MajarTheLion

On 11/27/2020 at 11:39 PM, Sheryl said:

 

You do not have to have a letter of invitation or job offer.

 

visa procedures are no different for residents of Thailand than for anywhere else.  Tourist visas are not being issued, you will have to apply for an "ordinary" visa. Check with the Embassy in Bangkok as to any requirements for that, but I think it is just an application. Though you will have to state a reason (ither than tourism) for the visit.

 

Note that there are no direct flights between Bangkok and PP, have to route through Singapore or Seoul. I don't think you can enter overland, but double check that with the Embassy.

I am working on a job offer in Cambodia. I want to end up living there regardless. Let's suppose I get the job and end up working in Cambodia. Do you know or suspect, based on conditions now, if I can get a retirement visa in country if this job doesn't work out? I am a US citizen, 56 and the eventual goal is to simply retire there living off monthly divorce settlement funds. Any information will be greatly appreciated.

I can guarantee this: whether or not I get any COVID vaccine will have nothing to do with whether or not any politician claims to have gotten any vaccine, whether on television or not. If anything, doing so on television is a reason to be suspicious. But I'm sure many people may decide differently. To each his own.

Meh... last century, crop circles. Now it's monoliths. Who knows what's coming next?

Police rarely beat people who obey the law and comply with lawful orders. Funny how that works.

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There's evidence in the article I just linked to that addresses this question.

Specifically, what evidence are you talking about? I read the article and am not sure which parts you are talking about.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Again, look at that article. Since you have just pointed out that this is about Trump rallies, tell me what conditions are there at Trump's rallies that are different from other closely packed outdoors events?

As previously stated, the primary difference between Trump rallies and BLM/Antifa protests and riots appears to be less masks are worn at Trump rallies. As such, that seems to suggest social distancing is unnecessary. We're told the virus doesn't spread from Antifa/BLM protests and riots. There is no social distancing at these events. Doesn't that at least suggest social distancing is not needed in order to keep the virus from spreading? Or perhaps could the studies showing the virus doesn't spread at these events be wrong? It seems to me you can't have it both ways.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm really puzzled by what media you read that you don't know about this. So many articles relaying what scientists have found.  A simple search term "new research showing the effectiveness of masks": resulted in this link popping up as #1: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

From your link:

"In hospitals and other health-care facilities, the use of medical-grade masks clearly cuts down transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled."

That is in perfect alignment with my thoughts on masks. Masks have generally been used by professionals in a sterile or very clean environment, using masks with specific filtration abilities. So yes, there are going to be positive results that can be documented.

The general public is being told to put any piece of cloth over their face. They breathe in and out, grab the masks, get more bacteria on their hands then handle produce and other items with the hands they just touched to the dirty masks.

Here is another statement I found interesting (emphasis added by me):

"...and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease."

I find that to be a very wobbly statement. It certainly doesn't sound very scientific, as "hint" and "might" aren't remotely close to being scientific terms.

So I guess I should say I somewhat agree with the information in the link you provided in that there isn't definitive evidence to suggest forcing everyone to wear a mask is either effective or worth restricting people's breathing.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Don't you see the contradiction in what you just wrote? Yes, there are laws restricting where people can fire guns. Isn't that a limitation on their freedom? And the case is even worse for autos. You actually have to have a license to drive one. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? And if you drive unsafely, you can lose that license or worse. Isn't that a limitation on freedom? As for the flu, particularly if it's a bad one, preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down. If that's the case, it should be made a rule to wear masks. That would also be a limitation on freedom.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm

No, I don't see a contradiction. I am all for laws and policies that make sense. I don't see where I posted anything against wearing masks. That said, your statement that (emphasis added by me) "preliminary epidemiological evidence seems to indicate that mask wearing works in tamping it down" seems to be a very flaccid endorsement. I would argue that your assessment is not cause to make wearing a mask mandatory. Based on the statistical and demographic data I already posted, it seems obvious to me the solution is different suggestions for different groups with different risk factors.

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't note is that, as before, hospitalizations are surging upwards. Just as happened before when Florida, Texas, and Arizona decided to relax restrictions. So not only are Covid patients affected, but others who need the services of a hospital are as well.

The topic is "Are Trump's rallies spreading coronavirus? Why it's hard to know the full impact." I'm sure that your reply is related to the topic. I just don't see how. Please help me understand so we can continue debating the topic.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't note about the mask question is that scientific consensus changed as research showed that masks are indeed effective.  That's how science works. So Fauci was simply channeling opinion at the time. Also, there was a big shortage of N95 masks that continues to this day (thanks Trump) and Fauci wanted to make sure front line health care professionals had access to what relatively few there were. Subsequent epidemiological research showed that cloth masks work.

