Si Thea01

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Did you read his links?  Definitely worth a read.

I will when I have time seeing he said he didn't know why he bothered yet he did.  I will at least show him some courtesy, something he finds difficult to show me with his crude remarks.

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Can you tell me what was actually done  in the attempt to influence the elections? "

 

Force feeding knowledge to the willfully ignorant. Why do I bother?

 

http://fortune.com/2017/10/04/trump-russia-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin-swing/

http://www.businessinsider.com/fake-news-and-propaganda-targeted-swing-states-before-election-2017-9

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/09/russia-targeted-swing-states-with-trump-friendly-fake-news/

Thanks for the civil response.  Does it make you feel good when you get  personal?  But you did bother didn't you?

12 hours ago, halloween said:

A nice little lightweight industry release, without any of the negatives and not a single informed question. Such as, why doesn't he include hydro-generation in the renewables industry? Such as, where does the energy for grid control come from, as the uncontrolled inputs fluctuate, and the sun goes down? Such as, why do the countries with the most renewable energy have the highest electricity cost?

Spot on.  Just look at Australia, now changing their minds very quickly about renewables and subsidies.  South Australia, who has 50 percent renewables, now has the highest electricity prices in the world. What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?  This story is so full of rubbish.

10 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

It damn well should be!

 

It is an evil and cruel thing to do to a person, and should be banned in every civilized country on the planet.

Is in Australia and gaol time if convicted.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

It has been proven the Russian's attempted to influence the elections.  Whether the Russian attempts were enough to change the outcome of the elections can not be proven, though it is widely suspected. 

Can you tell me what was actually done  in the attempt to influence the elections?  According to government sources, in a number of states, those who looks after the computers etc., don't know their names, that there was never any actual hacking or votes changed. Therefore, who or what was influenced?  So, with the different responses I am really confused.

Some say the elections were influenced, you say it was proven that an attempt was made to influence, so please help me understand what was done; was there an actual influence of the elections, or was only an attempt made?

An attempt is suggesting that nothing occurred because it does not equate to success whilst something being suspected also means nothing, especially when you're saying that the latter cannot be proven. Evidence is needed to prove something and here we are almost one year on and nothing yet.   

25 minutes ago, Winky Wilson said:

Those feet look tan, Must be Isaan.

Could be Indian fire walkers too.  I hope you're not foot profiling. 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Currently he would be replaced by VP Pence.  I don't like Pence or his politics, but I trust him with the nuclear codes much more than Trump.

Thank but still a lot of dislikes I see.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Your only source of news is CNN?  You do realize you can access numerous reputable news sites on the internet, don't you?

 

Also, panel discussions are video editorials, and often incoherent editorials.  I don't pay attention to them, I pay attention to Trump's clueless words and actions and his lack of accomplishments.  In view of what he wants to accomplish, I'm relieved that he has accomplished so little. 

 

I also pay attention to evidence of an concerted, well organized effort by Russia to influence the election.  If this is not investigated and corrective action taken, Russia will be choosing our "elected" officials in the future.

Thank you for your informative response.  I thought the ways things were progressing in the USA, it had already been proven that the Russians had interfered in such a way during the last election it gave rise to Mr Trump being elected. I must have misunderstood.

15 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

Think you must have  met the wrong ones or perhaps you are a “wam bam thank you mam”

I think you are right. 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

If you're in BKK, pop on down to Q Sirikit Park (AKA Benjakiti) or Lumpini Park around dusk when the joggers come out.  Puts a smile on my face whenever I do.

 

Thanks for the location, I'm out in a gated mu ban near Phuttamonthon, some very wealthy families with very nubile daughters live here.  The short, short ones are those who ride the bikes and believe me they know it, never ride from behind, always toward me.  Oh by the way, they're all above the legal age, just in case anyone thinks I'm a dirty old man. Well maybe a little.  Even my German shepherd, who I am walking at the time reacts,  He is a fully trained body guard dog and probably thinks they are causing me harm, or at least my heart.  

34 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

I don't speak to Thais, problem solved!

You are a funny man. But then you probably don't have to, maybe you're one of those hansum ones that we hear so much about. Words are not needed when this famous word is uttered, the foreigner becomes tongue tired, stunned or both.     

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Gotta be honest, a lot of times the Thai ladies I work with will tell me they don't have a clue what some foreign guy said, even if he thought his Thai was fluent.  They just nod, smile, act as if they understand and leave the conversation confused. 

 

I always put it down to a face thing, but you won't get that kind of consideration from a western woman.  They'll tell you to get that peanut butter out of your mouth and speak clearly...

