligence in a joint statement.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

 

No, there is no overwhelming evidence of hacking the polls, in fact there is no evidence at all, just a raised suspicion which is clearly justified considering the evidence of interfering in the election in other ways.  That is the point of the recounts, to make sure there wasn't any.  What is hard to understand?

 

Not sure what you think is different in meaning between "could have' and "the possibility of" but they were both intended to have the exact same meaning.  But no, the possibility of, or the fact that there could have been, is clearly quite different from implying that there couldn't have been or that there is no possibility of, due to the demographics of online voters matching those of paper voters, there has been a foreign hack to influence the election, this is serious stuff, nothing should be neglected in the investigation, particularly the election result.

 

I also don't think a recount will change the result, but then not every move is about trying to gain power, Stein has no chance remember?  She has stated from the beginning that it is nothing to do with not accepting the result and everything to do with ensuring the system is secure from attack.  Do you not think that might just be a good idea?

 

And it is not Stein and Hillary who think that dirty tricks were used, it is Homeland Security and National Intelligence, got it now?

Well if you're going to offer up a report as your overwhelming evidence, which implicates Russia, then it is relevant, why are you saying it isn't?  It doesn't matter, of course it does, as this is who the HRC camp first alleged was responsible, then conveniently, a short time later, a report is issued in the hope of substantiating those allegations.  Now is this part of your overwhelming evidence:-

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities"

Doesn't this section deal with emails only?  They are confident it was the Russian government; the disclosure of recent emails are consistent with their methods and the theft was designed to interfere with the US election process.  They, the Russians have used similar tactics in other countries and as such we believe that only Russia's senior officials could have authorised these activities. These are nothing but mere words without any evidence presented so how can you articulate that there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing?

The next section of the report containing your overwhelming evidence is as follows:-

"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process."

Doesn't this state that such hacking would be extremely difficult, I'd say it would have to be considering it isn't connected to the internet.  There are also a number of other safeguards in place that it would make the altering actual ballot counts or election results extremely difficult.  So I have to agree with you there is no evidence, yet  nowhere, within the body of the report, is there an available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, so where is your overwhelming evidence.

Nothing you have presented so far would reach first base in a US Court of law and you put it forward in order to sustain your overwhelming evidence?  With your reference to a hack to influence the election are you suggesting this is about the emails because it sure ain't about the polling stations?  Has anyone refuted or denied their authenticity and offered proof when doing so?  Hell, if the system is not connected to the internet,  and all those other safeguards are in place then what are you on about ensuring the system is safe.  No internet, no hack or altering outcomes I'd say.

Not every move is about trying to gain power, not from Stein's side but why does it just happen to be in three Blue states that flipped Red?  Of course it has everything to do with the result, otherwise why put it into play, that's why the democrats jumped on board.  It wasn't just for the fun of it or being transparent or all the other BS they want to spin. She states that it has nothing to do with accepting the result, balderdash, she's just another lying politician.  Yes, I know it won't help her but she is sure going out of her way to help HRC. 

So is this more so called evidence "And it is not Stein and Hillary who think that dirty tricks were used, it is Homeland Security and National Intelligence, got it now?"  The operative word is THINK, which in no way relates to your overwhelming evidence malarkey.  Have you got it because you sure do not have any overwhelming evidence as you often claim? 

1 hour ago, Honthy said:

Most of the Thais I know everything far much better than any falang including of course me. To teach them anything is hard, because first they ought to realize what they do not know. 

 

Don't you know the world revolves around Thailand?  

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I didn't say there was, I said there was overwhelming evidence that there was interference in the campaign, that is a fact.  Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election, the recounts will tell us, unlike your demographics of voters which tell us nothing except giving the vague impression that there may not have been, that is not "evidence" that there wasn't, obviously.  Now tell me, what is that is leading some to not want a recount?

