johnnybangkok

Exactly, it's just another smoke and mirrors tactic to fire up his increasingly rabid base. The cult of personality politics that dominates the GOP is a truly worrying phenomena that doesn't seem to be abating anytime soon. Trump plays it like a meastro, pitting poor against poor, white against non-whites, citizens against immigrants, christianity against other religions, all to appease the evangelicals and ultra conservatives. And all the whilst he's keeping his 1%er friends happy with tax cuts and 'deregulation' of business to the detriment of the populace and the envirnoment. It's the oldest trick in the political book; get the working man to blame the immigrants for all the problems in their life even though the country is run by billionaires and corporations. It always reminds me of the joke; billionaire, worker and immigrant sitting at a table with 20 cookies. The billionaire takes 19 of them and turns to the worker and says ' watch out, the immigrant is going to take your cookie away!' It's so obvious as to be laughable but it keeps working so I can't see him changing his tune any time soon.

It's kind of how all religions work. Their (insert deity name here) gets all the credit when things go well; no blame when it doesn't.

Typical myopic view of what the real reason for Melania's lack of magazine covers was. As in First Lady tradition, Michelle Obama ran the 'Lets move' campaign https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ aimed at solving the problem of childhood obesity. She was VERY prolific, jetting all over America to raise awareness and offer sound medical advice and was instrumental in shaping policy and instructing schools on how best to handle the obesity problem. She also partnered around 3,500 chefs with schools in America, successfully pushed Walmart to lower the costs of fruit and vegetables, and helped the U.S. Tennis Association build more than 6,000 tennis courts across the country. Can you even remember Melania's? It was called 'Be Best' and it took her a year to even commit to a cause. Once she did, it got off to a VERY slow start, with very little push from Melania other than a few speaches and visits to childrens hospitals. It is widely regarded as one of the worst First Lady initiatives ever. That's why she didn't get the same coverage as Michelle but sure, it's all about MSM bias.

Thailands exports to Myanmar total approx. $4 billion (https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/exports/myanmar). Myanmar ranks 16th in the list of top Thailand export countries (https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/exports-by-country) and although not insignificant, it doesn't even make the top 10 and is only 1.6% of Thailands total exports. The difference with the other 15 countries ahead of it though are none of them are currently committing genocide on their own people. This I would argue supercedes 1.6% of total exports - a fact many on this forum agree with and hopefully so does the new incoming PM.

Semantics. I used the word “average” as an illustration of how not to say something. He wrongly claimed that U.S. gasoline prices reached $9 under Biden. For anyone with half a brain they would take that as ALL gas prices reached $9 rather than just a small part of California. If he was being accurate (the whole point) he would have said “gas prices even reached $9 is SOME parts of the US”. He didn’t say that, hence why it’s factually incorrect.

These mental gymnastics you have to come up with to defend Trump must be exhausting for you. It’s like saying the average US house price is $2 million because, you know, Manhattan. We know he’s cherry-picking the truth, even he knows he’s cherry-picking the truth, but devotees like you just keep digging that hole.

But it is true. He added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt BEFORE covid. https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump Dont argue for Trump when it’s about US economics. His record is simply appalling. He inherited a growing US economy thanks to the shrewd economics of Obama and promptly when about destroying it with tax cuts for the rich and trade embargoes on major trading partners (particularly China). He just had to help himself and his pals and I see no change in that outlook today. He promises and promises and never delivers. National debt gone? Nope. Added to it. Significantly. Him now claiming “it would be better for the USA to default now rather than in the future” is just the worst possible thing to be thinking for ANY person never mind a possible POTUS who might possibly have to handle it. It is the single largest economic problem not just for the US but the world. Put that clown in charge and just watch it ALL fall to pieces.

It's real scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff here as I know how hard it must be for you to find some redeeming qualities. a/ no new wars - I don't understand why Trump fans keep going on about 'no new wars'. There's been plenty of Presidents who didn't start any wars so it's like praising someone for not murdering their wife or not having sex with the family pet. b/ killing terrorist leaders - not the main one though. That's Obama isn't it? c/ Middle East peace agreements - surely to have peace you must first have war. Didn't see too many wars between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan did you? d/ 2% and sub 2% inflation - after being left with a booming economy and relatively little economic woes, Trump did nothing but keep the status quo as far as inflation is concerned. Congratulations for having to do nothing. e/ continuously declining unemployment - thanks to Obama he inherited low unemployment but this disintegrated during the pandemic or are you just not counting those years he was POTUS as the figures are 'inconvenient'? f/ $2.00-2.50 a gallon gas - didn't have Russia invade Ukraine. Well done! g/ sub 500,000 illegal immigrant apprehensions, quadrupled last year. No one has or will ever sort out the US immigration problem. Trump certainly didn't and added to the problem with inane 'wall building' and locking children in cages. To me the man did nothing of any great worth unless (as I stated earlier) you are a billionaire. He doesn't deserve to be POTUS again on 6 main things:- 1. He defrauded his own charity. 2. His mishandling of the pandemic leading to the USA having more deaths than any other country at 1.2 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/ 3. His continued lying about the 2020 election when it is obvious to anyone that it was fair and he lost. 4. Instigating the attack on The Capitol. 5. The continuos undermining of US democracy and human rights through the stacking of the Supreme Court and the placing of right wing, bible thumping cronies as judges and on federal boards. 6. His best mate Putin.

No like David Duke, The KKK, The Proud Boys and every single white nationalist in America.

It was my post with the point being I get why some billionaires like Trump. I just don’t understand why non-racist, working class people do any more. I get that he was appealing back in 2020 with the promise of bringing back industry to the US (a mostly failed policy) and distance the US from world politics (easier said than done) but in the 4 years all he did was reduce taxes on the rich, demonize immigrants, weaken Americas standing on the world stage, set neighbor against neighbor and cry like a baby when he legitimately lost the election. Everything that came out of his mouth then was a lie and I don’t see any change now. But people have voted against their own interests for millennia so I suppose that’ll happen again in 2024 (if he’s not in jail).

That’s easily explained. Some billionaires have a conscience.

Not all Trump supporters are racist but all racists are Trump supporters.

Trump appeals to billionaires and easily led fools. Check your bank account to see which one you are.

Hey, the 1950's called. They want their opinions back.

Oh heavens forbid.... a ring through her nose! What is the world coming to! Perhaps you should focus more on what she was saying rather than the idea she doesn't conform to your outdated ideas of fashion.

A good post (if somewhat doomsday) and although I agree with much of it, I think I (and many like me) don't have as much of an issue with the Royals themselves (I liked the Queen and I don't mind Charles) but more with what they represent. 50% of land in the UK is owned by 1% of the population with much of it having not changed for centuries 'Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together. Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.” https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author This then goes to the heart of an issue where birthright plays much more into wealth than ability or talent and perpetrates the continuing idea of a country of serfs. This starts at the very top (Kings & Queens) but then goes to Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. The Duke of Westminster 'owns' half of London and much more purely from land handed down over the centuries. Earl Cadogan controls more than 90 acres of London property that has belonged to his family since 1717. If you want to talk about UK inequality, start with the King and work your way down.

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?