johnnybangkok

On 7/14/2018 at 1:25 PM, Boon Mee said:

Free Tommy! 

 

You are an appalling person and should be ashamed of yourself. However I really shouldn't be surprised considering your choice of image.   

8 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

First you need to define outrage.

Sure I agree that we should discuss issues together but just because people are upset or 'outraged' about something doesn't mean they're right.

Nope, never said to ignore public opinion.

I'm not outraged because firstly I'm not overly emotional, secondly I don't have anger so I can't be manipulated and thirdly I love much(not all) of what Donald Trump stands for.

So exactly what do you 'love' about what Donald stands for? Genuinely interested.

Here I'll help you Donald. He's a foe.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I know, none of the convictions have anything to do with Russia. 

Perhaps you could indicate why you think they do.

If they did, do you not think Trump would have already been impeached?

 

BTW, not believing Trump colluded with Russia, does not mean that I have admiration for Trump, blind or otherwise. I would have voted for Bernie, as I said at the time. 

They have EVERYTHING to do with Russia:-

·       George Papadopoulos: Former Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor, continued in that role after Trump became President. Convicted October 5, 2017 for lying to the FBI regarding communications, on behalf of and with the encouragement Trump Campaign, with Russians aimed at getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russian hacked emails.

·       Michael Flynn: Former Army General, Trump Campaign Advisor, led “lock her up chants” as a keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention, appointed by Trump as National Security Advisor and Director of National Intelligence, perhaps the most sensitive position related to national security in the Administration. Convicted (by guilty plea) on December 1, 2017 for lying to the FBI and regarding contacts and communications with Russians on behalf of the Trump transition team.

·       Richard Pinedo: California man convicted February 2, 2018 for helping the indicted Russian individuals and companies in their meddling in the Presidential election. Pinedo helped the Russians use dummy bank accounts to work around the security of companies like PayPal. Pinedo helped the Russians appear online as if they were Americans. Pinedo is now cooperating with Mueller’s team.

·       Alex Van der Zwaan: The son-in-law of a Russian oligarch pleads guilty on February 20, 2018 for lying to the FBI regarding his communications with Rick Gates and Paul Manafort on behalf of pro-Soviet elements in the Ukraine.

·       Rick Gates: As widely anticipated, on February 23, 2018 Rick Gates strikes a plea agreement and pleads guilty to multiple counts for conspiracy to defraud the United States and making false statements. Gates is Manafort’s long term right hand man who stayed with the Trump Campaign and the administration after Manafort left. Gates agrees that a government drafted Statement of Criminal Information spells out facts and allegations that are true. The Criminal Information Gates stipulates to completely sells out Manafort as it details wide ranging schemes to defraud the United States, money launder, bank fraud and tax fraud.

For the full list and ongoing indictments read https://medium.com/@KeithDB/a-running-tab-of-mueller-investigation-convictions-indictments-f518b9a72827

On 7/3/2018 at 9:24 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

You think there is actually evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election? 

If the Dems get a majority after November, they'd better have more than what has come out of Mueller's investigation if they impeach Trump for something.

If they don't win a majority in the Senate, impeachment will not result in conviction anyway, regardless of what the house does. 

I think the 5 convictions he has already got (to include George Papadoupolos, Michael Flyn and Rick Gates) coupled with the 15 indictments currently going on MIGHT suggest there is more than a passing chance that Trump (or people VERY close to him) colluded with Russia.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of your blind adoration to the Cheeto in Chief.  

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"It will increase the prices of oil in the global markets," he said. "At the end it is the American consumer who will pay the price for Mr. Trump’s policy."

In the end we will all pay the price for Trumps policies. 

It seems that the normally vociferous Trumpers are unusually quiet on TV with this one. Heavens to Betsy could it be that even they are struggling to defend the orange one on this little gem? 

20 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

That's funny given that your argument is an article written using statistics. ?

Well that's a cutting retort. Not sure how I'm going to come back from that one.

Oh, I know, how about addressing the points I have made using facts and figures. I'll even allow you to use some statistics. Too much trouble? Of course it is.

Arguing a point using logic and facts is not big with you Trumpers.  

59 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

May want to review your "facts" about your "O"-man:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1726/presidential-ratings-issues-approval.aspx

 

keep this link and check it every 12 months, especially after President Trump is re-elected in 2020. 

There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics. 

We can all throw up various statistics on your beloved Trump but the undeniable fact is he inherited a thriving economy thanks to the many excellent policies of Obama who (unlike Trump) inherited probably the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression but who managed to steady the ship and towards the end of his stewardship, saw the US return to some sense of former economic glory. 

