BobBKK

Where's the Southend players?  come on you Shrimpers!

10 hours ago, smotherb said:

Really, well try researching incomes, pensions, standards of living . . .

 

An while you are at it, try https://fullfact.org/economy/one-in-five-poverty/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content 

 

You'll find that one in five UKes are in absolute poverty--that's 20%

 

The US is closer to 15% or less https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/03/never-ending-war

 

 

Utter nonsense and depends how you define 'poverty'.  I am from the UK and don't tell me 20% are in 'absolute poverty'.  Lies, damn lies and statistics.

18 hours ago, smotherb said:

Oh, are Americans not concerned because Trump is a Republican? Seems some Americans were certainly concerned about Democrat president Clinton's sexual dalliances. By the way, weren't Clinton's sexual relations and his denial thereof part of the grounds for his impeachment?   So, there may be more to it than her desire to make money.

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

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

You're responding to someone saying 'it's a violation of election law.'

 

look up "payment in kind" and 'election law' as it pertains to Cohen and Trump.

 

There are strict laws in the US which say a person who contributes money or payment-in-kind to a candidate during a campaign, is required to register that amount, and there's a limit to the amount which can be donated.   Cohen broke that law, and probably many other laws.  

 

Cohen has a choice to wax truthful and get a few years behind bars, or hang tough and get many years in prison.   Trump can't pardon for state-level law-breaking.  Cohen's kids are going to grow up without a dad around.

What has paying a prostitute to do with 'contributions or payment-in-kind'  unless you interpret sex as 'payment-in-kind'?

See this all the time it's just part of 'Thainess'.

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It's a violation of election law, that's what's wrong with it.

What law?  there is a law that says politicians may not have sex then pay off the 'other' party?  or is this just another cheap attack from the gutter?  this will continue, of course, but it won't effect anything nor will the 'Reds under the bed' strategy. Dems have lost their way and should be attacking the monstrous attack on Syria oh wait... they supported that.

A Storm in a teacup.

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

And some protection against Russian interference would also be welcome 

USA is the master at manipulating other countries elections. I have NO doubt Russia and USA do this day to day and have departments set up for this purpose. This is nothing new but is spun by the Dems as why they lost. They lost because they were arrogant and PC and Trump won because he was there. America is deeply divided. 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

It has gone way beyond that point. Nothing to do with screwing her, but with payments.

 

But as he said, he could kill someone on 5th avenue and you guys wouldn't care.

What's wrong with paying her?  he's a rich guy and married and wanted to hush it up. Happens all over the world but you guys will drag anything, just anything, out of the gutter to bring him down. How about focusing on policy where he is a disaster? I am totally against Trump on multiple issues but this is not the way to do it and many Americans won't like it and it may backfire in 2020.

Prawit seems to deny many things as he has an ephemeral relationship with the truth.

8 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

 

Lol....well, the very fact that he got elected fair and square says more about the Dems failure than it does about Trump. How can it get so wrong that people are willing to elect someone like Trump on a whim? Very sad really, and some deep looking in the mirror needs to happen in the US. 

Right! he was elected because they were anti-HC, anti-PC and anti-Liberal not pro-Trump!  what will happen in 2020 is anyone's guess but the Dems need a balanced, not-so-PC candidate to win.

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Maybe such an obvious criminally corrupt sleazeball shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the oval office? Oh well. Too late. 

I agree he shouldn't be POTUS (but that was/is a reaction to the liberal PC agenda) but nor should Comey try to become a Saint. Hated by the Dems and now a hero?  pull the other one. 

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'll re-post a reply to an almost identical post you made on another topic:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1033572-comey-says-in-book-trump-denied-allegations-of-lewd-behaviour-washington-post/?tab=comments#comment-12888487

Oh really these were kiss and tell too?  don't think so you are comparing apples and oranges but nice try

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

The case in question involved a legal Permanent Resident.

Fair point I had not read it thoroughly enough.

14 minutes ago, Credo said:

 

Deportation is a legal process.   First the person needs to be eligible for deportation, including showing that there is no compelling reason for not deporting, there is also a series of hearings before there is an order for deportation.   The country where they are being deported to also has to agree to accept them (some countries simply won't).

 

In this situation, the law that the Supreme Court was looking at was considered to be to vague to be used as the grounds for deportation.   That is all that Court looked at.   I doubt they care one way or the other if he is deported, but they do care that it is done legally and the applicable laws are clear.   

 

 

Good points but if they are 'illegal' then they must have a country of birth to which they are citizens and that's where they belong. Personally I don't really get all this protectionism of someone who is somewhere illegally. The law should be exacted without bias nor favour. Either they have the docs to be in the USA or they do not and if they are convicted for a felony it's a no brainer.