johnnybangkok

Because I don’t believe those “lies” (and there’s a BIG question mark against them) are even close to the THINGS Trump has done. Even if they were true (and again, I don’t think they are for one minute), there’s a huge difference in saying something bad and actually doing something bad. Trump ACTUALLY defrauded his own charity; he ACTUALLY stiffed his suppliers on the numerous occasions he went bust; he ACTUALLY paid off a porn star; he ACTUALLY sexually abused E. Carroll and defamed her; he ACTUALLY believes the last election was rigged and continues to lie to his devotees. There really is no comparison between the two.

I wouldn’t care if every American became a millionaire under Trump - the man has the morals of a polecat and the integrity of an alley cat. Doesn’t character account for anything with you? He defrauded his own charity for gods sake. That one thing alone should have been the end of him (and you can’t scream political persecution on that one) but it hardly raised an eyebrow with Trumpers. This man cannot be trusted with his own charity never mind the position of POTUS and never has it been more important especially now with such hightened geopolitical tensions. You need assured and respected hands on the world stage right now and that simply isn’t Trump.

I really don’t understand why people say this. Biden is sooooooo much better than the charity fraudster, convicted sexual predator and serial bankruptee Trump. Biden has never had to face any criminal charges let alone 91. Biden didn’t instigate an insurrection like the man-baby Trump who to this day still purports the last election was rigged (but only in states he lost and without a single shred of evidence). There really isn’t any comparisons here; Trump is demonstrably worse than Biden by a VERY long way.

I saw a wonderful, anonymous quote on FB yesterday that I think sums it up for me:- 'We won't change the minds of Trump supporters with facts, logic or appeals of decency. If they could be influenced by these things, they wouldn't be Trump supporters.'

Just seen this on FB which made me laugh:- 'A blue whale's vagina is so big that 5-6 humans can lay down inside it. Making it the 2nd biggest pu$$y in the world after grown men who cry about seeing Taylor Swift on TV' - Anonymous

I agree with most of your post but I really don't think Taylor cares about 'alienating any political party' to protect her ticket or album sales. 'Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour will be the first to shatter $1 billion in ticket sales, making a lot of people richer: ‘The dollar bill should have her face on it’ Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour $1 billion revenue: Where it all goes | Fortune 'Taylor Swift’s Latest Outsold The Top 50 Bestselling Albums In America Combined... Times Two' Taylor Swift’s Latest Outsold The Top 50 Bestselling Albums In America Combined... Times Two (forbes.com)

You are literally admitting to not knowing a fact when you see it.

Taylor has been at the top of her game for about 17 years. Those teenage girls are now voting adults. She also has nearly 300 million followers on Instagram alone. This is a VERY influential star. Alienate her and her followers at your own peril.

You're just a bundle of joy now aren't you? I take it you were never young and just went straight from birth to being a miseble old s0d? Time to up the meds me thinks before your head explodes with all the 'inconvenience'. Oh, and by the way, ever tried lugging a suitcase up a mountain or through a jungle? A lot easier with a rucksack.

So in your view, every single one of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of backpackers that come to Thailand every year are just 'smelly' and/or 'penniless'? I backpacked though Thailand in the late 90's and met literally thousands of fellow backpackers and I can usure you your 'insights' couldn't be further from the truth. Granted a few I met were on tight budgets but I never met a single person who was penniless and none of them were smelly. Even this young lady looked well groomed and how do you know she was penniless? As the article says, she thought the food was just leftovers so asked if she could have it, possibly thinking it was just going to go to waste. You views are myopic, uncharitable and by comparing people to soi dogs, wildly inappropriate. Perhaps you should take a few months out, exploring this fantastic country with just a back-pack and a sense of adventure. You'll see you are very wrong and it may even have the added benefit of mellowing you out a bit.