 

You are quite correct and yes, on occasions, I have stuffed up.  I have also heard many foreigners who think they are conversing in Thai and every time I hear them I shudder.  But as you said, most Thais, just nod and smile, but the ones that I mix with, especially when I first started learning, would, when I had trouble, be polite and tell me the correct way to pronounce the word, including the tone.  I have always been thankful that they took time to help this foreigner.

One thing I've never had to  worry about is some female from the west sprouting the peanut butter bit as my pronunciation has always been clear.  Also, I will never miss the look on some Thais faces, especially when they find out that I speak their language,  in particular, just after they have bagged us foreigners. It is gold. 

58 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Maybe. You done well. I don't see many Thais out walking when I'm out and about. It's normally a quick dash round with an umbrella and back in the shade.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Where I am there are quite a few out exercising everyday, walking, running, riding a bike, which causes my heart to flutter, especially when they are in their 20's and wear those short, shorts. 

I miss not having to explain myself during a conversation, if one is lucky to get one.  Was speaking with a Thai lady today about the rain and I stated, "That I was glad it had stopped."  her response, ""You want me to stop talking?" and yes, we were speaking Thai.  No wonder it's called amazing Thailand.

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I do frequently see that prior to panel discussions regarding a political topic, the media moderator does play relevant direct comments from people such as Trump whether it be in the form of tweets, emails, video or 3rd party witnesses. Whether the panel members choose to reflect on such "shorts" is up to them.

I was speaking directly about the way the panel members react, not what the anchor chooses to discuss or short for specific purposes.  Of course I've seen them too, I am not blind but when they do it is used to fire up the panel and of course what they choose to reflect upon is up to them but you know as well as I do how they comment, don't you? I'd say you would even know on what side of the fence they sit. 

Now, can you explain why CNN choose to have panel members 6 to 1, 6 to 0, 4 to 0, 4 to 1,  2 to 0  against whenever they discuss anything Trump and his administration?  Sometimes, they actually allow pro Trump commentators on but recently have sacked two, one was Geoffrey, cannot think of his surname and a female. forget her name as well but seeing you appear to be an avid CNN watcher, you would know who I am referring to.

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Unless you can show an example. I'll disagree that 90% of the reports about Trump are misleading. 

Craig, please.  Unless I do this, unless I do that.  I thought this was an open forum where one was free to discuss without someone telling another what he must or must not do to prove their point.  As I said, you have the right to agree or disagree, and yet you tell me I must spend my time just to satisfy your expectations. 

Doesn't work that way mate.  You have your opinion, I posted facts, again, I am truly sorry that it does not meet your expectations or you cannot accept that certain things may occur that you are not aware of.  But as I said, with your knowledge I doubt by 99 percent that you are not aware of what I stated.

Just now, riclag said:

 At times it's frustrating  to post links to talking point's because the opposing person will only dispute and reject it.I can't tell you how many times my sources were tagged as "fringe".

That's exactly why I have no intention of wasting hours looking for something that I know many on here would already be aware of.

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Trump's agenda?  He expected Congress to deliver a health care bill to him that would live up to all his impossible campaign promises, which he could then sign and take credit for.  He expected the same thing on infrastructure and tax reform.  He expected bluster to cause other nations to submit to his trade and defense demands. 

 

None of this happened, and now he has nothing.  His only hope for any accomplishment is working with Congress, but his lack of detailed plans, ignorance about how government and the economy works, and all the bridges he as burned make working with Congress a challenge.

 

Finally, as I've been stating since long before the election, he is absolutely unfit to be the man who can launch nuclear weapons.  Many people are still in denial about this, but if Trump gives the order to launch, nuclear missiles will be in the air in minutes.  Nothing short of a high-level military mutiny will prevent the order from being executed, and nothing can stop these missiles once launched from delivering their payloads. 

 

So yes, his blatantly obvious and appalling incompetence for the position he is in does concern me.  The sooner Congress acknowledges that he is not only incompetent but a dangerous threat and use this to impeach him, the better off the country and the world will be.

I think I can see where you stand but as an outsider, if he were to be impeached and gotten rid of, who would you have replace him?  And would you be happy with that choice? Just asking as there are so many calls to impeach the man and get rid of him but no one has said who they would have replace him and that they would be satisfied with that choice.  Of course this is all hypothetical but I'd bet there would be just as many grumblers.

Just now, craigt3365 said:

You'll have to post an example of where they cut words out to make him look bad. Sometimes, they do just show a short section of a speech. That's normal and done all the time. But to purposefully do it to change the meaning? Not with the bigger media outlets.

 

Please show an example. Please.