Of course you did not say that but you did say that there was the possibility of them having hacked the online polling stations.  Who are you referring to, have a problem with the word, Russia?  So what is the overwhelming evidence of interference in the campaign? Maybe you should just put up or shut up, if it is so overwhelming as you allege.  And according to the initial post there is only a possibility that they may have hacked the online polls, what no overwhelming evidence here, just the possibility?  Hardly credible if one is hoping it may have occurred.

Also, why change the wording to now read "could have interfered in the election" from "the possibility of them having hacked the online polls." Make up your mind, you can't have it all ways, but when you want to contradict another it is easy deny and to make it a more credible, alter the wording to suit. You have a go at another by stating, "giving the vague expression that there may not have been, that is not evidence that there wasn't."  Sounds like when one says "the possibility of," doesn't it?  

Who cares if a sore loser, like Stein, who needs the money, wants a recount, let there be one. It wont alter the fact that she is a nobody in politics and it will not change the results. Why is it that he is the only one out of those who were involved?  Now whether HRC was behind this or not we will ever know but her campaign sure jumped on board, at a rapid pace and for what purpose?  They just can't accept that they were beaten fair and square and because they used all the dirty tricks in the book they think others are tarred with the same brush.    

2 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

The irony of that is that the Soviet Union had a troubled economy was spending money it didn't have on a drawn out war in Afghanistan and went bankrupt trying to keep up in an arms race with the US. Pretty much the same situation the US would be in in a cold war with China with the exception that the US is in debt to the PRC and USSR didn't owe the US.

 

 

That's exactly why China wouldn't pull the pin on the US of A.  It would be their economy that collapsed not America's.  Why do you have a fixation with China and a cold war.  Can't be cold, don't we have global warming, oh sorry, went off topic a little.  Besides if China instigated a trade war and America retaliated, who would they sell all their junk to?  

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

 

I am liberal.  I must also be unbelievable.  However, you didn't ask me whether I liked or disliked Trump's recent faux pas mentioned in the OP.  As much as I dislike Trump, I actually liked what he did re; Taiwan.  For decades I have been in favor of Taiwan being recognized for the country it is.   Dagnabbit: don't be so quick to put us liberals in a cubby hole that fits your biases.     

Wow Boomer, you have shocked me, are you drifting toward the centre or maybe a little to the right.? Once he gets thing up and running you might find you could even like him, even if it's just a little, it would make a change.  

Leave.

 Now before you jump in to give me a bake I'm only joking. 

15 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

You're stuck in a cold war mentality. At this point as China's wealth increases and the US is having problems, China could just outspend the US and bankrupt it.  Better for the US to work another angle to keep the PRC in check as their power increases.

 

 

He might be stuck in the cold war mentality but at least he's not living in la la land. Do you truly believe that the world banks, the IMF, the Fed and all the other financial institutions would stand by and allow this to happen, it would bring down the entire world's financial system?  And what do you think would happen then.  Here's a hint.  Totally unrealistic wouldn't you say?

20 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

What Trump did on the podium in relation to slandering Clinton would be, by definition, spin.

 

As for the "allegations" as you choose to believe them to be, well, actually well documented facts, he really did apologize for statutory rape, he did so on tape, “So do you think this 14-year-old kid is scarred forever? He might have put the moves on her. It might have given him confidence, actually,”

And he really was friends with a convicted pedo, Epstein, whom Trump referred to as "a terrific guy" and said he "likes girls as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side".  This was of course before Epstein was convicted of child rape but it would imply that Trump was already aware.  In his court care Epstein said under oath that he and Trump were friends, however, curiously when questioned as to whether Trump had ever attended one of his infamous sex parties, he decided to take the 5th.

 

I believe others deserve to know about the person who is about to president, got a problem with people telling the truth?  That is not denigration by the way, as that would imply that it was unfair and it is never unfair to tell the truth.

 

And of course you have to understand that a lot of the talk about Trump is really just giving him a taste of his own medicine, has there ever been such a smear campaign full of denigration, even hinting at murder for Christs sake, of the opposition before Trump took to the stand?  What really do you expect for him now, respect?

