LosLobo

The OP expressly asked for advice on BYD and EVs, yet you swat away anyone who doesn’t align with your EV-First narrative. Are you the self-appointed gatekeeper of the Motor Forum? 'Haters ,MSM'? Car choices aren’t ideological—maybe it's just EV obsession that's clouding your logic and reasoning here? False Dichotomy – “EV owners vs. haters”; most buyers just tally total cost. Ad Hominem – calls dissenters “ignorant,” offers no data. Straw Man – pins depreciation on battery quality; real worries are reliability, price-war volatility, and resale risk. Red Herring – “1 M km lifetime” battery sounds epic—until manufacturer/dealer survival and fine print appear. Appeal to Novelty – “legacy JP/EU ICE is overpriced”; new ≠ better if it drops 25 % in year one. Tu Quoque – shouts “anti-China” to dodge depreciation math. Different strokes cars for different folks — not everything’s a culture war.

In general, I would suggest reliability and depreciation are the main issues to watch with BYD and most EVs in Thailand. Expect nearly double the depreciation rate compared to well-established ICE vehicles like Toyotas. Fuel savings won’t make up for that.

I bought the Yaris Cross Premium a year ago— no complaints so far. The 210 mm ground clearance has been useful for occasional flooding near home. I also looked at the WR-V, but went with Toyota for its better service and dealer network, and depreciation — aka resale value. MG was tempting for the price, but long-term reliability and depreciation are concerns. Toyota Yaris Cross has 42% of the market in its class for a very good reason. The Yaris Cross Premium Luxury is a worthwhile investment — the extra options are genuinely useful, and for around 50k more, it’s good value. Happy to answer any specifics about the car or the options. FYI....

Watched F1: The Movie last night — surprisingly decent CAM version. Really enjoyed it. Brought back memories of the F1 city track races I was lucky enough to watch every year for a decade — all from the comfort of my office window. I’ll definitely watch it again on a bigger screen once a proper 1080p release is out, for a more immersive experience. IMAX would do it full justice.

Reminds me—Trump is cutting off foreign aid to Ukraine: weapons, and possibly sanctions — how many more millions need to die? Two weeks after his own self-imposed two-week deadline for Putin to make peace expired without a whimper: Weapons He’s halted shipments of Patriot interceptors, 155 mm artillery rounds, GMLRS rockets, Stinger, AIM-7, and Hellfire missiles to Ukraine — for so-called “America First” reasons. Sanctions At the same time, the lack of new U.S. sanctions is helping Russia refill its war chest. Since January, not a single new restriction — and in some cases, even quiet rollbacks. This administration isn’t just dragging its feet — it’s actively weakening the pressure campaign. Analysts warn that dismantling these tools is giving Russia the space and time it needs to regroup and rearm. Trump’s “America First”? — Let’s call it what it is: Russia First. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/disgraceful-critics-blast-trump-for-latest-move-doing-putin-s-bidding/ar-AA1HNcgC

That math works for a private $70 billion mortgage over 100–200 years at 4.625%—but the Treasury borrows differently: Issuing fixed maturities The Treasury issues bills, notes, and bonds with set maturities and coupons, then redeems or refinances principal at each maturity—no perpetual amortization. Capturing lower rates The average yield on public debt was about 2.5% in 2023, not 4.625%. Rolling over debt With a ~6-year average maturity, roughly one-sixth of debt matures annually; in 2024, the Treasury rolled over $28.5 trillion. Paying finite interest FY 2023 net interest totaled $678 billion; interest is paid as due; principal at maturity. NB: Inflation substantially reduces the real value of outstanding debt over time. Bottom line: $70 billion boosts this year’s borrowing but isn’t a perpetual 4.625% mortgage—and it’ll still wind up funding billionaire tax cuts under Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.

Trump isn’t a leader — he’s a narcissist chasing headlines, not outcomes. No policies, no principles — just whatever keeps him in the spotlight. He doesn’t govern — he performs. He doesn’t build — he monetizes his brand. He doesn’t act — unless there’s something in it for him. He’s not here to serve the country — only to serve himself. He’s addicted to attention — allergic to accountability. That’s why he’s the wrong man — period.

B-SUV / Crossover sales in May 2025 totaling 6,808 units: Toyota Yaris CROSS reigns supreme.

Trump will never win a Nobel Peace Prize on the world stage, But the Ig Nobel? That fits. It’s a satirical award for absurd or ironic “achievements.” Like… turning the U.S. into a low-grade civil war. He didn’t bring peace. He brought paranoia, division, and chaos at home. And by Ig Nobel standards, he’s in good company: • 2020 – India & Pakistan: Midnight doorbell ringing • 2013 – Belarus: Arresting a one-armed man for clapping • 1998 – India & Pakistan: “Peaceful” atomic bomb tests Trump divided more households than he ever united nations. List of Ig Nobel Prize winners - Wikipedia

Why are the much promised trade deals going nowhere? Coz ...He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody. Trump’s promised deals tend to follow this pattern: Announce a “historic” trade deal. Get media coverage. Deliver little or nothing. Take USMCA: mostly NAFTA in a new suit. The China “Phase One” deal? China bought less than promised, tariffs stayed. UK, EU, India? Talks stalled or fizzled. Turns out yelling “America First” isn’t a negotiation strategy — it's a bumper sticker.

I did check again yet you couldn't respond to my question.

Your topic and all of your posts were predicated on your OP opening line: “Apparently he has multiple nominations, possibly with more to come.” From that, you concluded Trump must have significantly increased world peace. But that’s not reasoning — that’s circular logic dressed up as inference and a textbook non sequitur — you're treating the nomination as both cause and proof: Trump brought peace → got nominated → therefore brought peace. History reminder: Hitler, Stalin, and Putin all got nominated too— apparently the bar’s not as high as you think.

