BangkokReady

I suspect for many it's more a case of making up for, rather than reliving. Nothing wrong with that though.

Maybe sacrifice the next election in order to get Thaksin home?

It's very strange. They've made Biden into this mythical "Great Gray Hope" character. The only person who can possibly beat Trump, so no matter what he does/has done, no matter how old or decrpid he gets, they can't let any of it out, their anti-Trump feelings are that strong. Why not just find a different candidate? One without the sleeze and the questions around his mental faculties?

They're clearly terrified of anything negative coming out about Biden, and desperately want to close down any discussion of this article. It must be somehting big.

I just don't really understand what point you are making. You come to the comments section, see people discussing what is in the article, then start demanding court admissible proof like you're somehting special. What's the point? Who cares if you don't believe the article? Why waste everyone's time asking for external proof of something in an article when you know that is what people are referring to? It's completely pointless. You've shared your opinion, but it doesn't change anything. You don't get to choose other people's opinions, as much as you would like to.

If you're now changing your point to being that you don't believe what the article says is true, what's the point of coming here to discuss it? You don't believe the article. Great. Congratulations. It's still very damming if it's true.

It's in the article if you click the link: "Archer also testified that Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone during business meetings more than 20 times, according to Comer." It doesn't say over 10 years though.

Both of them appear to suggest Biden's involvement in his son's business. If you don't believe it, then that's up to you, but it seems kind of pointless where I'm discussing the contents of the article and you're saying you don't believe them. What's the point of your commenting? You could have just said you don't believe the article and moved on. Obviously if the article is false, then it's flase, but I'm commenting on what the article says (in the comments on the article of all places). Why assume that the chap didn't say what has been reported? Neither side appears to be contradicting the other.

(Oh look, more ad-homs because you lack the ability to interact in a mature and reasoned manner.) Sadly I couldn't view it the link. You saying I don't know what other means, no doubt in the middle of a jumbled ad-hom, is not the same as you challenging me on it or asking for a definition. Do you seriously want me to define "wokeness" now? Obviously I can do it?

No. The law applies to everyone the same. "Thai people shouldn't have to follow the law, but foringers must." - Bizarre

Exactly.

You're unclear about how Biden, who joined business meetings over the phone and was viewed as being integral to the company brand, was involved in the business? Seriously?

Everything I am saying relates to the article, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't make up anything. That's you. Just read the article. I haven't said anything that isn't there.

I've replied to all your pointless comments. You haven't challenged me on workeness. All you had was a load of ad-homs because you have no point to make. So after all that, you now want to start a new line of questioning, and that is that you suddenly want me to define woke, correct?

Not really. Biden was involved in the business. Someone must have been getting paid. It's fairly clear.

Regular involvement in business meetings and being part of the company's brand is just "throwing a bone"? You think Hunter was struggling? You dont think the Vice President of the United States of America has to have any kind of integrity? How naive do you think people are?

Why?

You are the one that has been making ad-homs, so you shouldn't be surprised that I pointed that out to you. You didn't actually challenge me on the term wokeness. You talk about Epstein and morality around age-gaps, then claim that age-gaps are ok. You're arguments lack coherence and continuity. Please check the post comments before making erroneous claims about what had already been discussed. I didn't deflect. I answered you and you started making ad-homs because you had no come back. You also didn't discuss feminism or wokeness. Why should I humour you, when you so clearly seem to be being intellectually dishonest? You ask me one thing, then when I answer you only reply with an ad-hom, then you make up load of nonsense, now you are trying to backtrack and claim that you were asking me about something you weren't. Why should I feed the troll?

Hardly. You're not making any sense and I'm pointing that out. Who is we? You're making even less sense now. What point are you even trying to make? All you seem to be doing is trying to ad-hom because you have nothing to say.

Well, if all you have are ad-homs, don't be surprised when people point them out to you. The only person contacting to talk about these things is you. I agree. Age-gap relationships are fine imo.

Such as?

Age is not the issue in age gap relationships? That's an interesting perspective. Who cares if someone is ugly? You seem to have a bit of an egenda, as suggested by your apparent meaningless contribution and ad-homs. I disagree.

You keep making the same nonsensical comments and I will keep pointing them out. ????‍♂️

It's very clear what happened and what the implications are. Read the article properly and you will see it. We can all see it.

It's quite simple. Your analogy failed. As I explained. Who said anything about being ugly? Where did this insult suddenly come from? Interesting. The more you talk the more you expose yourself.