 

And I really don't care much between Clinton and Trump, that is the truth, however I do care to tell the truth about Trump, and why not?

 

I have no idea what you are blithering about with the "hiding your true self" nonsense, but how about we stick to the topic?  I know you so want to divert the attention away from your beloved but this really is about him not me.

 

In the end we have to give him a go, but just tell me why you don't want people to tell the truth about him?  Really, what is it that you are afraid of?

 

 

Not biting Shaun, you keep dragging this off topic and making it about yourself, so off you go and play your little games with someone else.  Have a good night.  

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You refer to the scrutinizing of Trump as spin, pretty simple stuff.

 

What is it that you actually fear?  That people will learn the truth about Trump?  That he is a statutory rape apologizing friend of a convicted pedophile, for instance?  Now there is no spin on that, just two cold facts.

 

Speaking of spin, what do you think of Trumps backtracking on persecuting Hillary?  Before the election it was all, "she is a crook" and "she has to go to jail", but after the election it is "Hillary is a great friend of mine" and "she's a very nice woman".

Would it be fair to say that Trump is just a typical spin merchant politician?

 

As for your closing comment, I found it hard to swallow when Sanders lost to Clinton, since then we have had two establishment members of the elite, so in a way I don't care either way, both are bad for the world, Trump perhaps worse, but who knows.

No, spin is spin, just plain and simple BS Shaun, has absolutely nothing to do with your favourite word.  You are very good at being an anonymous poster saying things that you would not if you were out in the real world instead of hiding in the ether, so let's stop slinging it, do you see me denigrating the opposition, no, so why do you find the need to?  Why should I be afraid of anything, it's not me you are besmirching.  

He's been accused of many things, but I don't see any convictions, so at this time, wouldn't you say, that they are pure allegations proffered by those who use the first amendment to hide behind and many who are affected by the tall poppy syndrome?   Unfortunately there is no cure from such suffering.  Maybe the next thing is to accuse him of being a paedophile, I wouldn't put it past some but as far as his friendship with a paedophile, I don't know of this aspect but if it is true then it wouldn't be my choice but then I am not him.

As for backtracking I think he has been magnanimous after the event, a lot of things were said by both sides, let's not forget that.  Maybe he is trying to bring the country together rather than divide it further.  A good thing I'd say or would you rather he prosecute her?  And yes, all politicians are full of it, just look at Romney.

When someone says they don't care, they really do hence you proliferation of posts on the subject.   So you are, in fact, a lefty socialist, now I understand the contents of and the manner in which you try to hide your true self within your posts.   I'll give you one due, Bernie was cheated by the dream girl and her team but really I think you should just take a deep breath and give the guy a go, let's see what he can do, he could not be any worse than the past three.    

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, I posted it so that the relevant part was not out of context, the relevant part being,

"just as is the rest of spin we're flogging about the President-Elect."

The fact being that what is being said about Trump is not spin, it is hardly as if you need to spin anything to make Trump look bad, a quote will do fine!

 

Come on Shaun, you don't get two choices or is it anything to suit your agenda. I would like to know how, out of the little you quoted, you were able to determine that I intimated or actually said that I had a problem with him be scrutinised?   If you say there is no spin, that it's all fact, then maybe you should go and get yourself a seeing eye dog or take off those rose coloured glasses.  Why is the hate so ingrained?  The darling of the educated and elites failed, must be hard to swallow.    

2 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

"Where did I say or even intimate that I have a problem with him being scrutinised? "

 

HERE

 

"gee what will one come up with to discredit him even though we know what we are propagating would be false, just as is the rest of spin we're flogging about the President-Elect."

Now Shaun, HERE you are doing exactly what you complain that others do. So please  DO NOT post part quotes, if it distorts or changes the meaning.  In case you don't understand, it is about Pence with a reference to the President Elect.  Why are you doing this?   We all know Shaun, so you don't have to answer for being caught out.

