newnative

Actually, 74,224,000. Not 78 milion--yet another exaggeration regarding Trump. For the record, he lost by 7 million votes. Biden was the choice of 51.3% of the voters. In two elections, Trump has never garnered even 50%. He lost to Clinton by 2.8 million votes but was appointed president by the cursed Electoral College. After his one term as the worst president in US history (thanks for nothing, EC!) the voters rightly booted him out. In two elections, it's clear that the majority of the American voters don't want him, always going for the alternate choice. Likely to be true in 2024, as well.

Hold the hype. Neither 'bizarre' nor 'alarming'.

Oh, dear. How utterly awful! She agrees with something Trump is also in favor of. My goodness, we cannot have that--it 'sparks controversy'. Well, boys and girls, in the days of yesteryear, that was not the rarity that it is now. And, politicians from opposing parties agreeing to something would not 'spark controversy'. Often then, both parties could be for something that benefitted the country, or a segment of it, and it would just be a matter of compromising on the details. Hence, politics being termed 'the art of compromise'. For example, the majority of both House Democrats and House Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. NASA was proposed by a Republican president--Eisenhower--and passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Compare that to the Affordable Care Act, which passed the Senate without a single Republican vote of support. No Republicans were in favor of affordable health care for Americans? Not even one? Seriously? Likely some were but were pressured to not give a win to the Democrats. Sad that these days, too often if a Democrat is for something, a Republican is automatically against it, no matter what it is. And, vice versa. It's often a struggle to get just a few politicians from the opposing side to vote in favor of something, let alone a majority. God forbid that one party or the other gets credit for initiating something beneficial. Certainly cannot have that either.

555 Yes, wouldn't Trump 'desire' to 'step away' from the abortion issue. It's a big loser for him, and despite his claim that it's not a 'big factor' in elections, clearly it is. He lost the women's vote in 2020--57% voted for Biden--and that cost him the election. Interestingly, 54% of women voted for Clinton in 2016, so he actually lost ground with them in 2020, after his one horrible term as the worst president in history. Likely he will do no better with women in 2024, and certainly isn't helped by his 'cat woman' dud of a VP choice. (Hint to Trump: When you're forced to step in front of a camera and declare that a VP choice doesn't make a difference in an election, you've lost that argument.)

Walk it off. You'll live.

I stand ready to hear the screams of 'DUAL PRICING'. Oh, wait a minute. Foreigners get in FREE and Thais have to pay 5 THOUSAND BAHT to enter. Never mind.

Yes, an old trick, and one of many. The objective is to suppress the vote as much as possible. Why? Look to Donald Trump for the answer. He famously said that if you make voting easy, Republicans will never win another election. So, you make voting as difficult as possible. You oppose mail-in voting. You oppose early voting. You oppose same-day voting registration. You post armed 'observers' at voting places to intimidate voters. You restrict voting places and put them in places difficult for voters to get to. You send an attorney for Arizona's Republican Party to the Supreme Court to defend voting restrictions that have been put in place. At least the attorney was refreshingly honest. When asked by a Supreme Court justice why these restrictions were needed, he frankly stated that they helped the Republican Party and hurt the Democrat Party. Noted.

They don't seem to be learning their lesson. Every time they dissolve the party, the new iteration emerges even stronger. Another thread has the new People's Party at 84% support, with PT at 9%. Clearly, Whack-A-Mole isn't working.

Stunning number. Thais may not be rioting in the streets over the horrible MFP decision but they are letting it be known exactly what they think of the decision and will get their revenge at the next election.

Color me one of the unbothered. Voters voted for or against her as part of the Biden/Harris ticket in 2020. She was known to be Biden's running mate in the 2024 primary process. Delegates, representing the voters, can choose to vote for her or someone else at the convention. And, in the general election, voters can vote for her or any other candidates on the presidential ballot in their state.

Umm. What country are you from? It's not the 'far left' that wants to 'change the electoral college'. Instead, it's The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Instead of the 'far left', it's 17 states that have voted to award their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote. The Compact would go into effect once enough states ratify it to reach 270 electoral votes. Currently, enough states have signed on to have the tally at 205, with legislation pending in several other states.

It bears remembering that the polls were correct in 2016. Trump did lose 'by a huge margin' of actual voters--2.8 million more voters wanted Clinton than Trump. The election wasn't even close with the popular vote. The cursed Electoral College over-ruled the wishes of 65,800,000 voters and appointed Trump president.

Not that this will ever happen in a million years, but I urge every poster that is opposed to trans rights and gender affirming medical care to read a fine novel called Mad Honey, which beautifully deals with these issues. Issues, I might add, that do not always neatly slot into 'one size fits all' solutions. Lost in all the back and forth shouting and bickering is the fact that there is always an individual involved, with his or her own unique story. Should you choose to read the novel, you'll meet Lily, a trans teen, and will discover her story. The novel certainly opened my eyes and I gained a new perspective on the issues.

