heybruce

I have never been able to dislike Dolly Parton; Miley Cyrus, not so much, but she shows good judgment here. Though it is an easy call--banning a song because it "could be perceived as controversial."? Even in an elementary school, that is far to low a bar for violating the First Amendment. Every song imaginable could be banned.

Very ironic on more than one level. First: Speech is free, but if you want anyone beyond your immediate circle of friends to hear/read it, you have to pay. Second: It is supposed to eliminate bots. However it does little to dissuade those behind troll farms. Paying for a few hundred or thousand "verified" accounts for paid trolls would be chump change for governments behind such tactics. Eliminating the noise from bots does them a favor. Here's a crazy idea: Only sell "verified" accounts to people willing to verify they are behind the posts. That would significantly slow down both bots and professional trolls.

Are you blind to the meaning of my post? As I've explained before, an elected corrupt leader is better than an unelected coup leader.

Everyone must play the cards they are dealt, not the cards they wish they were dealt.

Instead of banning political parties that have a nasty habit of winning elections, why not ban amnesties for coup leaders and ban military involvement in politics?

I apologize for not taking your post as humor. In my defense, there are plenty of low info posters who use terms like that in the mistaken belief that they are being clever. There is also a Faux News pundit who attempted to popularize the term "demonrats". https://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeanine-pirro-calls-democrats-demon-rats-thats-what-i-said-demon-rats

"demo-rats" Clever. Now it's my turn: repugnant-cans. Now you can take your turn, or you could try to post something relevant to the topic.

"Trump is a smart insider who knows how the political game is played." Trump is a failed businessman (I use the term loosely) who doesn't want to reveal his taxes because it would show what a fraud he is. "As a result, Trump scares the <deleted> out of all the politicians and hangers on who feed at the government trough and who have for decades." Trump scares the <deleted> out of people who know that running any large, sprawling, complex organization is difficult, and there are none more difficult that running the largest economy in the world. He was and remains completely unqualified for the job. We were lucky he didn't do more damage the first time, though the January 6 insurrection came close to catastrophic damage. "Violent rhetoric, outrageous personal attacks and baseless lies aren't unique in American politics, but the kind of nonsense being seen now hasn't been common for more than 150 years." There are no better examples of this than the Faux News pundits, Alex Jones, One America, and the other right-wing extremist outlets that some people confuse with news sources.

You could ask the same questions about every top official in Thailand. You could start with military leaders and those who came to power through coups.

I see. From the source provided: "A crowd of "several thousand"[12] protesters from a group called Network of Students and People for Reform of Thailand attempted to disrupt the registration process by forcing their way into the stadium. A truck was driven at the gates in an attempt to break them down. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon. The violence escalated with firearms being used on both sides." You don't think obstructing candidates from registering is election obstruction. Can you explain how there can be elections without candidates?

Who do you think obstructed the elections in 2014? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Thai_general_election

You have no proof to support any of your claims above. However I concede that Thaksin was corrupt. Now try to convince me and others that a corrupt military leader who seized power in a coup is better than a corrupt elected leader who can be ousted in the next election.

"Further, I don't believe all the "yellow shirts" are /were rabid royalist, many were simply against Thaksin and cohorts." They were also against elections.

Right, "reported amount". Got a better source than that? More important, did you go to Isaan or the North before Thaksin was elected? It was third world. After just a few years of a Prime Minister that didn't neglect the majority of the Thai people roads and clinics were built, kids started staying in school, barely literate parents saw their children graduate public school and go to university, etc. It turns out paying attention to the Thais outside of Bangkok was a real vote winner. The Bangkok elite hated it.

A Trump speech is too painful to read in full, so I just skimmed it. I'm sure the peacefully comment is in there somewhere, but I didn't find it. I did find many, many lies about a stolen election, and near the end: "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." How you close a speech has far more impact than stuff buried in the middle.

Your link is sometimes in error (Gorbachev himself confirmed there was no promise not to expand NATO), refers to a gold standard that no longer served its purpose, addresses a support role the US took in the Libyan affair, etc. I am aware of no other time in US history has one President so suddenly and irresponsibly abrogated an agreement like Trump did with the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

My comment was about ISIS, as was your post I replied to. ISIS was in full retreat. Syria remained a mess, something no on has been able to fix. From your source: "The US, along with a 60-nation coalition, has been pounding the group with airstrikes for more than two years, and US special operators have worked to train and assist Iraqi Security Forces and vetted rebel groups in Syria." "The efforts have squeezed ISIS on the battlefield, reducing its territory and taking out key figures in its leadership. A campaign to retake Mosul, the group’s base in Iraq, is making progress."

If Alvin Bragg had posted a picture of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Trump would you still consider it benign? No, you would have lost your mind.

You confirmed what I just posted: Before Trump when the US entered into an agreement with another country it was of indefinite duration. Because of Trump the world considers any promise made by America to be subject to change after each election. That is not good.

ISIS was in full retreat when Trump took office, Trump took credit for the work started by Obama. Trump rewarded Kim for his belligerence. After that things went back to the unpleasant normal that has long existed between North Korea and the US. Right, peace-mongering Trump. He was a regular Neville Chamberlain.

Trump broke the agreement that was restricting Iran's nuclear program, and showed the world that agreements with the US could not be counted on from one President to the next. That wasn't the case before Trump.

Not always. ???? https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/QRAAAOSwWBdhsloK/s-l500.jpg

How has Biden failed? Relations with Iran are no worse than when Trump left office, and relations with most of the world are much better. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that the trust Trump destroyed will take a long time to repair.

Really? At what time were Antifa and BLM threatening to take Congress and the Vice President hostage and prevent the certification of a legitimate Presidential election? Also, if you would pull your head out of your information vacuum you would have no trouble finding numerous arrests and prosecutions that followed the protests over the George Floyd murder.

Trump taught Iran and the rest of the world that the US can't be trusted. Fixing that takes time.