LosLobo

Right! A $400M trust fund fraudster and self-proclaimed economic genius, with six bankruptcies to his name and a track record of screwing millions from employees, contractors, and banks. And now he's proposing tax cuts for billionaires, funded by a tariff tax on the working class. Classic!

I just completed this quiz. My Score 70/100 My Time 120 seconds  

I just completed this quiz. My Score 50/100 My Time 153 seconds  

I just completed this quiz. My Score 60/100 My Time 139 seconds  

I just completed this quiz. My Score 70/100 My Time 140 seconds  

Perhaps here you can find some clarity about what really happened in the interview. One of the GOTCHA loaded questions Brett posed was whether she believes 50% of voters are misled or stupid. If you try to answer this question, we can get to the heart of the matter. If you don’t respond directly, I’ll understand why. So, which is it: misled or stupid or maybe both?

Interesting how you criticize Harris for not answering questions directly, yet your response is nothing but empty rhetoric. You toss out buzzwords like ‘simple concept’ and ‘empty minds’ without backing them up with any real reasoning or evidence. It’s almost like your own lack of logic comes from an empty mind—one that prefers shallow, simplistic answers over engaging with complex issues. Maybe that’s why you’re struggling with the concept of nuance.

Let’s cut through the noise: Boilerplate Pablum? Harris discussed real issues—immigration, healthcare, and gun control—clearly outlining her administration's strategies. Dismissing them as 'boilerplate' just shows you’re not engaging with the content. ‘Mentioning the other candidate once a minute’? You call that weak? It’s called context. She’s drawing contrasts, which is crucial in an election. Voters deserve to know the differences in leadership. Introducing her own proposals? She did! If you want a detailed policy plan, look for it instead of nitpicking how often she referenced Trump. Your preference for soundbites over substance is limiting the discussion. If you really want to engage, listen to the whole interview and consider the points she made rather than just counting mentions. That’s how real discourse happens.

Let’s go point by point: "She discussed. Didn't actually detail." Wrong. She did. She talked specifics—border security, root causes, healthcare. You just want a soundbite. "I was wrong. She mentioned Trump 24 times." Counting words isn’t an argument. She referenced Trump for context, contrasting policies. It’s relevant. "21:30 mark... never answers about Biden's mental decline." Loaded question. She defended his record—valid response. She’s not playing the game of feeding a biased narrative. "16:00 mark... turns the page on Trump." Exactly the point. She’s differentiating the administration. It’s standard and relevant, especially when the past admin is still influencing the conversation. "Twenty-four times." Again, context matters. You’re fixated on a number, not substance. "How many illegals crossed?" Baier’s loaded question is oversimplified. Immigration numbers fluctuate. Harris pointed viewers to DHS for the most up-to-date figures—responsible move. She explained the broader policy changes her administration implemented. She gave the real answer, not a headline for you. "Anything else?" Yep. Your critique is just biased nitpicking. You’re ignoring context and focusing on word counts. Try engaging with what she actually said.

Seems like you might’ve been watching a different interview, or you’ve got selective hearing. Let’s get real: 'No policy'? Wrong. Harris discussed immigration (border security, root causes), healthcare (expanding access), and gun control (background checks, assault weapon bans). You missed that, huh? 'Mentioned Trump 20 times'? Nice round number, but it’s exaggerated. She mentioned him when relevant, drawing contrasts—standard stuff. Got a timestamp for that 20-count? 'Dodged Biden’s mental state question with "Trump"’? Total fiction. She defended Biden’s record. If she deflected, prove it—timestamp or it didn’t happen. 'Turn the page, Trump...' Another twist. If she referenced Trump, it’s for context. Not deflection. Standard practice, but I guess that’s lost on you. 'B-b-but Trump' caricature? Convenient. She gave specifics on policies you ignored. Easier than engaging, I suppose. 'Immigration question, evasive'? Immigration isn’t simple. She explained it in detail. Just because it wasn’t a soundbite doesn’t make it evasive. You’re either misrepresenting or making things up. Try watching again—maybe without the bias filter this time.

Nice try, but you’re either part of Brett Baier’s 50% club of the misguided, 'the other,' or just making things up. Kamala never called all 18-24 year olds stupid.

Obviously, Kamala doesn't like answering questions honestly, though more likely out of respect and courtesy than anything else. Bret Baier: Half of this country is now supporting this person who could be the 47th president of the United States. Why is that happening? ............ Are they misguided the 50%, are they stupid, what...what is it? Kamala Harris: Oh God, I would never say that..... Though to be honest she should have answered yes by the likes of Murdoch and yes, quiet a few of them are.

