johnnybangkok

Yeah let’s just give up. Or we could close tax loopholes In VERY obvious places where the obscenely rich hide their wealth. Once repatriated we could tax at 80% to teach them not to <deleted>$k with the tax man (who inmost countries have more power than any Police, FBI or intelligence service). You can still tax them at at least 60% IF they fess up. 20% difference is huge to them. I guarantee if given the choice of 60% tax legit ANYWHERE in the world, they’ll pay. If all western economies joined together it could happen. If my mother had wheels she’d be a bike.

You are making this sound like there isn't a precedent to base this argument against when the reality is Thailand has done this before. In 2013 there was a 40% increase in the minimum wage from the Pheu Thai party with the usual predictions of economic collapse, runaway inflation, massive lay-offs, moving to Vietnam/Cambodia and business closures etc. The reality however was very different with none of the mass lay offs and companies heading overseas (some but not many) with many studies by economic institutes (Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research for example) showing, stable aggregate unemployment, no contraction in weekly working hours, no significant effect on small and medium enterprises and large industrial firms taking up job losses from other industries (https://www.pier.or.th/dp/041). The reasons are very simple; despite what everyone thinks of Thailand, it isn't really a particularly low cost base with the vast majority of manufacturing being in relatively high-end products (think cars, electrical and electronic appliances, automobile parts, machines and chemical products) so a wage hike only affects a very small percentage (roughly 15% of the working population). Secondly, in 2022, the average daily wage in the non-agricultural sector is 604.8 baht (Bank of Thailand data) which means again an increase to 712 Baht isn't going to break the bank (although I would predict a 600 thb rate is probably more doable). There will of course be some industries that will be affected (agriculture and textile and clothing industry for example) but you are either are a low-end market for cheap products or you move to a more 'middle class' basis with the resulting demand for more skilled labourers. The latter is what all governments want so moving to 600-700 baht minimum wage is only going to put off companies that would have probably gone to Vietnam, Cambodia, China etc anyway. A significent increase in the minimum wage therefore makes a great deal of sense (it is only 15k thb per month after all - many of the readers heres average bar bill I would suggest) and could help elevate Thailand to the 'Tiger' status of other countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. NB- some of this information was from Bangkok Post which AN doesn't allow links to.

I've employed a lot of grads over the years and continue to do so. Because my business requires a high level of English reading & writing (minimum 750 TOEIC), I pay 25k per month plus commission. My preference though is to have 2nd jobbers as straight out of university grads can be a bit 'green' but I will certainly consider a talented 1st jobber.

Well I for one am convinced and will now completely change my mind and say absolutely nothing should be done to restrict fire-arms sales in any country, anywhere in the world. In fact I think everyone should be given one on arrival at the airport. I will of course have to invest in a new bullet-proof vest, face-guard and leg guards for my kid to wear to school every day but I think you'll agree that's a small price to pay if it allows fully grown men to run around the countryside playing shooty, shooty bang bang.

Ok. One more time. Long guns (or whatever you want to call them) is the leading fire-arm used in mass-shootings, including mass shootings of children. No one is disputing that overall, handguns kill more people. There is a logical 'fear of long guns' as that's what's being used to kill children and would be really quite simple to ban them entirely as they have little use anywhere else including hunting. Your deflection and 'here's the real statistics' isn't helpful, neither is your assertion that those concerned are 'crazy and unrealistic'. A parent shouldn't have to worry about their children being shot as they send them off to school. And although banning AR-15's and the likes might not cure the problem, it's at least a start.

Whatever he's on, he's just a lightweight. If you can't handle the heat.....................

One more time. When the number one cause of death for children in your country is no longer disease, car accidents, drowning and other common accidents but is in fact guns, then I think you just might want to “obsess” over it just a little bit.

This is such an old, deflection argument that has been bandied around for years. You obviously aren't going to be able to ban knives and 'clubbing weapons' because of their other, proper uses but when guns become the number one killer of children in your country, then perhaps, just perhaps you should do something about something you can ban or restrict. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html

You are conveniently ignoring what everyone here is trying to tell you. He has lost numerous lawsuits - that's guilty. He defrauded his own charity - that's guilty. He has paid off people (to include porn stars) before he's had to confess - that's guilty. There is so much litigation going on that it's hard to keep up with it all with one federal judge who fined Trump and his attorney nearly $1 million in January 2023, characterizing him as "a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump He's done that all of his life until it back-fires and then he just pays people off. Again, are these the qualities you want to see in your POTUS?

