heybruce

Read the post I replied to.

Where in your source does it state that the laptop and the manner in which it came to light did not appear to be Russian disinformation? After 2016 it certainly appears to be the sort of thing Russia would do.

More likely the problem is that the West isn't convince the opposing parties can ally themselves into a viable alternative to the dictatorship, the countries surrounding Myanmar don't want to get involved or are autocracies themselves, and China is so opposed to a successful revolution leading to a democracy in Myanmar that it would use any sign of western involvement as an excuse to support the dictatorship in any way necessary to prevent that from happening.

Why not have an election and let the majority of Thai people decide what they want for their country? Oh wait, you don't like that. It appears you're OK with brutal repression to prevent it.

This is the Thailand forum. Did you forget?

I thought you might be joking about the "Jewish banking conspiracy". Were you serious?

"even keel"? Is that the euphemism for autocracy and repression?

Proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

In reviewing your posts on this topic a see biased opinions unsupported by facts. Is that how educated people who think for themselves express themselves?

I don't think the Maga types are big on reading.

"But obviously they still have to follow the laws and the constitution." Unless they seize power in a coup.

Right..... You can't back up what you post, so you accuse other people of not knowing what is going on.

I have mixed feelings about this. I loved seeing Faux News exposed and receiving well deserved ridicule. However it was clear that any ruling against it would be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. That might have resulted in the court defining the legal line that separates biased, ratings obsessed reporting from lies and slander. I don't trust the current court to draw that line.

What are your sources for these "Petagon simulations"?

Actually it's China that claims it doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but it is very flexible on what it considers interference when it comes to what it claims are "traditional" Chinese territories. The US has made commitments to help Taiwan defend itself from a Chinese attack, and the US will keep these commitments. That is why China hasn't attacked.

This was addressed earlier in the topic: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-world-depends-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors.html If China is self-sufficient in chip manufacturing, why are they so upset on the restrictions on imports of chips and chip manufacturing technology imposed by the US?

"drip-feeding weapons"? I'm sure this is asking too much, but try to inform yourself before posting. Neither Russia, Ukraine, or allies on either side knew how much weaponry the conflict would require. Neither side or their allies had the mountains of spare munitions lying around that the uninformed seem to thing are there. Neither side, or their allies, can immediately ramp up production of these weapons; it will take years to replace what has been used.

Your start with the assumption that "civil war" will break out between China and Taiwan, and suggest that the US will go all in. Rather than my getting into all your hypotheticals beyond that point, why don't you justify those two assumptions?

How does this answer the question in my post: "What do you think is the appropriate response when Thomas has been "a bit" dishonest on signed documents, every year, going back many years? " That is professional dishonesty, and it's illegal. Any comments on that?

Hopefully China has a better grasp of the consequences of such an action than you do.

Going from 60 mph/100 Km per hour in ten seconds is a controlled stop. The same change in a fraction of a second is a crash, frequently fatal. The rate at which change happens matters. The climate is currently changing faster than the environment can adapt. That's an environmental crash.

Mayday, mayday: No sources given. Agreed; it's all science denial theater.

I read the full article. A lot of speculation and hyperbole, no mention of specific crimes or evidence. If any of the Bidens committed crimes, then prosecute them. If the President is implicated then investigate. Until then, I won't waste time on other people's excited speculation.

So you're up to "a bit honest". Really high standards there. What do you think is the appropriate response when Thomas has been "a bit" dishonest on signed documents, every year, going back many years?

How about sick, disgusting, creepy as sh*t. I know, those words weren't used either. However wouldn't you agree they are appropriate?