It's with posts like this I wish there was an eye roll emoji

'The actual cost for the rest of the border wall (roughly 1,300 miles) could be as high as $16 million per mile, with a total price tag of $15 billion to $25 billion. Rosenblum said the $15 billion low-end estimate is “probably an underestimate,” because the parts that have yet to be fenced are the most difficult — the most dense and arid. At $16 million per mile and with 1,300 miles to secure, the estimated cost would be $12 billion, and the price of private land acquisitions and maintenance of fencing could push that total cost higher'. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html 'CBP has already spent $78m to get the land for only 211 miles of the southwest border' Multiply that out and you get nearly $1 billion. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-us-mexican-border-wall-american-property-lawyers-homeland-security-attorneys-a8056881.html 'The U.S. government would have to pay to maintain the wall, which could cost as much as $750 million a year, according to an analysis conducted by Politico. And then if it wanted to man it with personnel, that would be an additional cost — border patrol has an operating budget of $1.4 billion for 21,000 agents'. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html It takes 21,000 agents to patrol the wall currently (700 miles) so it would need at 3 times that for 2,000 miles, so you are looking at approx. $5 billion per year. It is estimated it will take 20 years to complete the wall. Perhaps my initial 'trillions' would be an exaggeration but it will run into 100's of billions as the initial bill is:- $25 billion for construction. $1 billion for land acquisition and $5 billion per year to staff and maintain. The bill after the 20 years to build = $126 billion (and that's estimated at the low end) and then its's $5 billion per year for staff and uptake. All that for a wall that aims to keeps out a fraction of those that enter the US illegally and after all, it is only a wall that can be tunneled under or climbed over. These are the FACTS that you so desperately crave. Still think building the wall is the answer?

What a completely inane idea. Do you have any idea how big an undertaking that would be? The border itself is nearly 2,000 miles long (currently 700 of which is covered by a wall). It's across mountainous regions, deep valleys and deserts. The cost for construction would be in the trillions and the cost of keeping it manned would over the years match that. You would also have to acquire private land from American citizens which would not only mean that some would lose land that has been in their family for generations, but again it would cost a fortune. Couple that with the fact that 50% of illegal immigrants arrive by air and you start to see just how stupid an idea the border wall really was and how it was just a dog whistle to Trumps more racist supporters.

Identity politics at it's best; you can't fault the policies so go for the character. And let's admit it, if character was to define suitability for office, you DEFINATELY wouldn't support Trump. You can't just cherry pick the good years from the bad. Trump was POTUS for 4 years, not just the first 2 or 3. He needs to be gauged on the whole time he was in office, not just the time that suits your bias. Illegal immigration has always been an issue in America U.S. border crossing encounters 1990-2022 | Statista. No administration has been able to truly resolve the problem and none are likely to because there's just too many factors in place. But most agree that Trumps wall was just a bad idea considering that nearly 50% of illegal immigrants fly into America (visa overstay being the main reason) and the expense of building the wall v effectiveness (obviously when Mexico doesn't pay) just doesn't add up. It is literally impossible to build a wall along the US border so whatever 'gaps' are left will be exploited. Also you conflate 2 different things; Trumps 'remain in Mexico' policy was aimed at deterring asylum seekers (not illegal immigrants) and had huge implications for those it effected, with many finding themselves in tent ghetto's and subject to horrific crimes and exploitation, including kidnappings, rape, and other violent attacks. It was also illegal and widely condemned by human rights groups the world over. Biden tried to cancel this but was hampered by GOP leaning courts who reinstated the policy and it was only June 2022 that the supreme court allowed him to stop this unnecessarily cruel policy. Also, you seem to cherry pick a great deal of things about Biden such as his recent backing of Israel as if Trump would have done anything different. He isn't 'busily expanding the Gaza conflict into what may become a regional war' any more than ANY POTUS would do because America backs Israel (Israel being America's only 'proper' ally in the region). It's disingenuous to put the problems of the Middle East down to Biden when you let Trump off for his Covid years. Biden is the unfortunate one who just happens to be POTUS right now and I would argue none of this would have been any different under Trump, perhaps even worse. And don't get me started on what Trump would do with Ukraine. So far he is threatening (yet again) to leave NATO and stop suppling Ukraine which is EXACTLY what Putin would like. This to me is perhaps the most worrying of Trumps 'America First' policy and could see some major worldwide implications if this fool is allowed back into the White House. This alone should deter any rational person from backing Trump.

All of which was created by Trump. You equate both side as equally responsible when all of it came about with Trump. Never has America or indeed the world been so divided. Yes the downtrodden will always come off second best but the polarisation of America now is wholeheartedly down to Trump. He may have optimised the difference but that in itself is why sane politics have to prevail.

Voter turnout in Iowa this time around is estimated at 110,000. This is a VERY large drop from 2016 when it was 187,000. The weather certainly had something to do with it but not to the extent of being 40% down. So for those that held their nose and voted, half of them voted for Trump, that makes approx. 56,000. In 2016, Trump came second to Cruz with 24% of the vote - 24% of 187,000 is 45,000. In other words Trump only managed to convince another 11,000 people to vote for him in Iowa than did in 2016. If 'Trump is so popular with Republican voters' as you previously stated, how come he can still only get 51% to vote for him and only increase his vote count by 20%? I would suggest that even in the GOP, Trump is not nearly as popular as you are trying to make out (obviously excluding all the MAGA brigade) and he will have to get an awful lot of them on-side come November (as well as the swing voters) if he is to carry the day. I predict that won't happen but not having a crystal ball like all of you Trump fans seem to have, I'll wait with patience to see what happens.