You say your 'Dislike of the other side is strong enough to make me support him' which again smacks of identity politics and I think it's more aimed at Hilary but lets just try and focus on Biden (senior NOT junior). What exactly has he done to make you dislike him so much? A lifetime in politics yet he's never had anything levelled at him that comes close to the level of criminality Trump has. He's never been sued, he's never defrauded anyone (to include his charities), in fact you'll be lucky to find a parking ticket for him. There's all this stuff on his age and being a bit too touchy feely with the girls but that's not about policy and again it's a pushed agenda from the right. And yes we all know there's all this 'Hunters' laptop' nonsense still going on but Hunter isn't POTUS and the sins of the son shouldn't be upon the father. So without mentioning Hunter and avoiding identity politics (which includes his age), what exactly has the current administration done to get you thinking Trump is a better option?

He has admitted to paying her off. This is common knowledge. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment But lets just say for arguments sake he is innocent on this one. What about all the things he HAS admitted to? When he defrauded his own charity for example? He admitted this or did you just conveniently forget that one? You are happy supporting a guy who defrauded army veterans, children in need, the United Negro College Fund, and even the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum? What does that say about Trump and what does it say about you? .

You know what gets me about you and all the other Trump apologists on this site is not one of you have actually condemned Trump for bedding a porn star whilst married to a woman who just gave birth to his son, paid off that porn star to keep her quiet during the presidential election (as well as numerous others including a Playboy Bunny) and tried to hide the payments through 'legal fees'. Is your identity politics so strong or your love of this man so deep that you can just ignore this type of behaviour? For gods sake this man has been conning and stiffing people all his life, to include his OWN charity. Do you just ignore this or is your own standards so low that you see this as perfectly acceptable behavour? Can't you see that this and his other, very obvious character flaws make him unfit to even hold public office never mind the presidency? Honestly I'm really interested in just what is it about this guy that makes you suspend reality and ignore integrity, honesty and severe character flaws? Do you not think a POTUS should have integrity, honesty and standards? Do you honestly believe he is emotionally qualified to become the next POTUS?

So you are basically admitting that it's all about identity politics to you because as a conservative, you should be focused on for example, the economy. Trump inherited a thriving economy thanks to Obama who in turn inherited probably the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, He however managed to steady the ship and towards the end of his stewardship, saw the US return to some sense of former economic glory. And what did Trump do with this? He immediately slashed taxes for himself and his mates and added almost $7.8 trillion to the national debt. By any crucial metric like GDP, job creation, business investment and avoiding recessions, Democrats in the White House do much better than Republicans (just one fact should tell you this; 9 of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans). I quote directly from Forbes magazine - 'It is simply a fact that since World War II, Democratic presidents have seen 24.4 million more jobs created on their watch—an average of 78.6% more jobs created per year of Democratic administrations—than have Republican presidents. Ditto real GDP growth, 44% higher under Democratic presidents. On the flip side, unemployment has been 18% higher under GOP presidents.' https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/?sh=21f31f5b6786 So now we have ascertained that the economy is better under the Democrats, what exactly is it that prevents you from voting Democrat?

And there is the problem summed up in one easy paragraph. This obsession with identity politics in the US means that you would rather vote a criminal who pays off porn stars and playboy bunnies, who defrauds his own charity and surrounds himself with criminals into the highest role in the land just because he’s “not Biden” or heaven forbid a Democrat. If this was the best my party could come up with to lead I would absolutely swap sides. But then again, integrity isn’t for everyone.

But why is it 'infinitesimal'? By bribing Stormy D and taking care of all the other stories that were being bandied around at the time through 'catch and kill', he effectively paid his way out of any negative press at a time when it could have seen him lose the White House. This is pretty significant when you consider Hilary lost because of the server stories being touted at exactly the same time. One could argue it was far from ' infinitesimal' when you consider what was at stake.

Ok, alleged (although I doubt if any person, even a MAGA enthusiast really thinks he didn't do this). But yeah, if it makes you happy 'alleged'.