HERE it is in full

And replaced by Pence, gee what will one come up with to discredit him even though we know what we are propagating would be false, just as is the rest of spin we're flogging about the President-Elect. 

29 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, there are not, anyone who stood can request a recount.

Not quite 100 percent correct.  Maybe you should read this.   https://mic.com/articles/160446/how-does-a-us-election-recount-work-the-deadlines-history-and-rules-for-recounts#.RTjl0eHCw   

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No sooner had he selected his Filipino ambassador did he get the go ahead for the hotel he has been wanting to build but was put off due to planning constraints, now he is talking to Taiwan right before his son flies out to make the deal on the Hotel there.  His son was on a flight recently and when asked about the introduction of Muslim identification he replied, "we, are not going to do that", yes that is right, Trump Jnr said WE.  The children who are going to be running the business so as to avoid Trump being impeached for conflict of interest appear to believe they are involved also in the politics.

 

Anyway, got a problem with your beloved being scrutinized?  And why would that be exactly?

Where did I say or even intimate that I have a problem with him being scrutinised?  See how you make things up.  People can scrutinize him as much as they like, as long as it is fair, factual and not concocted to satisfy certain types or agendas. It has no effect on me whatsoever and if you and anyone else want to do so, then go for it.

Once he is sworn in as POTUS, and does something that is not within keeping of the office, it is factual and not hearsay or innuendo, then I will be one of the first to criticise but neither what I or you have to say will ever have any bearing on his position.  You really should learn to live with it but it is obvious you can't.  And as you say, why would that be exactly?

"No American president has spoken to a Taiwanese leader for decades."

What rule has he broken, he is only president-elect at this time, inauguration is on the 20th January 2017? That's when he officially takes office as POTUS, let them whinge then.  It's about time China, despite being a major trading partner, pulled it's head in, they're not the be all, end all, despite them thinking so. 

2 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The difference is that he already has a 2nd  passport. Not the same as applying for a replacement passport.

If I recall correctly Australia puts a stamp in the new passport stating it is a replacement for another passport with info about the old one.

 

My mistake, read but didn't absorb.  No stamp or anything in my passport outlining what you described, maybe that's why they allowed me to keep the damaged one to show immigration.

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

They would not transfer the stamps the new passport you have now without a letter from the embassy confirming your damaged passport and requesting immigration transfer your stamp to the other passport.

Hi Joe.

Don't know if it's different for those of us from down under but I had the same happen.  Went to the Embassy, filled out a form and they cancelled my damaged passport but allowed me to keep it.  Within two weeks I received, in the mail, my new passport, and took the two passports to immigration, who transferred everything over without any problem.  I did not receive any letter nor was one requested.  This was carried out at Udon Thani Immigration.

17 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

This is Trump warming them up to his business proposal and also an early conflict of interest likely to see him impeached and replaced by Pence before he even gets started.

http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php

You wish.  It's gone from he'll never win, he's a womaniser, a sexual predator, a bigot and racist, a divider. Bloody hell, none of that worked,  he's won so let's look for another way.  OMG, HRC won the popular vote, nope, that won't work but let's keep banging on with that and see what'll will happen, nope not good enough.  Gee what else can we come up with, I know, let the press keep going at him, oh no, he's now calling them dishonest and the voters believe him. We just can't win, we even lost the election.

Come on, there must be something else.  Hey, let's recount the votes of the blue states he flipped, bring in the Russian conspiracy, no, not good enough how about hoping for a conflict of interest and impeachment.  Yeah, let's run with that but if it doesn't work, then we can look for something else to try and get rid of him before he has started.

Wow, look at this, it's a certainty, he's associating with the Philippine's President, got a phone call from the Taiwan prime minister and poor little China has run off complaining to the current POTUS.  Heck, he doesn't seem to care either but don't worry, it might work,  no wait, the voters think it is great that he is looking to bring other nations into the fore.  Bloody hell why can't we find something to being him unstuck before he's started? 