Trump’s promises are like Schrödinger’s cat — simultaneously alive and literal when campaigning, dead and metaphorical the moment you ask for receipts.

Here’s why “Nomination = Peace” collapses on contact with logic..... Significantly increase world peace ⇒ may get nominated. But nomination ⇒ significantly increase world peace? That’s a logic misfire: • Non Sequitur – “Nomination ⇒ peace” doesn’t logically connect. • Affirming the Consequent – If peace brings a nomination, it doesn’t follow that every nominee brought peace. • Cherry-Picking – From my post you skipped Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Putin: all nominated, none paragons of peace. A Nobel nomination proves only that an eligible nominator filled out a form; it says nothing about real-world outcomes.

Trump's nomination makes the Nobel Peace Prize bar seem so low that even a moldy ham sandwich could be nominated—after all Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini—and, more recently, Putin—have already been floated.

Calling it “myopic” doesn’t make your deflection any smarter. You dodged the topic, dragged in Obama/Biden, twisted a lawful cash-return for medicine into “funding terror,” and capped it with a cheap smear about who I supposedly support. Logic clearly isn’t your forte: Red Herring – The topic was Trump’s actions; you sprinted to Obama to dodge it. Straw Man – Humanitarian funds ≠ terror financing. That’s deliberate spin. Ad Hominem – Accusing me of backing terrorists isn’t debate—just desperation. Whataboutism – If “But Obama!” is all you’ve got, you’re not defending Trump—just flailing. Try again—stick to the topic and bring a real argument, not a pile of nonsense.

The “12-day war”? You mean the one he started? Trump tore up the Iran deal, killed Soleimani, bombed Iran — then panicked when Iran hit back. That’s dousing Iran with petrol, lighting a match, then acting surprised it went up in flames. He wasn’t the firefighter — he was the arsonist.

Ah yes, Trump the peacemaker — bringing Rwanda and Congo together out of the goodness of his gold-plated heart? Please. This “peace deal” has nothing to do with aultrism or with ending conflict and everything to do with locking down rare earths. It’s the same playbook he tried with Ukraine: weapons for lithium, handshakes for mining rights. Diplomacy? More like a resource grab in a red tie. If there’s a buck in the ground, Trump’s suddenly a global humanitarian. NB: The Congo region holds the world’s largest deposits of coltan — the ore used to make tantalum for phones, chips, and weapons.

What wars did he end.

Brandolini’s Law: don't burn calories on recycled BS.

No need to dismiss your spin — I already did that, in the part of my post you conveniently omitted. You regurgitating what I’ve already disproved won’t make it true. Your boasted degree in science — albeit political — continues to fail you with your logic and reasoning: Ad Hominem / Argument from Ignorance – “You haven’t seen the briefing” = dodge, not proof. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc – Two people studied Fordow, and the MOP exists — doesn’t mean one caused the other. Single-Cause Fallacy – Ignores that MOP was built for any deep bunker, not one site. Conflation – Tweaking fuse settings ≠ designing the bomb. False Dichotomy – It wasn’t built just for Fordow or for nothing; it was made for any hardened site — Fordow happened to qualify. Cherry-Picking – You clipped the parts of my post that dismantled your claim. Faulty logic isn’t evidence — it just props up a myth.

That’s spin. Here’s what Gen. Dan Caine actually said: “Ultimately, weaponeering is determining the right weapon and fuse combination to achieve the desired effects and maximum destruction against a target. … The weapons were designed (meaning with the right fusing etc), planned and delivered to ensure that they achieve the effects in the mission space.” The MOP wasn’t built for Iran; it targets any deep, hardened bunker. Fordow merely fit the profile. The bomb’s concept dates to ~2000, almost a decade before Fordow surfaced in 2009. Weapons are built for capability, not for one country. Trump’s claimed “obliteration” is unverified political theater.

Nice monologue albeit a rant. You began with a question, then answered it by caricaturing your opponents, declared yourself the voice of sanity, and concluded by linking stock markets, the Olympics, illegal immigration, and Brexit into a single feel-good narrative. That’s not a compelling argument—it’s a confessional wrapped in projection. No one said Trump can’t ever be right. But if your defense relies on a strawman liberal who despises democracy, capitalism, and the Constitution, you're not defending Trump—you’re constructing a fantasy adversary to feel superior to. And if the point is NATO spending, maybe stick to that. Veering into Olympic outrage and “third-world invasion” panic doesn’t bolster your case. If your argument is robust, it shouldn’t need to be propped up by culture war distractions and grievance fillers.

I know hero worship dulls critical thinking, but this? The logical potholes in your one-liner.... Red Herring / Whataboutism The discussion is Trump’s hard-ball tactics at NATO. Dragging Harris in is a side alley—her hypothetical success or failure doesn’t change what Trump actually did. Appeal to Hypothetical “Could Harris have got this through?” invites you to debate an alternate universe. Hypotheticals dress rhetoric up as proof. False Dichotomy It frames the outcome as either Trump does it or Harris fails—ignoring every other path (e.g., collective bargaining, different timelines, another president). Burden-Shifting / Argument from Ignorance The naysayers must now prove Harris couldn’t have done it. Lack of proof against a claim isn’t proof for it. Implicit Ad Populum “All the naysayers” sets up a crowd-vs-lone-hero vibe: if you doubt Trump’s win, you’re with the naysayers. Popular framing, not proof. In short: a rhetorical shell game—swap in Harris, move the burden, and hope no one notices the original claim just left the stage.

The full series 4, 10 episodes of The Bear (TV Series 2022– ) - IMDb 8.5/10 just dropped.