johnnybangkok

One more time for the hard of comprehending - I and others posters here are not 'literally trying to change the meaning of something'. I know what the meaning is and the context it was used, but why use it when it's then followed by 'country' as in 'It's going to be a bloodbath for the country'. Problems in the car industry are NOT problems for the country - they are specific to the industry. Trump makes all these problems for himself with his 'freewheeling' style and often gets words and phrases mixed up and/or up for interpretation. This is NOT a good thing for a future POTUS as words have meaning and being precise in what is said is super important. We shouldn't all have to find alternative meanings or different interpretations to everything that comes out of his mouth. HE should be able to articulate his point much better than this. But yeah, blame all of us for pointing this out rather than the person who actually delivers the words.

My original post CLEARLY stated that I understood he was talking about the automotive industry but my point is using the word 'bloodbath' is just stupid, clumsy and unneccessarily incendiary. If you are going to say 'Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's gonna be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it.", then people are going to immediately think he is talking about bloodbath in the context of - Bloodbath : (NOUN) indiscriminate slaughter; a massacre. Yes there is an alternative meaning for it, sometimes used when refering to financial disasters and the likes but if that's what he really meant then why not just say 'It's going to be a bloodbath for the car industry', why even bring 'country' into it? The mental gynastics you guys are trying to use to (yet again) excuse what Trump says happens all the time. You did it when in the run-up to January 6th he said 'Be there, will be wild!” and '“WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!” and on the actual day itself ''If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' and that's not even getting to the times before and when he was POTUS. Words matter and if you are trying to be the next POTUS you should be choosing them far more carefully than this.

Border security seems to be a big thing for you (or at least it's what you're being told is important to you), so EXACTLY what don't you like about the Dems bill that is currently being blocked by the GOP? Now we know you have been fed some propaganda about 'allowing' 5,000 in (it doesn't by the way - that's just a number set for automatic lockdown) but what about all the other proposals? Just on the off chance you don't actually know what the bill includes, let me tell you the highlights:- Detention - Immigration and Customs Enforcement would get almost $8 billion in emergency funding, rivalling the agency’s regular annual budget of about $9 billion. The emergency funding would include more than $3 billion for increased detention capacity. Asylum - The plan would set a goal of speeding up the review of asylum claims, striving to let no cases last more than six months — often by allowing asylum officers to close out a claim rather than going through immigration courts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would get nearly $4 billion to help shoulder that new workload, including for hiring more than 4,300 asylum officers. Ports of entry - DHS would still consider asylum requests from people crossing at legal ports of entry during those periods of “border shutdown” — just not in between those ports. Officials would have to process at least 1,400 asylum requests per day under those terms. Local support - $1.4 billion would be disbursed to help states and local governments handle the influx of immigrants. Border wall - The bill would force the Biden administration to use money already laid out for border barriers on the kind of steel fencing that Trump boasted during his tenure. Work permits - Immigrants who apply for asylum could be eligible to work in the U.S. while they wait. Border Patrol - Customs and Border Protection would get nearly $7 billion in emergency funding, a massive infusion above its current yearly budget of about $21 billion. That extra funding would include $723 million towards the hiring of Border Patrol agents and overtime pay. Detention and that border ‘shutdown’: What's really in Biden's bipartisan immigration deal - POLITICO It certainly looks like some good, positive steps to not only stem the flow but also to process immigrants faster and more efficiently. We understand why the GOP wants to block this but EXACTLY what do you personally have against any of the policies proposed?

Aren't you and the rest of the Trump fans just exhausted having to try and defend your man day in, day out? Although your quote is absolutely correct and is in reference to the car industry, don't you think it's just stupidly clumsy to say 'Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's gonna be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it.", Bloodbath : (NOUN) indiscriminate slaughter; a massacre Words matter when it is coming from possibly the next POTUS and 'bloodbath' has some serious connotations especially after what happened on January 6th. It is this type of continuing incendiary language that has people so worried because we have seen how some of his supporters take his words in a VERY literal fashion and are prone to violence when given what they believe is justification. Trump knows this but still refuses to tone it down and in the run up to the election, I can only see this getting worse with even more incendiary language being used. If he doesn't win, then January 6th will seem like a picnic compared to what could happen.

