johnnybangkok

1 hour ago, MyTHaiMyKe said:

He also works for no pay! So he is entitled for weekends at his club, but still working!

The salary of $400,000 per year for being POTUS pails into insignificence when you understand how much he has earned from doubling membership rates at Mar A Largo, how full his Trump hotels are and how much the family are making just from being The First Family.

And by quite a huge marging, he has golfed more than any previous president, all at tax payers expense, roughly estimated at $140,000,000 (https://trumpgolfcount.com/) 

3 hours ago, Dukeleto said:

Well reading that was a complete waste of my time and was full of complete drivel extracted from people who apparently have actually no understanding of tourism in Thailand. I’ll give it to you in a nut shell. You are never going to change Thailand from mass tourism to selective high spending “quality” tourism simply because the second these tourist step out of their 6 star hotels they are in a rat infested, traffic jammed, smog choked, sewer smelling third world dive hole in the case of Bangkok. It’s this mix of modern luxury and $hit_hole that gives it its charm and is what actually makes it appealing. Unless you are going to break all that down and start again which will only turn it into another big modern city with absolutely no charm!

 

Thailand is what it is and it was successful in luring tourists. Nothing needs to be changed or rethought. Simply open up the borders. It’s really that simple. This virus has been turned into a child’s boogie man of deluxe proportions and the media fear mongering articles designed purely to sell content and folks gullibility has fuelled The populace’s fear of it. ENOUGH I say!

You were doing so well until your last 3 lines.

So you think this is all media hyped nonsense then? Do you want tell that to the 790,000 (and counting) already dead? And as for all those that bemoan lockdowns and social distancing, a recent Imperial College London study shows that if lockdown hadn't occured, Europe alone is conservatively estimated to have been looking at 3 milion dead and worldwide, the number would have hit 7 million (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523). That's some big numbers by anyones estimate so before you start talking about 'media fear mongering' and fueling 'the populace’s fear' perhaps you should take a moment to think it was in fact an appropriate response given what could have been and possibly still might be.

1 minute ago, Pilotman said:

The big trouble is you can only vote for what the parties put forward as their candidates. As they are all unconformaly terrible and incompetent, what can anyone really do; nothing? 

It does feel like that sometimes and with such a large majority, I'm sure Boris feels fairly bullet-proof right now but if these sort of debackles continue and they don't get on top of Covid and Brexit, I think you'll see a different tone coming from what has up to now been a completely sycophantic and compliant media. Feeling the pressure, Boris wiil then have no choice but to start some culling. He should have done it with Cummings, he certainly should do it with Willamson and since he campaigned and won with a lot of Brexit promises, if they don't turn out as he is predicting (and so far it appears to be a complete sh&t show), maybe he'll do the right thing and resign himself.

36 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Errr... "Trump fans"? Is that the way you (and probably most others) look at the holder of the office of POTUS? It's some kind of specious, Hollywood style popularity contest?

 

If I had my way, those portraits of the smiling US Presidents would be summarily removed from Federal buildings and replaced with framed copies of the US Constitution, in entirety. It would be a step in the right direction from replacing the cult of personality with the rule of law and save the US taxpayer a lot money and remind Federal workers and US citizens as as well that the rule of law should overarch the cults of personality, IMHO. Cults of personality are characteristic of tyrannies and dictatorships worldwide.

 

This and most elections are not based on producing a meritocracy, a mediocreocracy (aka mediocre democracy) instead.

 

EoR.

 

 

We call them 'Trump fans because the moderator won't allow us to call them what we really want to call them but you are right, they are more akin to being in a cult because the complete and utter devotion can only be explained when comparting to a cult.

13 hours ago, Smigel said:

Point 1). Huge tax breaks for the wealthy and powerful. 

Trumps tax cuts and jobs act signed Dec 2017, was in his words an attempt to provide tax cuts across the board. But especially to lower corporation tax in an attempt to stimulate the economy, create growth and cut or wipe out the deficit. 

On the lower end of the scale, single filers had their % of tax, remain at 10% or the next two tiers cut 3% to 12% up to 38,700 usd and 22% up to 82500 usd respectively. 

