johnnybangkok

Because in a world of negativity and antagonism shouldn't we also highlight some of the positives? Maybe it’s not BBC worthy but certainly AN worthy.

You?

And the first 4 posters in this thread have a negative view on what is obviously a nice story. What is wrong with you that you can’t see a nice story for what it is?

And brains shut down.

And was any of that actually agreed IN WRITING by NATO? Politicians can talk ‘till the cows come home with THEIR views on what should/shouldn't happen but unless its agreed in a formal, WRITTEN capacity its the political equivalent of pi$$ing in the wind.

And the other 4 points he brought up? Or are we just going to conveniently ignore those. Let’s start with the “agreement” NATO is supposed to have made to not expand east. You have proof of this?

And since reading isn’t your strong point I suppose subtitles are out.

Nothing like a little Islamaphobia to get the more rabid on this forum throthing at the mouth and talking of a 'Muslim takeover'. From the article 'According to the 2021 census, around 7 percent of Buckinghamshire's population identifies as Muslim — slightly above the national average'. Now I know that maths isn't a strong point for most of you lot but that still leaves 93% that aren't muslim - a number I hope you agree would be sufficient to stop this 'muslim takeover' you all keep cr@pping on about.

And maybe stop being a Putin apologist. A SOVEREIGN country has the right to do whatever they think is best for their country and if Ukraine thought that was with NATO then that's their perogative (and you can perhaps now understand why they would be interested) but you miss a very vital part of this which is NATO hasn't allowed Ukrainian membership for exactly the reasons you give i.e. trying to not provoke Russia. Also, NATO has never agreed to not expand east (perhaps you would care to provide details of the written agreement for this?) and indeed only did so when countries asked them. The majority of this was the late 90's and early 2000's with the only recent ones being Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020. Both Finland and Sweden recently joined as a direct consequence of Russias invasion of Ukraine. If NATO expansion east was the provocation (with nothing in writing and even Russia saying it was an 'oral agreement') then why not do it in 2004 when Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all joined NATO? Or in 2009 when Albania and Croatia joined? This idea that Putin was somehow 'provoked' into invading Ukraine doesn't pass muster as even if they were allowed to joined NATO (which again I'll emphasise they weren't) how does that then mean Russia is under threat? No NATO country has ever promised harm to Russia but in the meantime Russia has invaded Georgia and annexed Crimea and your ascertion of 'the murder of Russian people in Donbass comes with absolutely no evidence other than what Putin conveniently came up with. Putin apologists like yourself all come up with the same nonsense that somehow he was 'provoked' when all evidence is to the contrary. There was no agreement with NATO about expanding east, there was no genocide in Donbass and although there was plenty of talk about Ukraine joining NATO, it never happened and was in fact very unlikely to happen. But with his latest and most egresos agression expect even more countries to seek the security of the NATO umbrella to include Ukraine.................or at least what remains of it.

And you know this how? You conveniently forget that Russia promised Ukraine's its territorial integrity and sovereignty and pledged to respect its borders by signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 in exchange for Ukraines agreement to denuclearize its territory. That as we know now, was bull$hit so how can you know 'Russians have no intention to go into Poland?'

Well what is it then? Your original post said 'they were emboldened by the utter lack of consequences for the looters and arsonists. Jan6 would have looked entirely different if BLM'ers went to jail..' now you are accepting that 70 went to prison. You can't have it both ways - there was either no consequences or there was. Which one are you choosing? NB - And none of these BLM rioters who were jailed were subsequently pardoned by presidential order - unlike the Jan 6th rioters.

Wrong. As usual. https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-george-floyd-race-and-ethnicity-capitol-siege-racial-injustice-07da2a81193ce26de266881230340f1d 'The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.'

And why do you care?

Pure imagination to fuel your echo chamber.

And we certainly see through yours. Despite all your protestations, the UK still remains a tolerant place where a person is judged on their character and ability with the VAST majority of Brits thankfully not agreeing to your obviously biased agenda. The idea that an ethnic minority is hired over a white candidate is purely in your right-wing, racist fantasy imagination to fuel some sort of dystopian nightmare that simply doesn't exist. People are idiots irespective of the colour of their skin - something you aptly demonstarte every time you post.

I was wondering how long it would take you to appear with your 'whites are getting victimised' nonsense. From the article - 'The force has stated publicly that early access does not provide an advantage in the application process and is only meant to attract a wider pool of candidates.'

Absolute nonsense. It literally says in the article 'The force, which serves a region where nearly a quarter of the population is from an ethnic minority background, argues that the approach is necessary to better reflect the communities it serves.' Now I'm sure arithmatic isn't your strong point but that leaves 75% that isn't from an ethnic background and nowhere near 'mainly'.

Get a room

Thank you for taking the time to write all of this and I'm sorry it's being completely ignored by Yagoda even though he's the one shouting for solutions. It's perhaps not surprising though that one of the more rabid Trump supporters is shouting for 'alternatives plans to Trump' in a 'do you think you could do better' kind of manner, but when presented with said plans, chooses to completely ignore them. It's like a 10 year old child sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly shouting 'la, la, la, la, la - can't hear you!' I (and many others I'm sure) however appreciate your well thought out and eloquent response.

