LosLobo

Well done, good post. You may have learnt something researching the Sixth Amendment and The Bill of Rights, though it seems not enough. I did not say that the “State has the right to expedite a trial to fit an election cycle” was in the Sixth Amendment. You were the one who said “Jack Smith tried to circumvent normal judicial protocol to fit the election cycle”, obviously another one of your fishy red herring logical fallacies. You are mistaken about the Bill of Rights and the Sixth Amendment. The Bill of Rights: 1) is the name given to the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which were ratified in 1791. 2) added specific guarantees of individual rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, to the Constitution. 3) limits the power of the federal government, but it also grants the power of the federal government to enforce the rights of the people. 4) does not favor one political group over another, but rather reflects the values and principles of the American people. The Sixth Amendment is one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. It says that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”. This does not mean that the State has no right to a speedy and public trial. The State, and by extension, the people who have been affected by the accused’s actions, also have a right to a speedy trial. This right is implied by the Sixth Amendment and has been recognized by SCOTUS and other courts. The purpose of this right is to ensure that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest. SCOTUS has affirmed this interpretation in several cases, such as [United States v. MacDonald], where it said that “the Speedy Trial Clause has a dual role: it protects the interest of the accused in a speedy resolution of the charges against him, and it serves the public interest in the prompt administration of justice”. SCOTUS has also acknowledged that the State has a strong interest in bringing the accused to trial as soon as possible, to prevent the loss of evidence, the fading of witnesses’ memories, and the erosion of public confidence in the justice system. Therefore, the right of the State to a speedy trial is derived from the Sixth Amendment and is consistent with its purpose and spirit. The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

I had already decided to watch it. No, I don't read the ones that have a 'spoiler alert' warning.

I was looking forward to watching that movie tonight, perhaps next time you could have just comment on everything else except for the plot.

Yet, Trump was the one who tried to circumvent justice by fitting in the election cycle to avoid his accountability. Trump knew full well of the legal jeopardy before and after committing all of his indicted crimes, as he had the best legal advice that the White House's and later his minion's money could buy. All of the cases for his 91 indictments were in investigation long before his candidacy announcement on 15th December 2022.

You obviously haven't read the Magna Carta or the US Constitution. 🙂 The right of 'justice delayed is justice denied' is not the sole privilege of the accused. The State and, by extension, the people who have been affected by the accused's actions, also have a right to a speedy trial. This right is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It ensures that criminal proceedings move forward promptly, allowing for timely resolution of cases and preventing undue delays that could harm both the accused and the public interest. 'In essence, the maxim underscores the importance of timely legal redress and equitable relief for injured parties. When justice is delayed, it becomes effectively equivalent to having no remedy at all, impacting the fairness and effectiveness of the legal system'. Justice delayed is justice denied - Wikipedia

"Justice delayed is justice denied”. Jack Smith first petitioned the Supreme Court to address immunity in December last year and now it will be likely be May before a decision is finally made. Interestingly, the expression about delaying justice, comes from the 1215 Magna Carta which has been the basis of common law throughout the English-speaking world, including the US. With SCOTUS having invoked the Magna Carta in over one hundred of its past deliberations. Obviously in this case, they overlooked the part about denying justice for the US Electorate.

Yet, Deutsche Bank did sue Donald Trump in 2010 due to his $334 million loan default related to the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. Letitia James is still currently investigating a tax fraud issue from then, stemming from investigations in this case by the Trump LLC special monitor.

Lap swimming or long walk early morning followed by 10mins meditation during the day, has been my usual routine. Then if any problems sleeping which is rare, I listen to rainforest sounds or Tibetan flute white noise on my Google Home. On even rarer occasions, I get up and embrace the opportunity of the free time, until I need to crash while still maintaining my usual bed and wake up times the next day. I only have half a coffee and one cup of tea during the day and avoid alcohol and cigarettes.

If you’re looking for similar movies, some that come to mind include “Interstellar”, “Gravity”, and “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Even if “Constellation” feels familiar, it might still surprise you! I am hoping watching Episode 4 tonight might add some context and sense to justify my investment in time.

Your lack of logic in your posts knows no end and is only exceeded by your lack of evidence, as you continue ad nauseum. Enjoy the fishing.....

No, but I can see how the Trump ideology of idiocrasy can lead some to respond illogically. Seems, there might be a couple of logical fallacies in your post: Ad Hominem Fallacy: This is when an argument is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. In this case, you’re attacking Turnbull’s popularity rather than addressing the content of his statements about Trump. False Equivalence Fallacy: This is when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics. You seem to imply that because Turnbull was unpopular, his criticisms of Trump are invalid or less credible. However, the popularity of a leader does not necessarily correlate with the validity of their observations or arguments. While it’s true that Turnbull had his own challenges during his term as PM, his honest comments about Trump are based on his personal experiences and observations. These should be evaluated on their own merits, rather than dismissed based on his popularity.

You tell me ! But what is notable about your post is: 'It's the record Donald Trump could do without: the lowest approval rating of any US president during their first year in office'.