'Guns don't kill people .................................... yeah, but they certainly help.

To be fair, the horse is a bit of a slut.

Police interviewed the horse and first thing they said was 'why the long face?"

What a particularly weird rant. So because of ' politically imposed LGBTQ' the 'whole West' is now going to start fiddling with horses? That's some leap of logoc right there. And by the way, I don't know of any western country where it illegal to say there are only two genders and the only 'LGBTQ+++++ insanity' is from predominately the GOP in America and far-right groups elsewhere who are desperately using the topic for political gain. Something that seems to be working on you.

You'd have to tie a plank to your backside just in case you fell in.

Beer was invented so fat birds could get laid.

What part of commercial driving don't you understand? All the scenarios you mentioned are fine....unless you charge your step-son, wife or daughter which I assume you aren't going to do.

For those going on about the 'assault' on foreigners working in Thailand, here is a list of prohibitive jobs What kind of Jobs can foreigners do in Thailand? in 2023 (belaws.com) As you will see from the list, there are very few jobs that would appeal to most westerners in the first place so the list would rarely come into effect. Where this women fell foul was 'Driving motor vehicles for commercial purposes' however since it seems she does have a WP for her 'proper' job, I cannot see how this will go any further than a slap on the wrist/small fine and a reminder this is a prohibited profession. And before everyone starts bemoaning Thailand for it's stance on this, try and remember how difficult it is for a foreigner to work in your own home country. Thailand is just doing what the vast majority of countries do and tries to protect it's local work force. There may be the odd unreasonable case like this one (which I expect will come to nothing), but in the other examples (Brit being a tour guide and an unlicensed nursery with foreigners working with no WP), I cannot see an issue with them at all, especially working without a valid WP.

Anyway, it's been mostly fun 'debating' with you boys (apart from Trouble&Grumpy - you're just rude) but I need to get on. Until next time.

I'm not the one asking for white privilege to be explained

It was my post you replied to making it my business.🙄

Or you could just say 'intelligent'.

I am not saying it's 'characterized by racial inequality and injustice' as it is a nuanced society that has developed massively since slavery, lynching and segregation but there's no denying it did have those things and to this day still has inherent racism both obvious and subliminal. And giving extreme examples like comparing a $12 dollar an hour forklift driver to Oprah and Obama just shows me how black and white (excuse the pun) you seem to see highly complex situations which in turn is indicative of why you like 'straight talking, no nonsense Trump' for 'telling it as it is'. Your view is myopic and like Trump, generalizes vast swathes of the population with a very clear dog whistle to white supremacists. I've said it before and I'll say it again; not all Trump supporters are racist but all racists are Trump supporters. And you trying to paint white privilege as non-existent by giving inane examples of literally opposite sides of the social spectrum tells me everything about how simplistic you view these matters and why Trump appeals to people like yourself.

Yellowtail - I see reading isn't one of your strong points

Because that's the important part of course. How Kamala was, not how great Biden was.

That is so not what it means. It's little wonder you guys get so confused about matters. You could have Googles this yourself but here you go - 'White privilege is the inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice'. Neither Oprah nor President Obama may have been 'oppressed' but that doesn't mean that an awful lot of black people in America weren't and still are.

I'm not here for your education. If you don't know what white privilege is then I suggest you Google it. And no, I'm not suggesting only white people are racist. Stop with the gaslighting.

Other than what I've already suggested, no.

It's that all you have? Insults like a scorned 12 year in a playground? Bring a logical, fact based argument and then we'll listen to you. Until then I'd appreciate it if you were more civil.

I didn't disprove anything . A GOP led enquiry did though.

Trump is both. And don't start with Biden being corrupt again. We have disproved this to you many, many times.