I would have thought that all you Trumpers who do nothing but espouse the Orange one's economic record would be the first to admit that Obama did remarkably well since you seem to think that being a great POTUS is only about the economy.  Well by any crucial metrics like GDP, job creation, business investment and avoiding recessions, Obama isn't the only one as the 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.

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.'

By hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of your adoration of Trump.

On 6/30/2018 at 12:20 AM, seajae said:

actually I read a quite a bit, I suggest all those saying that the law is on the side of these people look up where they are being caught. There are several crossing points these people can use so that they are not separated from their kids because they are doing it legally but instead they are entering the US illegally which is why their kids are being held separately. They are being held in the same places they were during obama's time but that doesnt suit the lefts stories so it is ignored. Try researching past presidencies and what happened with the kids, it is there but the left prefer to read left leaning papers and not listen to the truth, as I said, the left are pathetic, doesnt mean I support everything trump is doing but as I am not a us citizen I am able to look at everything with an open mind and see the truth of it as I am not pre disposed to accept either sides crap. I am really interested in seeing what happens over the next few months and exactly who it is facing charges

 

Ahhhh a Trump sympathizer. Masking their inherent prejudice with what they feel is a sense of fairness (I mean it all started with the Democrats so how can it be Trumps fault) but short on empathy and most importantly, facts.

There is no current American law that says that these children have to be separated from their family, only that children cannot be held in a federal prison. The problem has arisen with Trump and Sessions 'zero tolerance' policy that basically says that EVERYONE crossing the border (regardless of their status) are now subject to criminal prosecution. This was a concerted effort from Trump/Sessions to deter people from crossing the border,  hoping that separating families from their children would do the trick.

It has to some extend with reports that illegal immigration is down (although there are contending figures going either way) but lets not be fooled into guessing who created the specific problem of children being separated from their families. This is a Republican made problem pure and simple and Trump/Sessions specifically. They wanted all of this and they got it in spades.

If you need proof of this then look no further than the executive order he signed that instantly reversed the separation of the children.  If all he was doing was enforcing current laws enacted under previos administrations, how could he reverse it quite so easily? Why didn't he need to get the Democrats and congress involved? Why didn't it need to go to a Federal judge or the Supreme court? The answer is pretty simple; it wasn't 'current law', it was a consequence of a law, but only if you put every single person under criminal prosecution and through a federal court. This forced scenario was then played out by Trump as 'my hands are tied' and 'it was all the Democrats fault' before literally reversing the problem with one stroke of the pen.  

The Democrats are now also being blamed for being unwilling and unable to address immigration policy in congress but again the Republicans fail to mention that since Trump and the Republicans are not budging on matters such as the building/financing of the wall and the 'Dreamers' issue, Democrats are forced to block any initiative being suggested, even if there is a sensible one.

So no, this is not an Obama/Democrat problem and the media aren't forgetting what he did; they just know that Trumps version is a whole lot worse and is something that was actively pursued.  This whole immigration debacle could be easily sorted by the Republicans IF they really wanted to. But it doesn't serve their current interests or their political base to compromise on immigration as they know this is what stirs up the masses and keeps their base loyal to them. It's the oldest trick in the book; just tell a whole heap of lies and misinformation to distract the common man whilst systematically robbing the country for you and your billionaire cronies.

And you are all falling for it.

9 hours ago, Trouble said:

I have yet to see the current President, assuming dictatorial powers. If enforcing current laws passed by the Congress is being a dictator, you and I have different ideas of how dictators conduct themselves. It's not like the President as enacted laws on his own volition. Better start looking at what he's actually done under the law vs. what the media contends he has done outside the law.

 

We currently have a bunch of politicians unable to deal with a serious problem which the democrats seem unwilling and unable to address so as the keep the problem at the forefront of the news until the mid term elections hoping it garners them some votes. Maybe this country needs a dictator as it certainly isn't functioning very well anymore. 

There is no current American law that says that these children have to be separated from their family, only that children cannot be held in a federal prison. The problem has arisen with Trump and Sessions 'zero tolerance' policy that basically says that EVERYONE crossing the border is now subject to criminal prosecution and therefore the children get separated.  This was a concerted effort from Trump/Sessions to deter people from crossing the border, knowing that they would be separated from their children.

This is a Republican made problem pure and simple, aptly demonstrated by his executive order that instantly reversed the separation of the children.  If all he was doing was 'enforcing current laws' how could he reverse it quite so easily? Why didn't he need to get the Democrats and congress involved? Why didn't it need to go to a Federal judge or the Supreme court? The answer is pretty simple. It wasn't 'current law', it was made up by Trump and Sessions and all he did was blame the Democrats for the problem.