Obviously some haven't been keeping up to date, he's already started and isn't even inaugurated yet.  And replaced by Pence, gee what will one come up with to discredit him even though we know what we are propagating would be false, just as is the rest of spin we're flogging about the President-Elect.  No wonder the country is divided. 

17 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Trump speaks directly to Taiwan President!  Is this a storm in a China teacup?  Is this Trump being naïve or deliberately provoking the Chinese?  Is this just tomorrows chip paper?

It may not be any of the above.  Might just be his way of telling China to pull it's head in, that they do not control him and he will speak to whom he likes.  Actually, China running off to complain to the White House sounds like little Johnny with his nose out of joint. They should realise that in 48 days they will be dealing with a different administration.  They too should get over it.

Does anyone in the legal fraternity know the definition of justice or what the words mockery and travesty mean?  I doubt it or maybe it's the way that the English language is understood that those meanings are lost in the translation. 

Now I'm only looking for the right excuse that they could come up with because what they have offered so far is just a slap in the face of justice.  No wonder there is so much disrespect shown towards the legal profession when they dish out such tripe.  

3 hours ago, meatboy said:

what an absolute plonker,met this lovely woman on the road,a streetwalker name noi? ioy? joy? or boy? sorry i cant remember the name,she was quite freindly when i said i have plenty of money,so why dont you come back to my place for a cup of tea.

OH NO i dont want any money cause i like you,so handsom.

oh that was great now try and get some sleep and we will do it again.

you just cant make it up.

You just did and a pretty good job at that.

She's only just realised what side her bread is buttered on.  It does take some a little while.

11 hours ago, possum1931 said:

I am not trying to defend anything, of course its a disgusting act, but there are very bad people in every country, I am not a Thai apologist, I just call things as I see them, IMO, Thailand is a very safe country to live in except on the roads, and even if you are driving or riding, and use real common sense, you can still stay reasonably safe, I'm sorry if I'm going off topic, but I will say what I think about Thai people whether it is positive of negative, I was called a Thai basher only this week by another poster and now I'm a Thai apologist.

Don't play their stupid games, you can't win on here.  I was also wondering how people determined you were either or from what you wrote.  Too many on here fishing.  

2 hours ago, amykat said:

 

Yes, but this was an out of court settlement that the court took as a measure of good faith?  And I think usually one would pay more than just a victim's actual damages in a case like this to show some remorse. 

 

As well, another poster had criticized the father for taking that money and referred to it as "blood money" so I was correcting that perception.

Not a measure of good faith.  The Thai courts attempt to have these types of matters settled before trial, and it happens within the court itself or in a separate mediation process that is overseen by a government official appointed by the court. They adopt this approach in an attempt to lessen the time in court and if accepted by both parties in the latter process, then it is settled, as you indicate, out of court.

I know this as I am involved in a matter that has been going through this exact process.  And believe me those who are at fault will do everything in their power to lessen the amount of compensation paid.  I don't agree that it's blood money,  whilst the amount of compensation paid in Thailand is well below that of what one would expect through a western court.  Some do show remorse but a lot are bloody good actors.

Now if the matter goes to trial and the young person won, then the defendant can appeal, this can take anything up to two years.  If the young person is successful on the appeal then the matter can  see a second appeal, this time to the Supreme Court and taking up to five years.  I have no idea as to the extent of the young person's injuries but given he is Thai he will be covered under the government medical scheme.

The money paid, I'd say would go to the parents to help then should the young person require further medical treatment.  Still not enough and the guy should have had a couple of years holiday, regardless of his alleged good character.  A coward of the highest order, I wonder how he would go if he took on someone who was capable of  giving some back?  

1 hour ago, thai3 said:

 

 

 which bits are real and which fake?

 

Does it really matter?