Ok. One last time for those that are REALLY not getting this despite having it pointed out to them numerous times - it's not about tariffs - it's about trade deficits. Even if Thailand dropped all tariffs on US products tomorrow, that doesn't mean the trade deficit is going to improve. Thai's are not going to simply buy more US products and certainly not to the tune of $45B (the current trade deficit). You need to have a market that wants the product in the first place (big problem) and the product (even without tariffs) still has to be competitively priced against other similar manufacturers who are closer (China for example) and have lower logistic costs. So where are you going to spend all this money (and don't keep saying cars - you need to but a load of cars to make up $45B.) Well Thailand could buy more natural gas from America, but even if Thailand stopped buying all of it's natural gas from other markets and bought it all from America (highly unlikely), this would still only be $11B. That's still $34B to go. You could buy a few fighter jets at between $50- 100M a go, but again, that's an awful lot of fighter jets (over 400). Maybe a few more tractors. Maybe you can buy more copper, Pharmaceutical products, Iron and/or steel or even, electronic equipment (a full list can be seen here - https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports/thailand) but it's going to be nigh on impossible for Thailand to make a significant enough dent to 'impress' Trump by buying more American stuff. Yes they may start with removing existing tariffs but that's not what Trump is all about - he wants the US trade deficit down and that can ONLY be done by buying more American products or selling less of your own. So stop with your armchair economics if you think it's because Californian wine has 200% tariffs on it or a Cherokee Jeep is more expensive that a Toyota Landcruiser - it has very little to do with this and everything to do with either buying more American stuff or relocating factories to the US (another unrealistic desire of Trump.) P.S. I also find it horrendous that so many people on this forum are cheering for this idiotic move. Do you even live in Thailand? Do you not understand how bad this will be for many Thai companies and therefore the Thai people?

Ok so I’ll stand slightly corrected in that Raptors are made in Thailand but at over double the price of Rangers, they are not nearly as popular and are predominantly for export. Mustangs are not made in Thailand and at 5.5m for a Mach 1 they are very much a luxury car on par with a Mercedes V class. They are also not left hand drive. Obviously this might sell more if they weren’t subject to Thai tariffs, but the biggest bar to market is they are right hand drive. Change that and they might stand a chance. Not really sure what you are arguing about here. Granted there is no major Thai brand of car but they are Thai cars in as much as they are produced here. As was stated before, no one is saying Thai tariffs aren’t unreasonable but to say that if dropped everyone will rush out and buy a Mustang doesn’t take in the idea of demand, other better priced competitors but most importantly, they are not left hand drive. Most importantly though (and as Ive stated before) Trump is trying to close the trade deficit and you’ll need to sell a helluva lot of mustangs to make a dent in $45b, regardless of dropping tariffs. And even if Thailand dropped all of its tariffs on American goods, there’s no guarantee that Trump will reciprocate (ask Vietnam) or that it will move the trade deficit any closer.

It's one of his favourit subjects - the victimisation of white people in the UK. The report CLEARLY states the true reason behind many of the UK's problems as 'primary drivers of racial disparities are class and geography rather than race itself.' I'm originally from Glasgow and I can assure you 'teenage knife crime and the rape gang' are VERY white there. It's nothing to do with colour and everything to do with a lack of social mobility and simple geography - it's white in Glasgow, it's brown in Leeds and it's black in London. But this doesn't feed into ol' Jonny's agenda and is conveniently ignored.

Another poster who jumps on a thread without having read the previous pages. As both myself and Patong (above) have mentioned numerous times, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubushi, Isuzu, Mazda, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Tata and Diahatsu all have manufacturing plants in Thailand which is why you see so many Ford Rangers/Everests on the road here and so many of the other brands I've mentioned. If Ford wanted to sell its Mustangs, Raptors etc then they would either have to re-tool their plants in America to manufacture right hand drive (no easy task) or more likely, set up production here in Thailand in their already existing plant in Rayong. So why haven't they then? Well the answer is quite simple - there's obviously no demand. Car manufacturers are in the business of making money so if they thought they could sell Mustangs or Raptors then they would do exactly that. They don't so you have to conclude that far more knowledgeable people than yourself have made the decision they don't think they will sell. Tesla - there are plenty of Tesla's here in Thailand (you should have a look at what all the mummy's at my kids school drive) BUT they are manufactured in China and because they are EV's, they benefit from a FTA (free trade agreement) and a much reduced tax burden. (https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand/general/40036119). However since BYD kicked off operations at its Thai plant last July, with an annual production capacity of 150,000 vehicles and since everyone now thinks Musk has gone mad with his political interference around the world, expect these Tesla sales to drop. Dramatically.

Perhaps you can tell Vietnam who did exactly this but is still facing 46% tariffs - " Vietnam, which deployed a Trump administration charm offensive by slashing levies on imports and vowing to buy more big-ticket US products to protect its trade-reliant economy, failed to avert one of the largest tariffs announced by the White House. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/vietnam-charm-offensive-fails-to-stave-off-46-trump-tariff