For those earning over 500000 usd their rate was cut by 2:6% to 37%. Those earning over 200000 usd their rate remained at 35%.

The corporate tax rate was reduced  14% from 35% to 21%.

Estate tax exemption was doubled from 5:49 million usd to 11:8 million usd. 

That is a mere snippet of the major tax reform that Trump signed into law, and yes I'm aware that the personal rates are for 5 years, before returning to existing rates. But they can also be extended, this is after all a stimulus package. 

Now I'm by no means a financial genius, but even to my feeble brain, I can work out that the more tax you pay, the more you will save in an across the board single rate payer tax cut of around 3%.

But a 14% corporation tax cut, would surely result in an investment or growth of that company. Or is it your contention that the ceo's, directors, and chairman of those companies are all mates of Trump and are going to trouser that money. 

What do you think those at the top of the tree do with the money that they keep, rather than lose to the irs, hide it under the mattress or spend it, thereby creating stimulus to the economy. 

Have you ever heard of the trickle down effect.? 

2).Environmental issues. 

The Trump administration has initiated a major change in energy policy for the U. S. again in an attempt to create an economy stimulus, and also make American companies competitive in the global market by recognising the huge disparity trans nationally In energy costs. Particular when compared with China and say Germany, who are much more reliant on fossil fuels, coal and gas. 

Which is why he extricated the US from the Paris climate accord, as it gave an unfair advantage to the likes of China. 

Trumps return to fossil fuel dominance has resulted in the US becoming virtually self sufficient in their energy needs, and cut their reliance on opec. 

I agree there are major concerns regarding the environmental issues on the keystone xl pipeline, with particular concerns in the dakota area, and the impact on Native Indian homelands. 

Trumps return to fossil fuel reliance is a major policy shift from the Obama administrations preference for renewables, may I suggest you check out Michael Moore's documentary planet of the humans. Its an eye opener. 

3) what financial crimes have not been prosecuted under Trump?, and what has that to do with anything.? 

My comment regarding self interest groups, was aimed more at career politicians, and swampers with their noses in the trough, paid big bucks via lobbyists and international interests. 

Have a nice day.! 

Although I disagree with most of what you have said here Smigel (and mine and other posts have addressed those points) may I just commend you on actually bring facts and policy to this debate. Too often Trump fans are all about the emotions, name calling and complete conspracy theories so it's refreshing to see someone at least try to argue their point with facts and figures.

We may disagree on the details, but unlike most Trump fans, at least you've got some details. Other Trump fans would do well to take a page out of your book.   

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh my, and to think that had the Dems put up almost anyone else for POTUS than her they'd be in the White House now and not him.

If one wants to defeat a bad man it does not help to put such a notoriously, IMO, bad person against them. She lost because Middle America was never going to vote for her, and even if they had to hold their noses while doing so voted for the less bad option.

Still going on about Hilary I see TBL. It was nearly 4 years ago and I think you should give up the ghost but just for your clarity, there are 4 main reasons Hilarry didn't get the job:-

1. An electoral college that doesn't reward the most votes but encourages gerrymandering and voter supression (GOP favorites) and effectively means the least favorite can get elected (not sour grapes, it is what it is).

2. A highly effective smear campaign that branded her 'Crooked Hilary' without any evidence to back it up and numerous congressional hearings (9 in total) into Benghazi and her charity that proved no wrong doings whatsoever (as oppossed to Trump who was forced to dismantle his charity when fraud was actually proven).

3. A last minute FBI investigation into those damned servers that effectively hammered the last nail in her coffin.

4. Voter apathy that saw black votes decline by 8% and 2.4 million people not vote for a president at all. When you consider some states were won by literally thousands, this drop became massively significent.

But Hilary isn't the topic now; it's all about Biden and Harris and with a new revitalised populace eager to get voting we should see a different election. If covid and mail-in ballots can be sorted fairly (obviously what Trump is desperately trying not to do), early polls predict a Biden/Harris win and perhaps then, we might finally hear the last of 'but, but Hillary....' 

I won't hold my breath though.

9 hours ago, candide said:

Allow me to comment on point 1

- tax cuts have been financed by extra deficit and debt. While it makes sense to do that in order to recover from a crisis it doesn't after several years a sustained growth and with no crisis in sight. Taxpayers will have to pay it back some day.