Not getting into an argument but I have to disagree with the short sections, if I was referring to those, I would have said so. I am talking about panel discussions and they don't short them, believe me.  Now how, given the numerous panels and talks they've had in the past two years, do you expect me to locate specifics?  And please Craig, I do not have to post anything, it is not a requirement for one's contribution.

Not being rude but can either accept what I say or dismiss it, it's up to you, as I have no intention of searching for hours in order to sustain what I've stated.  If you are as knowledgeable as your posts suggest than you would know very well what I have stated is true, not made up, gets me nowhere to fabricate anything. 

27 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You should read up on his comments in Puerto Rico. Trump brings this upon himself. Don't blame the media. Blame Trump. read this.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/01/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico/index.html

 

I will.  Unfortunately, I have to blame a certain media outlet, and it is because of what I see and hear.  The others, as I said, I can't comment on because I have not read or heard any of their reporting.  I don't know if you watch them, CNN, but I do and I have heard some of Mr Trump's speeches and IMO they have taken what he said completely out of context and at some stages, omitted words, added words or twisted the whole thing around so that it puts him in a bad light.  I will be fair, it does not happen all the time but I would say about 90 percent of it.

Sometimes they are generous and have a couple of pro-Trump contributors, but when they trip up the anchors or some of the others and show that what they have said is not quite true, they have either cut them off in the middle, saying they have to go to a break or gone to the extent of dismissing a couple of pro Trump contributors.   I have never seen this happen to those who oppose Mr. Trump. Hardly a fair and open discussion and that is why I am getting sick and tired of the lopsidedness.  Many say he deserves this and that but I was always taught, not matter what, be fair and hear each argument as it is presented. Not to be a sheep when it comes to putting ones opinion forward.

21 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Trump is the divider in chief. Chaos is his style. He creates chaos. He gets what he deserves.

 

Are you aware of his comments in Puerto Rico? Absolutely horrible.

 

As for Vegas, he's getting praise for his speech there. The news does report things quite accurately. Much to the dismay of his followers.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/trump-las-vegas-puerto-rico/index.html

No, didn't hear that so can't really comment.  The only reason I brought up the lack of empathy bit was because CNN had to bring in their usual panel who glorify in giving it to him. You can see the glee in the face as they try to outdo each other.   If they could get away with patting each other on the back or giving each other a standing ovation, I think they would.

Some may be reporting accurately but unfortunately, I only get one source, and they lever it 5 to 1 against on most occasions or when they are running short they get it 4 to 0 or 2 to 0 against.  At least on here those who have opposing opinions can get a say, even if they are howled down by a few.  So not totally biased.  As for him being a divider, he may  be, he may not be, only time will tell.  IMO.    

30 minutes ago, garbolino said:

THOUGHT he had SPIES checking on her whereabouts....or have HIS spies defected???

I'd say they probably have given the good life they would have seen in Dubai and England.  

1 minute ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Interesting to note that after over a year of practically 24/7 coverage of so called "Russia-gate" on CNN it seems they have finally called off the hounds. Lost the scent, or there never was any scent to begin with? Has ever such a demonic slander operation been carried out on a POTUS in the history of the United States?

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems would be better served examining their campaign, and trying to learn from mistakes made. There will be another election in a few years - not sure whether 4 years of this Russia gibberish will win it for them.

I thought this also but over the last 3 days they're at it again.  Really getting sick and tired of it. Their latest is his attendance in Las Vegas, which I thought was appropriate, he was criticised for not showing enough empathy.  These people want to discredit him at every turn.  No wonder America, as many say, is divided.  This is just an observation from an outsider.

On 10/5/2017 at 3:52 PM, colinneil said:

Every time this man opens his mouth, he looks more stupid than he did before.

Shes gone you silly twerp, get over it, its what your crowd wanted anyway.

Just take a look at him, what does it tell you.?  Is the chap behind using the old hand up the back trick, he's probably a ventriloquist as well?  He has to be given the ridiculous question asked.  If it was me and I did a flit then he would get the bird and just say nothing.  It is hard to understand how this man holds the position he does.

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The issue of sending government-based emails goes beyond whether they're classified or not as confidential or higher security level, whether they were sent to people who had classified clearance or whether they could be hacked. Quite simply all government email communications must be sent through secured government internet systems.

According to former FBI Director Comey, an unclassified system was no place for government communications. Kushner et al clearly used unsecured, unclassified email systems for government communications. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

 

 

Thanks for that.  I must have read it wrong, I thought he used a government system for private emails but it was his private system that he used for government business, which is what HRC allegedly did, correct?