Honestly, this seems very odd to me. There wasn't enough known about the efficacy of masks in early 2020, but there was enough research to change the opinion of Fauci, the country's top expert on infectious diseases, with many decades of experience, in a span of a few months? I'd love to read any links you have to support your claim.

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah but Nixon agreed to resign.

45 is threatening to stay even after.losing.

Nixon was a twisted American. 

45 is our version of Putin,  Erdogan, arguably even Mussolini.

Sorry he's definitely the worst. No contest.

 

Trump is threatening to stay even if he loses? Honestly, I haven't heard that. Do you have a link to support your claim?

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

And freedom to endanger others. Whether it's by not wearing masks or firing off guns whenever and wherever you please!!!

Most jurisdictions have laws about where and when guns can be fired. For the most part, people obey those laws. Of course, there are criminals who don't, and that's why they're criminals. In addition, there are about 20,000 gun laws. Again, the vast majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. Bottom line: it appears to me your two statements don't really belong together, based on facts.

But how far off into the weeds (for lack of a better term) with the "freedom to endanger others" argument do we want to go? Every time you drive a car, you are endangering others. Every time you go to the store while ill with the flu, you endanger others.

Let's look at some COVID-19 statistics to put things in perspective. There have been 9.3 million known cases of COVID-19 in the US. 9,300,000 / 340,000,000 = 2.7%. It's more than safe to say these cases didn't happen all at once. So I will use 0.6% as the odds of any given person at any given time having the virus. I know of no way to calculate the actual risk of transmitting the virus, so we'll let that go. If you have a plan on that, I'm all "ears". So there's a 0.5% chance I have a virus with that has the survival rate described below:

https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases

The math does not look very scary or risky to me. As we already know, there is an average of 2.6 co-morbidities among people who have died from the virus, with the vast majority of deaths being people 55 or over:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/

All this is to say let's keep things in perspective. Rational thought is the way to navigate one's way through any difficulty in life. It's even more important to do as a country.

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It would make more sense if observation was employed. The BLM supporters seem to be mostly wearing masks. The Trump supporters mostly are not, following the example of their cured idol. Or is that in remission? It has not occurred to them they won't be getting the same world-class, taxpayer funded treatment he did if they get sick.

If you want to claim masks are ineffective, they seem to work just fine in many Asian countries. The numbers do tell the story.

Yes, I've addressed the issue of masks. Please see previous posts. I am happy to debate the issue with you. Just to stimulate some productive debate on the issue, let's take a look at what America's top expert on the issue, Anthony Fauci, said:

"Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." He continued, "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-dr-fauci-say-no-masks-like-trump-claiming-1540383

Fauci saying masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" hardly sounds like he thinks masks are very effective. Am I making a fair assessment of his words? If no, why?

Also, Dr. Fauci says people should wear goggles for COVID-19 protection.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/fauci-urges-americans-to-wear-goggles-for-added-covid-19-protection/

I'm curious. Are you wearing goggles?

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt you really believe this weak deflection. It's not either/or. Social distancing helps, Masks help. Following the rules helps. The rules, by the way, formulated by the Trump administration.

So essentially, you are calling me a liar. OK. But let's move beyond that in the hope you will decide personal attacks aren't an effective discussion or debate tactic.

Now, specifically, what did I post that qualifies as "a weak deflection"? And more importantly, why do you think that? Now, I'm happy to reword and enhance my position in the hopes we can have a substantive debate rather than engage in the personal attacks you have chosen thus far. If the virus does not spread in crowds packed together closely, does that suggest social distancing is needed or does it indicate social distancing is not needed? The only relevant difference between the Trump rallies and Antifa/BLM protests and riots is face masks appear to be worn more at Antifa/BLM protests and riots. So, it seems logical to me that masks are likely the key issue and social distancing is not.

As far as the rules formulated by the Trump administration, that doesn't matter to me. I think things through logically. It is for that reason I disagree with Trump on many substantive issues.

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

How about my right to be protected from anti social crazies? Isn't one of the tasks of government to provide safety to its citizens?

In the US, many of us value freedom over being protected from "anti-social crazies". The problem with that is, who decides who the "anti-social crazies" are?

