BobBKK

Many Thais are just 12 year old's in a mans body. He got caught out and then crocodile tears. Boring.

Is it coincidence that Stormy has issued a 'reward' for the 'non-existent' man of 131,000 exactly 1,000 more than her 'reward' for keeping her mouth shut?  Obviously designed to make her hush money seem more 'clean'  and maybe she knows 'he' can never be found?  who knows but one things for sure Trump doesn't know either. Exists or not?  

Just now, smotherb said:

Gee, at least you have done some research. However, I feel it is a waste of time trying to explain anything to you.

 

You have again gone off half-cocked, or is it totally unloaded. I said, " Seems some Americans were certainly concerned about Democrat president Clinton's sexual dalliances. " I do hope you can accept that "some" Americans were concerned because he was impeached.

 

I see no point to your erroneous post or your altered one.

 

Now please let it die. The moderators have been kind to let us continue with such an off-topic series of post.

We had let it die now YOU raise it again. Why?  I could answer your erroneous points but will not do so to respect the Mods previous post (before yours #93 - did you read it?).

Now can we get back to Stormy Daniels and Trumps assertion he is 'non-existent'?  (no need to reply).

Pet hate that buses and taxi's stop to gas up but it happens here in Philippines too.

Positive spin was undoubted played out here (it was a Thai org) and so Thais are much MORE glum than this shows us. It's not scientific but every Thai I know is glum these days. Everything more expensive, no input to leadership and no one cares!  Hope it changes at some point.

2 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

Yeah, look into faces. The eSwatinians have a smile all over their faces because the reed dance is coming up on August 27th and lasts until September 3rd. The others are the Swiss ....... grouchy looks because = no reed dance; simple as that! 

Funny. I assumed they were ahead in the internet or something. Email etc.

3 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Of course, making false statements couldn't possibly alter your point.

 

 

What "false statements"?  I am making a valid commentary on the fact that most of America were unconcerned by the Clinton scandal and wanted him to remain in post. There has been lots of research on 'how and why'. You might not agree with it but please refrain and desist attacking me personally. Thank you.

As to why Clinton survived the impeachment, I believe the American Public saw through all the political tricks, and as distasteful as Clinton's sexual habits were, they did not support removing him from office on the charge, and it was clear to those voting in the impeachment trial that removing him from office would have serious consequences with voters.  To convict the President, 67 votes of guilty were required.  The perjury charge failed, with 45 Republicans voting to convict, and 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting to acquit.  The obstruction of justice also failed, with 50 Republicans voting to convict and 45 Democrats and 5 Republicans voting to acquit.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Bill-Clinton-survive-the-Lewinsky-scandal

10 minutes ago, smotherb said:

 

My poor mislead friend. You can think of an impeachment as a trial. As in a trial, you can be found guilty or innocent. Clinton was impeached--put on trial--and was acquitted.

 

Now, please tell me more about your misinformed opinion on "damn lies" and "statistics"

Altered my mistake to appease a few of you who know the content is correct but deflect and obfuscate by piling in on a small error I made in haste.

No Americans were not that concerned and wanted him to remain as POTUS and he was NEVER convicted if you recall.

It did not alter the point of my post. Thank you. 

11 minutes ago, steven2018 said:

Why do the Thai have to change? - it is their country.

 

Stay out of the Thai kitchen, if you don't like the pad thai

 

 

They don't have to change but they will develop over time. Modern, well educated and well traveled Thais have much less 'Thainess'  than the uneducated spoon fed masses who think Naga live in the rivers.

Living anywhere is a trade-off and I don't think any of us think we will change Thais nor would attempt too but we don't have to like all of it.

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

In the real world there are set meanings, just not one set meaning.  20% of the British do not live in absolute poverty by the UN definition but 20% of the British do live in absolute poverty by the UK definition.

 

Yes agreed and thanks for the recognition that it's just a 'definition' when in reality many Africans with not even a bowl of rice live in 'absolute poverty'. I would say that in the UK many people are on State Benefits (maybe 20% I don't know the figure) and suffer some hardship, but everything's relative, however 'absolute poverty' is hyperbole.  

UN definition:

Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He wasn't impeached for BJs. Again, promoting ignorance. 

Sure, Comey might get in legal trouble and McCabe seems to be more at risk, but neither are president or even have government jobs NOW so much less consequential.

Clinton was mostly not convicted for political reasons, as he had the votes in the senate to block him. But the perjury charge, while serious, is not as serious as some of the potential rumblings towards "trump" which may fall more into the treason category. 

He was 'impeached' for lying to a grand jury when he said 'no sexual relations' (i.e. BJ in the WH) but was ACQUITTED yes for political reasons same as most of the BS around Trump.

Just now, Jingthing said:

After being impeached. 

I accepted that he was technically impeached now stop the bullying and harassment. My point is valid but I should have said  "he was acquitted". Happy now?

Just now, mikebike said:

Sure objective facts should always take a back seat to the subjective reality Bob perceives. Hahaha.

Are you British?  you are seriously suggesting one in five are in 'absolute poverty'?  amazing

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not might. WAS!

Again, it is not pedantic. 

Nobody can even begin to intelligently discuss what might happen to "trump" now without understanding the difference between impeachment and conviction. That is basic. Just man up and accept that please and don't waste our time with silly arguments promoting ignorance. 

ACQUITTED

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. Not pedantic. BASIC KNOWLEDGE. It's weird you refuse to accept basic terms. 

 

Back to "trump" he is at risk to be impeached if the democrats take the house in November, but it would be a much higher bar to convict him in the senate. Similar to Clinton. But the charges against Clinton weren't objectively that horrible. We're waiting to see what emerges about "trump." It is conceivable that the charges might be so severe that he could be impeached and convicted and/or disgraced into resignation like Nixon, who was in the process of being impeached when he did that.

Ah 'charges were not that horrible' because it was Clinton right?  BJ's in the White House are ok?  the bias is outstanding.  On a more serious note let's wait and see about Trump and I could see Comey in serious legal trouble too but we all are guessing.

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The reality is that the term "absolute poverty" has no set meaning, the UK and UN terms mean completely different things, but that only means you are ignorant of the UK term rather than their stat being misleading.

Agreed no set meaning. Are you from the UK?  if you were you would know that 'in the real world' 20% of Britons are not in 'absolute poverty'.

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. Not pedantic. BASIC KNOWLEDGE. It's weird you refuse to accept basic terms. 

It changes not my point. I accept technically he might have been impeached but it is irrelevant as he was acquitted (the word means not guilty).

I d not want to get into a pedantic argument (you love those) which deflects from the point thank you.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

You are incorrect and now digging your error deeper. He was impeached. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Time to learn it before you keep posting inaccurately. 

An academic and pedantic point (normal for you). Technically impeached but ACQUITTED and so my point in the post was CORRECT even if I made a technical error your highness.

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He definitely was impeached in congress. He was not convicted in the senate so allowed to stay.

 

 

He was acquitted and so it was not successful ergo : no impeachment