Please do try and follow what’s going on. It’s really not that difficult. It’s not the fact he paid money to a porn star. That’s not illegal. What is illegal is that Trump falsified cheque records and ledger entries over the course of 11 months to make it appear that those payments were for "legal fees" and not reimbursements. This was all done in the run up to the election, where obviously an affair with a porn star might (just might) be seen as slightly negative. The charges are for business fraud.

But the 'drain the swamp' is just another lie sold by Trump. No one likes to think of faceless bureaucrats dictating to the masses but that's how governments work. Sure there are issues with 'Washington' but they are issues that have gone on for many, many years and will go on for many, many more. The reality is it's just another non-subject to get the masses hating 'the man', something that canny politicians do the world over.

It really is something to behold the mental gymnastics Trump supporters have to perform on an almost daily basis; January 6th wasn't a riot, it was just a protest; the election was stolen, even though there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate this; the billionaire Trump only has the common mans' interest at heart. This man admitted defrauding his own charity (or did you forget that?), he lies constantly (and don't give me 'but, but all politicains lie - this guy takes it to another level) and currently he's going to court for bribing a porn star. I mean you just can't make this stuff up. But it matters not one jot to Trump fans. To them he's a victim and someone who is a beacon of integrity in a sea of scum despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Personally I think it says much more about the person who loves Trump than Trump himself. You can understand Trump; he's been a grifter and a chancer all his life, with an ego the size of the planet and a personality that psychotically needs the adulation. They are just being taken for fools but in an almost willing fashion. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...............

He’s obviously joking.

And 10 out of 10 of everyone else also don't want him

First of all they are not 'gender-confused', they have been diagnosed with a well documented mental health problem called gender dysphoria. Secondly, I'm not quite sure why you think qualified experts have some sort of agenda to support a childs 'delusion'. Psychiatrists (as most medical professional do) only have the welfare of the child in mind and are not supporting unneccessary and harmful treatments. That's just ridiculous and is supported by the facts. In 2021, 42,167 children aged between 6 and 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria but only 1,390 initiated pubert blocker treatment. That's only 3%. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/ But when you listen to conservatives and those that have fallen for the hype, you would think this is a massive problem..... It's not. There are currently 50.7 million children in the US aged between 6 and 17 so 1,390 represents such a low percentage as to be negligable. Yet this seems to be in the news all the time because obviously a desperate GOP is trying it's very best to make it a hot button political issue and to look at your and many of the comments here, it seems to be working. One more time; this is a medical issue and should be left to medical experts.

Agreed. They aren't mature enough to make life-changing decisions. They certainly aren't mature enough to take criminal responsibility and of course they shouldn't drink or smoke. But when it comes to mental health issues, there are experts to decide what is best for the child and to recommend the appropriate action. As I have said to you already, no child is making these decisions unilaterally; the legal guardians are involved and there are qualified experts who work out the appropriate treatment, which in some extreme cases is puberty blockers. One more time; it's a medical issue.

Wasn't talking about general morality, just yours.

The fact you are quoting sensationalist nonsense such as 'identify as cats, or wolves, or "otherkins", and demand to be treated as that (sic) animal at all times' tells me everyting I need to know about your take on all this. Mental health is still a medical issue (it doesn't have to be just physical to be a medical issue) and although puberty blockers can be allowed at a younger age it still has to be under the guidance of a qualified psychiatrist and a great deal of boxes need to be ticked for these things to happen. There is no stage at that age where the child themselves is allowed to make any of these decisions, they MUST get the consent of their legal gaurdian and a qualified psychiatrist. And if both these parties (especially the psychiatrist) deems it appropriate, who are you to lecture an expert on the matter? I'll leave you with this. 1 in 8 people in the world live with a mental disorder so if a child of say for example a 10 years old is demonstrating sociopathic tendancies (killing cats in the neighbourhood, self-harming, extreme behaviour) do you think it's appropriate that they get the proper psychiatric treatment to help them? If you do then I see no difference to these cases. Gender dysphoria is a well documented psychiatric condition and if left untreated can lead to suicide. These children are just getting the medical treatment they need until they are 18 years old and able then, as an adult, to make the life changing decision about a sex change. What you personally think or what your morality dictates doesn't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on what is and should always be a medical matter.