I don't think anyone would argue this Malaysian dude is at all rational. His statement is universally despised and obviously ill-timed. That said, this reminds me of an AP article on the very same subject. The article explains why the Muslim world is so angry with France. The optics and timing of this article are both obscene. So unfortunately, it appears there are some in western civilization who seek to legitimize the savagery we have seen in France in recent weeks. I wholeheartedly reject such savagery and hope and pray France will protect their country and its people without entertaining the nonsense we see from those who seek to excuse or otherwise try to blame others for the actions of barbarians. There can be no weakness or waffling in the stand we as civilized human beings make against these atrocities.

https://apnews.com/article/boycotts-paris-middle-east-western-europe-france-441e4e480ac4151987eb0d289bf3dc12

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

In the upper picture, most people seem to be wearing a mask. In the lower picture, not so much.

Trump is the President. By his (or his campaign's) claims, the President of Law and Order. Yet somehow, his rallies often violate the the regulation his own administrations prescribes, states and local laws. The BLM protestors are often (rightly or not) referred to as 'anarchists'. That you hold both to the same standard is amusing, and sad.

Interesting reply. In both photographs, I see people crowded together. There are people with no masks in the Antifa/BLM shot. There are more people with no masks in the Trump shot. In both photos, people are packed together. Therefore, in order to conclude that the virus spreads in only one type of crowd, one would have to admit that rules on social distancing (which is really PHYSICAL distancing) by six feet are ineffective. If you are ready to admit "social distancing" guidelines are unnecessary and provide no benefit, I think we can move on with debating other aspects.

3 hours ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

This 'everything Trump does is bad' line of thinking is getting pretty tiresome. The mainstream media have become a complete joke. I think Trumps a bit of a **** but, man.....I cannot stand theses lefty cry babies. If he wins again the dummy spit will be monumental. I will find it quite amusing. I cannot for the life of me see how people are getting all excited to go out and vote for Biden/Harris. I wont be surprised to wake up Thursday to see bearded women with blue hair screaming at the top of their lungs.............again.

You make a fair point. However, I would argue that a very small number of people are excited to vote for Biden/Harris. They simply hate Trump. It is an important distinction to make, IMHO. I believe that the enthusiasm gap Biden/Harris suffer from translates to less votes for them, while the high enthusiasm for Trump translates to more votes.

And obviously, anyone following campaign events can see the difference in crowd sizes at both candidates' rallies. And we haven't even gotten into the massive parade of people and vehicles for Trump, even in places like Beverly Hills!

According to the experts, the virus does not spread at Antifa and BLM riots.

But we are told that the virus does spread at Trump rallies.

Logically, it does not make sense to any rational person. This departure from common sense it illustrative of why many people are suspicious of what the *experts* tell us.

4 hours ago, candide said:

Are you claiming that "leftist" are supporting Kahmenei?

No. My words are/were very specific. I'm saying what I said.

4 hours ago, shdmn said:

Why don't you just admit he's a racist instead of playing these games pretending your support of him is about something else?

I would encourage you to come up with a topical and rational response. Accusing me of playing games does not forward honest debate. I prefer Trump for many reasons. I also oppose him on several important issues. Your assumption that you know it's about racism, without any basis in fact- well, consider it completely rejected and without any merit whatsoever. But do feel free to present some merit to go along with your accusation.

Twitter censors Trump for anything they find "offensive". The Ayatollah Kahmeini tweets he'll destroy Israel and it gets to stay. Who can take Twitter seriously? Obviously moderated by leftist clowns.

On 10/6/2020 at 7:58 AM, VincentRJ said:

There are alternatives to recycling.
 

"Sophisticated incinerators that burn plastic and other municipal waste can produce enough heat and steam to turn turbine blades and generate electricity for the local grid. The European Union, which restricts the landfilling of organic waste, already burns almost 42 percent of its waste; the U.S. burns 12.5 percent."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/should-we-burn-plastic-waste/#:~:text=Sophisticated incinerators that burn plastic,the U.S. burns 12.5 percent.

 

However, the electricity generated from burning waste plastic, with the additional cost of emission controls, is probably not competitive with other sources of electricity. To cover that increased cost, a small tax needs to be applied to each kilogram of plastic bottles or bags produced from oil. Problem solved. ????

"A small tax"... that's how it always starts.

15 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Exactly what Donald  Trump needs, a good hit on a big, fat joint every few hours to mellow his ingrained hatred for anything he does'nt agree with!

I wonder if you see the irony in that reaction. Hopefully, you do- and with good cheer. For the record, we absolutely should legalize marijuana.