Whichever way you slice it, election subversion should never be considered to fall under the 'official duties' of a president.

Abortion remains a big issue--and Trump stupidly called attention to it. Not only is it a big issue but it's a losing issue for Trump. Pew Research has 61% of Americans in favor of abortion being legal in all or most cases.

Simple solution, only allow foreign passport holders into the casinos to gamble. With no gambling currently available here in Thailand in any form, or in any neighboring countries, Thais will remain protected from the evils of gambling.

Good luck!

I am on the Darkside, too. There are three young Chinese families in our new housing development and perhaps more to come as homes are completed. We have become acquainted with one Chinese family, a nice couple with two young children, with a business in China. The couple speaks good English and are very friendly. At one of our get-togethers, my spouse and I asked them why they wanted to live in Thailand and they said one of the main reasons was their children. They felt they would get a better education at a private school here, and they wanted them to grow up here rather than in China.

Not a big fan of the new name--I would have liked 'Move' or 'Forward' as part of the new party name--but I wish them all the best. Like the logo and great they kept their signature orange.

Disgusting.

Much as it pains me to type this--and it does pain me--you are semi-correct. Incorrect regarding Trump winning the 'debate'. Likely correct that Trump will win the talent portion of the Sept. 10th beauty pagent. His 'talent', of course, is the endless litany of outright lies, half-truths, distortions, exaggertions, and insults that he will be entertaining the audience with. Note, not the debate judges, but the Great Unwashed viewing at home. Not for Trump actually answering a debate question. What does that get him except likely a loss with both his 'debate' answer and a loss by the bored viewers at home switching to something else to watch. Best example? His non-answer, not once but twice, to the child care question in the first 'debate' with Biden. Is the plight of child care entertaining? Not in the least. So, no answer twice and instead, an entertaining part of his stump speech inserted to keep the viewers entertained. Oh, to hark back to the days of actual debates, before Trump came on the scene. When the candidates soberly answered the questions put to them in a mostly intelligent and reasoned discussion of the issues. Trump has destroyed all that. And, shame on the 'debate' moderators for allowing him to run amok unchecked. It's interesting that there was one article I saw after the last 'debate' that gave Trump a grade of 'F'. That, however, was marking his debate performance, and it was largely lost in the tidal wave of articles having him winning the evening otherwise. I don't envy Harris. How do you debate someone who is not debating but, intstead, entertaining the viewing audience with his greatest hits from his campaign stump? If she actually answers the debate questions but Trump does his same debate 1 performance, will she get a winning debate grade but, once again, Trump wins on entertainment value with the public? In the article I mentioned above, Biden was given a debate mark of either D or D-, I forget. So, technically, he actually won the debate over Trump's even worse debate mark, a dismal 'F'. But, a lot of good that did him in the world of 2024 Trump 'debating' vs., say, a debate from the Obama-Romney era. Likely the same fate awaits Harris if she sticks to actually debating. I suggested in a post on another thread that she fight fire with fire. She needs to ditch boring debate statistics and agressively counter whatever Trump spouts, even if it does not remotely relate to the debate question asked. In this upcoming September 10th 'debate'/beauty pagent, if she's named Miss Congeniality, she's lost.

Good. They need to get all the current MFP members to join the new party. That will get them off to a great start.

Or, just leave 800,000 in the bank year-round.

Glacial.

Tim is a definite plus and a great fit for Harris. While Harris is a somewhat exotic candidate--a woman of color--Tim nicely tempers that by being a steady, regular guy with plenty of experience. They can easily see him as someone who can take over as president, if need be. In short, he moves the needle in a very positive way. I think he will pull in lots of undecided voters to vote Democrat, reassure and energize Democrats, and likely pull in Republicans who can't stomach Trump, or Vance. Picking Vance was a huge mistake (thank you!) for Trump. He already has the wacko and weird vote locked up. Choosing a wacko and weird VP to solidify a voting group that really didn't need any help was not the way to go. Even your best case, Vance being 'neutral' and not a negative, brings absolutely nothing to the table. Why would you choose someone 'neutral' who doesn't even move the needle? How does having a ticket of Weird and Weirder get you across the finish line? Trump needed far more than 'neutral' to make the undecided voters and sane Republicans take a second look. In two presidential elections, he has lost the popular vote badly--2.8 million and, even worse, 7 million--going backwards with the voters. How does he do any better this time around as a convicted felon and rapist, with other serious charges hanging over his head? And, at age 78, lots of voters see Trump as a doddering, delusional, dead man walking and will be looking at who steps in should Trump depart for Danteland. Vance as that person scares far too many. Trump made a terrible, terrible choice. Yaa!!!