A similar phenomenon was observed in Pol Pot's Cambodia where anyone considered an intellectual was targeted for special treatment. This included teachers, lawyers, doctors, clergy, and even people wearing glasses, as it suggested literacy. It’s a grim reminder of the dangers of extreme ideologies.

The prospect of a second trump presidency has the former Australia PM Malcolm Turnbull on edge too. 'Trump's 'creepy' embrace of Putin is a threat to Australian security' says Turnbull. Mr Turnbull served as prime minister for part of Mr Trump's first term in office and says he observed his "awe" for Putin. "When you see Trump with Putin, as I have on a few occasions, he's like the 12-year-old boy who goes to high school and meets the captain of the football team. My hero! "It is really creepy … the creepiness was palpable," he said. Trump's 'creepy' embrace of Putin a threat to Australian security, says Turnbull (msn.com)

I read the book and watched the 1980 series, this version with an 9.4/10 rating, sets a high expectation. Shogun (TV Mini Series 1980) - IMDb

An interesting Q&A last with former conservative PM Turnbull et alia, with relevance to this topic.....

My OP was not a response to your OP, or the notion of antisemitism in Australia being true or not. It was a response to the credibility of the OP from a Murdoch source.

Apologies, TBH, I only noticed the Sky News logo on the OP video and the video inside the source which seemed to be also from Sky News and did not verify the rest. As an Australian, possibly, my personal opinion of Murdoch, the owner of the majority of Australian news media, clouded my usual attention to detail. Nevertheless, the Australian is also owned by Murdoch, as @placeholder pointed out.

I personally take anything from Sky News with a pinch of salt, as I would with Fox News. These news services, both owned by Rupert Murdoch, operate under the mottos ‘Real News: Honest Views’ and ‘Real News. Real Honest Opinion,’ respectively. Their reassurances of ‘real’ news and ‘honest’ opinions ad nauseum raise obvious questions about their credibility. This has been emphasized, by Sky being suspended from social media for COVID misinformation and Fox paying out more a AUD1 Billion for false statements about Dominion. Sky News, in particular, regularly echoes GOP views onto the Australian electorate and seems to desire an Australian PM like Trump. Murdoch has attempted to divide Australia with Sky News, much like he has done with Fox News in the US, but with less success.

Despot Putin reminds me of Lord Farquaad from Shrek, when addressing his knights before a tournament. "Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNlgIY9QKw

I would suggest Toyota for reliability and their extensive dealer network. I previously had two Toyota Hilux Smart Cabs (two door) but if I bought another one, for sheer convenience and versatility, I would buy a four-door model. Though, Govt tax on four door models is 14% compared to 3% for Smart Cabs.

You are correct! Though, I did not say the Yaris Cross did not have a CVT transmission. You are preaching to the choir I know how the Yaris Cross HEV manages the petrol engine/electric motor integration. Thanks for the information but why would I want a Nissan Kicks? Two good reasons are the previous two Nissans I owned.

Thank you for your general approval of my 'points' and your graciousness in saying that there is nothing wrong with the OP's and my preference. I remember the 2011 Bangkok floods well; I was living near Min Buri at the time. Pattaya is not the only place in Thailand that experiences regular flooding. In fact, flooding is generally part of life in most of Thailand’s river-bound, coastal, and high rainfall areas in the south. If you have generally avoided it, you are indeed very fortunate. When I first came to Thailand in 1999, I used to wonder why Thais traditionally build two-storey houses in such a hot climate. It soon became clear that this is a practical response to the frequent flooding. As for charging at home, it’s not always the most convenient option for my son and myself. We often travel long distances away from home and also to remote areas where charging stations may not be readily available. Therefore, the convenience of home charging may not be 'valid' in our case. If you want to argue about ICE vs EV, there a topic on this very subject running concurrently, I am sure there are many there who will accommodate you.

I’m planning to become a Yaris Cross owner later this year. My decision is primarily influenced by Toyota’s reputation for reliability, their extensive dealer network, the compact size of the vehicle, and its impressive ground clearance of 210mm. While the vehicle’s fuel economy is certainly a plus, it doesn’t significantly impact the total cost of ownership for me. This car isn’t just for me - it will be shared among my partner, her daughter, and myself. Its smaller size makes it easy to handle, park, and manoeuvre, which is a big advantage for the other halves. Living in Thailand, we often encounter flooded roads. The high ground clearance of this vehicle makes it a very practical choice. My son had the opportunity to drive this model recently and he was particularly impressed by several features: 1) The convenience of a hybrid that doesn’t require charging like an electric vehicle. 2) The elevated driving position that offers a panoramic view aided by the 360-degree camera. 3) The comprehensive Safety Sense package. 4) The smooth acceleration and deceleration without excessive engine revving, a common issue with most CVTs. In conclusion, this vehicle seems to tick all the right boxes for our family’s needs and preferences.

I know you are only interested in a Yaris Cross as your OP says 'Ány Yaris Cross Owners' and this is more than likely off topic. But for value, economy and reliability have you considered my favourite mode of transport?