The Democrats are 'unwilling and unable' to address immigration policy because Trump and the Republicans are not budging on matters such as the building/financing of the wall and the 'Dreamers' issue.

So no, this is not a media inspired problem just a Trump one. This whole immigration debacle could easily sorted by the Republicans IF they really wanted to. But it doesn't serve their current interests or their political base to compromise on immigration as they know this is what stirs up the masses and keeps their base loyal to them. It's the oldest trick in the book; just tell a whole heap of lies and misinformation to distract the common man whilst systematically robbing the country for you and your billionaire cronies.     

21 hours ago, Emster23 said:

Just to add something I observed whilst watching world cup: none of the Japanese players had tattoos, as that is a yakuza thing. Few years ago seem to recall some item about 85% of players had tats. So I suppose you might yakuza not all a bad thing

This is why I find it so incredible that there's not more of this lot getting arrested. I mean they are literally walking around with a tattoo that effectively says 'I'm a Yakuza gangster'. 

Not exactly the best disguise.

26 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

To be fair, his terms are far from over yet. Let’s give him a fair chance. 

Ahh the 'let's give him a fair chance' argument.  Does it not even bother you one bit that the guy is a pathological liar? I mean what does he have to do/say that will open your eyes to what this guy is truly about? He's the President of the United States for gods sake but the standards and integrity insisted on before by every Republican with every Democratic POTUS doesn't seem to apply to him. 

A quick visit to http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ will reveal that nearly 70% of what comes out of his mouth is either completely false or mostly false. 70%!!!!. None of this bothers you? Your head of government lied throughout his campaign and continues to do so ON A DAILY BASIS and all you hear from you lot is 'lets give him a chance' or 'but the stock market......' or 'he's keeping his campaign promises'.

He's keeping his promises? Like his promise to 'drain the swamp' and then appointing the biggest bunch of millionaires and billionaires to a cabinet ever seen in US history (that's if we can keep up with the revolving door in the WH these days)? Or green lighting the oil industry to go back to their dodgy back-hander ways whilst silencing the EPA by appointing their greatest critic (and climate change denier) to head it all up? Or his promise to not cut Medicaid/Medicare whilst doing exactly that. And just wait until he gets his hands on Dodd-Frank so that his Wall Street pals can REALLY make some cash.

It's all lies, deceit and jobs for the boys but yes, by all means, give him a chance. Give him a chance to lie some more. Give him a chance to make even more obscene amounts of money for himself, his family and his mates. Give him a chance to well and truly ruin the USA not only in the eyes of the world but for ordinary working class people that I assume you are.

Open your eyes, smell the roses and stop trying to defend the indefensible. The US is a world joke now and your cognitive bias is really showing you as part of the problem and not the solution.   

41 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

As long as we can agree that’s your opinion and not necessarily fact, I have no problem. A large swath of people feel it is a crisis. 

A much more apt way of saying this would be 'a large swath of people are being made to feel it is a crisis'. Deflect, obfuscate and demonise a situation that was a problem granted, but not to the extent it's being made out to be currently. America has always had illegal immigration but for some reason now it's so much worse than before? Really? 

This is taken straight from Wikipedia -

'Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy, contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms' incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services. Economists estimate that legalization of the illegal immigrant population would increase the immigrants' earnings and consumption considerably, and increase U.S. gross domestic product.

There is no evidence that illegal immigration increases the rate of crime in the United States. There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives. Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime or reduce the crime rate. Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rate.'

It's scaremongering pure and simple and you are all falling for it because  your beloved leader has made a non-issue into a really big crisis. Now why would he do that I wonder? Couldn't be to distract everyone from all the other really important stuff he's doing behind everyone's back like trying to defund Medicare and Medicaid or trying to kill off Planned Parenthood or  what's going on at the EPA or even (heavens forbid) to take your mind off that really annoying FBI investigation? 

The guy is a master of distraction and you are all falling for it.

2 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

I am within walking distance of the San Ysidro Port of Entry right now. I’m from this area. At times there are literally too many people at this crossing to process. I myself have had to wait over three hours just to walk through and I have a RFID passport card, which allows me into a special line called the “ready lane”, which is supposed to be quicker than the general line. 

 

The US allows a certain number of refugees in every year, but they are under no obligation to accept unlimited numbers. 

 

Don’t think most immigrants are refugees. About 20% might be trying for asylum and many of them are doing it because they think that gives them a better shot. But most don’t qualify. 

 

“Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.^[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

 

Those who choose to break the law and sneak in are prosecuted. Why is this so hard to understand? 

I think I've tried to explain myself on numerous occasions so if you want to continue and justify the unjustifiable then who am I to stand in the way of your delusion. 

But just remember America once extolled "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.' 