- you make a relevant comment about the need for investment. The problem is that, unlike in some other countries, Trump did not link tax cuts with investment. The outcome was that companies bought back their shares with this money in order to increase their price.

https://apnews.com/438fae12f9204b1fbd8e8b1985ae554f

Actually, even Trump found out and got angry at it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-trump-buybacks/trump-slams-companies-for-using-u-s-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HY

Double benefit for the rich: they get tax cuts and the value of their stocks and stock options increase, without needing to do anything for the economy. Actually it just created an artificial bulb which bursts at the first occasion.

Excellent response. You saved me from typing the same.

The idea of 'trickle down economics' has been proven false time and time again; any money large corporations get, if not specifically linked to investment, goes to share buy-backs and inflating their bonuses. This has been proven time and time again. 

Smigel made some good points IF the tax breaks had worked the way they should have but the reality is corporations don't give a hoot about the man on the street and have just said, 'thank you for the massive handout, I can now buy my second yacht'. In the meantime, Trump has managed to add $2 trillion to the national debt at a time of prosperity and a growing economy. There was absolutely no need for that and has been shown to be complete hubris now that the nation is in the grip of Covid, mass unemployment and falling tax revenues. It is conservatively estimated that if given another 4 years, Trump will add ANOTHER $8 trillion to the national debt (https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401) and all this from the party who is supposed to be fiscally conservative.

The end-result is simple: Republican presidents add more to deficits than their Democratic counterparts - https://towardsdatascience.com/which-party-adds-more-to-deficits-a6422c6b00d7

And the harsh reality is the US economy does a lot better with Democrats in the White House than with Republicans. Just one fact should tell you this; Nine of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans (10 out of 11 if you count this one). Forbes magazine said it best - '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/#4f9c1d8c6786

So tell me again about the GOP being the party best suited to look after the economy.

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Congrats, you're the first lefty here to have done so (at least to my knowledge).  Keep looking for other commendable things and you'll find them.  They're there and quite visible.  But you have to have the willingness to look.

 

I have no problem with criticism of Trump.  I have my own.  Don't ask me what they are, though.  I'm not about to feed the trolls.

Your thoughts betray you, Tippaporn. I feel the good in you, the conflict. But I don't underestimate the power of the Dark Side. If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny. Come away from the Dark side. Come to the light Tippaporn. I am your Father.

????

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Green New Deal for starters.  Tell me that's not radical.  Biden buys into it, does he not?

 

WaPo - Joe Biden embraces Green New Deal as he releases climate plan

 

Reparations for slavery.  People who never owned slaves pay reparations to blacks who were not slaves.  That makes sense, doesn't it?  Joe Biden wants to see a study.

Newsweek - Joe Biden Wants to See Studies About Feasibility of Slavery Reparations

 

And another:

 

Washington Times - Joe Biden's 1975 comments slamming slavery reparations, school busing resurfaced by WaPo

 

Oh, that was when Joe Biden was against reparations in '75.  Sorry, wrong article.

Green New Deal is offered by AOC and a handful of Dems. IT IS NOT offical Dem policy but Biden and many Dems have signed on to the concept’s most important pieces, while doing away with some of its more controversial, and less essential, trappings. https://slate.com/business/2020/07/joe-bidens-climate-plan-is-the-green-new-deal-minus-the-crazy.html It's also interesting to see how you think this is a 'radical far left' idea when most of Europe have also signed up to many parts of the New Green Deal as unlike Trump and the GOP, they actually believe science and think something dramatic has to be done.

So Biden wants to see a study on reparations for slavery and you take that as an endorsement. I see that as a man who wants all the information first BEFORE making a decision. You know, like a proper POTUS.

So 45 years ago, Biden's  made a comment on slavery reparations and you are now trying to spin this as his belief. 45 years ago I made a comment on the Teenage Ninja Turtles being the best thing since sliced bread. I have now changed my mind.

To be honest Tippaporn if this is the best you can come up with to describe Biden and the Dems as 'far-left radicals' then there really is no hope for you. Next time perhaps you can lob a ball that isn't quiet so easy to hit out of the park.