And I see arithmetic isn't your strong point. You say 'If the majority of Republican voters think Trump is "Da Man then there is very little chance they will abstain or vote Democrat' but as has been pointed out to you by numerous other posters, he only got 51% of the Iowa vote. This means that 49% don't want Trump. Logic (not something big for Trump fans I know) would then say there IS a very good chance that many will vote Democrat (unlikely but possible), vote independant or much more likely, abstain. If this then translates to the bigger vote in November, he doesn't stand a snowballs chance of being elected because he needs ALL of the Republican vote (which is stil less than the total number of Democrats and is why the GOP always loses the popular vote) PLUS a whole swaith of the swing vote. Of course, gerrymandered districts will play their part in the ridiculous electorial college system, but the key in the election is the suburban swing voter for whom Trump is definately NOT their first choice. Anyway, it's all conjecture at this point so let's see what November brings.

You are (unsurprisingly) conflating two things: Trump being popular with Republican voters and Trump being popular overall. All this proves is he has a lock on the Republican party (something we all knew) and will (legal issues aside), get the Repuublican nomination. This is of no surprise to anyone. The test of course will be in November when the nation votes. Then we will see.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I really don't know why you keep going on about what he did in the UK. He ISN'T being accused of anything in the UK, he was accused of sexual assault and battery in AMERICA. And this was obviously so scary to him that he chose public humiliation, being stripped of his titles and patronages and universal vilification rather that take his day in court. Christ, he wouldn't even give a statement to the FBI. And I don't want to 'string him up' as the Royals themselves along with the British public have done a very good job of that already.

You've gone above and beyond there with your false equivalents and as usual have got it completely wrong. No one is talking about 'the rights of young females', that's not the argument at all. We are debating whether an 'innocent' man should have faced his accusers in a court of law rather than pay them off with $12 million. Stop trying to obfuscate with inane parallels to 'young females of Afghanistan' and the likes. It has literally nothing to do with this.

Not true. I once put a foot wrong. It was 1987. I remember it well. It was a Tuesday.

And again with the strawman argument. I wrote 30 lines on the subject but you're obsessing over the 'following his best chum Epstein's ignominious demise' as if THAT'S the important part. Your winning 'gotcha' moment isn't really the point though but since it's upsetting your delicate sensibilities so much then I will retract that part and categorically say I don't wish a violent death on Prince Andrew (happy?). I do however think he should be held accountable for his actions and shouldn't be allowed to pay his way out of trouble. Now, any chance you can argue this or are you now physically attached to those pearls?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. But you can't even argue ignorance in Andy's case as when Epstein was issued with an arrest warrant for sexual assault of a minor way back in 2006, Andy still thought it was a good idea to have him at his daughter Beatrice's 18th birthday. And in 2008 when Epstein was charged with procuring for prostitution a girl below the age of 18 (of which he was sentenced to eighteen months, serving 13 months under house arrest), Andy STILL visited him and kept in touch with him for years after. Now you may call that gullible or you may call it arrogance OR you could just say it for what it was; his good chum Epstein was a peodophile who trafficked young girls for his rich and famous friends and as far as ol' Randy Andy was concerned, not only was that just fine, but it was not bad enough for him to cut ties with Epstein until 2011, 3 YEARS after he was convicted. You can't call it a 'whitewash' or scapegoating when the person in question is quite as willing as Andy seems to have been to be involved.

Oh please! Enough of the pearl clutching. Of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty (I actually said that in my post along with 'a pay-off isn't an admission of guilt') but I also believe that if you are innocent then you have an opportunity to prove that in a court of law. Andy had that chance but chose to pay-off his accuser to the tune of $12 million and to this day still refuses to make a statement to the FBI. He must have known how much damage to his already awful reputation these actions would do so you have to ask how much MORE damage would have been done if he had gone to court? I would argue, a great deal more. And FYI I'm not a liberal but equally I'm not a brown-nosing, doff my cap, servile pleb who thinks the Royals shouldn't be held accountable for their actions and/or are above the law. I also don't believe people should be allowed to pay their way out of trouble. But that's just me I guess.