Accommodating two child seats in the back poses no problem. Two adults and a 10-year-old can comfortably sit in the rear, with ample legroom for all passengers. On the topic of noise, while highway driving is mostly quiet, the road noise from the Yokohama Blue Earth tires can be noticeable but not overly problematic. At lower speeds, especially after being in EV mode, the engine noise can be quite pronounced as it works to recharge a depleted battery, revving from a standstill rather than idling. This has happened on a couple of occasions with me, particularly after driving at a slow pace on a training circuit with a learner driver for around 20 minutes. Following this, merging onto a main road and accelerating to highway speeds with a drained battery prompts the engine to engage at higher revolutions. I chose the Premium over the Premium Luxury model without the sunroof and low-profile tires to avoid additional sun exposure to my bald spot and to mitigate the potentially stiffer ride associated with SUVs, which usually have higher ground clearance. Low-profile tires might exacerbate the firmness of the ride. Looking back, I sometimes wish I had opted for the Luxury Premium, accepting the sunroof and the possibly firmer ride. The manual gas-lifted rear door is cumbersome, and manually checking the tires weekly is quite bothersome. With all the other features the Luxury's value is justified, and for an extra 50,000 baht, the upgrade would have been cost-effective. Below is a list of exclusive features for the Toyota Yaris Cross HEV Premium Luxury variant, distinguishing it from the standard Premium: - 18-inch polished dual-tone alloy wheels - Low-profile tires - Hands-free powered tailgate - 360-degree camera system - Synthetic leather-accented seats - Qi wireless charging pad - Pioneer sound system with 6 speakers - Panoramic sunroof with blind. - Tyre Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) - Special windscreen heat glass - Panoramic view monitor - Rear-facing dashcam

The reason you might not have noticed is likely due to the negligible difference in size, except for the boot storage. However, I've provided a detailed comparison below, courtesy of my AI assistant. Comparison of the Thai MG ZS 2024 and Toyota Yaris Cross 2024. Summary of Key Points Dimensions: The MG ZS is slightly larger overall, providing more boot space, making it ideal for carrying more cargo. Ground Clearance: The Yaris Cross has a significant advantage with 210 mm, making it better suited for Thailand's flooded roads and rough terrains compared to the MG ZS's 165 mm. Wheelbase: The Yaris Cross features a longer wheelbase of 2,620 mm, compared to the MG ZS's 2,585 mm. A longer wheelbase often translates to improved ride comfort, better stability at high speeds, and enhanced handling during turns. It also allows for more interior space, contributing to rear legroom and passenger comfort, which is particularly beneficial for families or long journeys. Underfloor Storage: The Yaris Cross includes a practical underfloor storage compartment, enhancing utility for everyday items. In contrast, the MG ZS does not emphasize this feature but offers a larger boot space overall. Conclusion If you prioritize handling varied terrain and flooding conditions, along with improved passenger comfort, the Yaris Cross is the better option. However, the MG ZS provides more cargo capacity, making it suitable for those who require extra space for everyday use.

I've owned a Toyota Yaris Cross for over three months now. What information would you like to know about it?

The issue may not lie in the potential taxation of one's pension, but rather in the 910 times the individual has posted on this topic and the apparent schadenfreude he derives from continuing to do so. This thread, spanning almost two decades, has served as a vital resource or Book of Knowledge on the Aged Pension for Australian expatriates, and it is now inundated with 909 superfluous and needless intrusions.

Compounding the problem no one in bank can speak English. I can understand 'cannot', it was the reply I got on my first time in this bank branch, 300km from where the account originated in Phuket, and subsequently on two more occasions, They used 'cannot' on updating my passport number on my account, then on getting a new debit card, and then on getting new bank book, until I got them to call Phuket.

I went to my Bangkok Bank branch yesterday to update my bankbook, and they could only update with a summary line item not all the 60 transactions. There was plenty of available space. They did offer a bank statement for the 3 months of individual transactions, but I declined and will get a full 12 month one before my next extension.

Great price too! From 4,129,000 baht new!

Interesting part of 60 Mins directly addressing chicken Trump, not in other videos posted here.

Ah, pulling out Godwin’s Law—classic. But let’s be real: that doesn’t magically invalidate my point; it’s just a dodge. Godwin’s Law is about how often Nazi comparisons come up, not whether they’re appropriate. If the comparison is reasonably accurate, it doesn’t violate Godwin’s Law; it’s a fair use of historical context. Your “classic leftist playbook” remark? That’s a Tu Quoque Fallacy, or the “No, you!” tactic. Rather than addressing my point about projection, you deflect by accusing the other side. You’re not playing chess; you’re flipping the board and blaming me for the pieces on the floor. And the False Equivalence—not every Nazi analogy is equal. Comparing tactics accurately isn’t “leftist”; it’s historically informed. In short, you’ve avoided the argument with distractions. Try engaging with the actual content next time

Exactly, a textbook example of projection straight out of Nazi Goebbels’ playbook—accuse others of the very things you’re doing. It’s a tactic to deflect criticism and shift focus, making it seem like your opponent is guilty of your own shortcomings, also known as 'Accusation in a mirror'. Accusation in a mirror - Wikipedia

Classic right-wing playbook at work here: Setup: Offering a token compliment to appear fair, an improvement on 'I never voted for Trump' but it’s still really disingenuous—setting the stage for further criticism. Attack: Using vague buzzwords like "word salad" to dismiss Kamala's responses, implying she’s incoherent without providing specifics. The “no gotcha questions” claim is a strawman—suggesting she should only be tested under unfair conditions. Conclusion: Calling her unpresidential and a "lightweight," relying on personal attacks rather than substantive critique. It’s a mix of confirmation bias, strawman fallacies, and ad hominem, designed more to reinforce preexisting biases than to engage honestly.

60 Minutes host to Kamala 'The Trump campaign canceled an interview that they had agreed to participate in this broadcast' @ 19mins 30secs.

Yes! So not to post a "spoiler" maybe PM me if you want my interpretation.