If you think that's the America that Trump is trying to achieve then he's got a very funny way of going about it.   

6 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

I think you’re ignoring facts. Immigrants absolutely can apply for asylum. 

No one is saying that they absolutely can't as US and international law strictly forbids it (much to the annoyance of the Trump administration no doubt) BUT the Trump administration is going out of their way to make it so difficult as to be nigh on impossible. 

The removal of children was an express policy to deter asylum seekers as well as illegal immigrants (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-discussed-separating-moms-kids-deter-asylum-seekers-feb-n884371).

Even if immigrants try to do it 'the right way, they still can't do it (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17428640/border-families-asylum-illegal).

They are being actively discouraged through prolonged detention, being separated from their children and being kept in inhumane conditions (https://www.thenation.com/article/ice-is-sending-a-message-to-the-worlds-asylum-seekers-the-us-is-no-place-of-refuge/).

No one is saying that people with spurious asylum claims shouldn't be deterred BUT Trumps administration is throwing the baby out with the bath water and desperately trying to prove that EVERYONE is an illegal immigrant regardless of their status. Whether it's Sessions overturning a rule for those fleeing domestic and gang violence to ICE detaining asylum seekers as illegal immigrants, it is very obvious what the Trump administration wants; zero immigrants allowed into the US, regardless of the legality of the situation.  

9 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 Sorry that’s incorrect. There is no law being broken if someone applies for asylum. The problem comes from entering illegally. 

The immigration laws are not new. The main difference between the current and past administration is that Trump is actually prosecuting offenders that break those laws. Only Congress can pass laws. 

Could Trump stop separating families by himself? If he writes an executive order to ignore and stop enforcing the laws. He has said he will not be implementing catch and release like the previous president.  

What Is Asylum?

Seeking asylum means asking the U.S. to accept you — legally — because of persecution you are facing in your home country.

Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor; for a person who has already been deported once, it's a felony. Both types of crimes are currently being prosecuted with no exceptions, even if a person later requests asylum.

Seeking asylum at a port of entry, however, is not a crime at all.

 

You mentioned the seperation comes when you are referred for prosecution because you can’t keep the children in a federal jail with the parents. Now ask yourself why not? .......Because it’s a law.

I'm not sure what you want me to say when you are willfully ignoring the facts. 

The whole point is even if you want to claim asylum you cannot as the Trump administration doesn'rt want any immigrants, irrespective of whether they are a legitimate asylum seekers or not.   

'Could Trump stop separating families by himself?' - Yes of course he could. All he needs to do is accept that some of the people are legitimate asylum seekers and stop throwing them all in the hole together.

 'Seeking asylum means asking the U.S. to accept you — legally — because of persecution you are facing in your home country.' - this is the very definition of asylum but what is currently being ignored by the Trump administration who are choosing to charge people with illegal entry rather than accept they may be legitimate asylum seekers. This is what everyone has a problem with including the UN (side note - do you think it's sheer coincidence that the Trump administration has confirmed they are leaving the UN Human Rights Council?)

'You mentioned the seperation (sic) comes when you are referred for prosecution because you can’t keep the children in a federal jail with the parents. Now ask yourself why not? .......Because it’s a law'. 

That's the whole point. It's only the law IF you DON'T choose to classify people as legitimate asylum seekers, hence why the Trump administration are calling everyone illegal immigrants, making it particularly difficult for people  to plead their case as asylum seekers. 

An excerpt from the New York times - The government has been seeking to hold more migrants in detention to speed up their removal. It is also discouraging people from applying for asylum, immigrant advocates and lawyers say, by criminally prosecuting those applicants who enter the country illegally rather than letting them turn themselves in at an official border station. These people can only apply for asylum once their criminal case has been heard and they have served time.

Some migrants who have presented themselves at a port of entry to claim asylum have had their children taken from them, though that was only supposed to happen to those being prosecuted for illegally crossing the border, according to several immigrant advocacy organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging such family separations in court.

I'm not sure how many times I need to explain this catch 22 that Trump has created. If you don't want to face these undeniable facts that even the Trump administration themselves happily admit then that is entirely your choice but these are the facts and is why everyone is rightfully indignant about the whole fiasco. If you had an ounce  of humanity and a sense of fair play, you too should be up in arms.  

4 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

Here are the facts: 

 

Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum are not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. It’s when they enter illegally and break the law that causes a problem. From there, if they choose deportation, they aren’t separated from their kids, but if they choose to apply for asylum and they stay in the country longer than 20 days, their kids have to be removed by operation of law.

 

Here are some good suggestions:

 

If you want to apply for asylum do it the legal way.

 

If you attack an agent, expect high odds of being shot.