Thomas J

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

15 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Expand  

Those fraud lawsuits dismissed by the judges were due to lack of evidence to back up their assertions - purely speculation, rumors or hearsay. Sorry but what you presented falls in those categories. 

Two points.  First what is the objection to showing ID.? 

Second, how exactly if you were in charge would you prove voter fraud?  Ballots came in, were counted.  How would you be able to 1. show the ballot went to the correct person 2. That the correct person actually filled out the ballot 3. That the ballot was not altered.  If you can not do the latter, it is a system where though voter fraud could be alleged, the system does not allow you to prove. 

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

By facts. Its not an issue.

Again, if you can't check there is no way of determining if it is true or not.  If I filled out another persons ballot and submitted it, votes are anonymous.  I can tell "if" someone voted but I can't verify if it was the actual person, or if the vote had been altered.  Again, give me one good reason why it is "not reasonable" for a person to have to show evidence that they really are the person they are representing to be. 

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Let the courts decide and it was a resounding dismissal of voters fraud and there were 38 conservative judges. 

Again, if there is no fraud, then why the push back on voter id to guarantee it.  If a hotel room clerk asks you for your passport do you argue and say, well there have been no documented cases of people creating damage in your hotel.  If the airline asks for your ID before boarding do you say, well there are no instances where your airline has ever had a hijacking or terrorist.  The right to vote is just that a right.  That deserves to be protected.  Right now there is a rightr to purchases a firearm however it is considered "reasonable" that the person be a minimum age, show up in person, present identification, and undergrow a police background check before purchasing.  What could possibly be the objection to requiring proof that the person voting, is really the correct person. 

24 minutes ago, Susco said:

Since the majority of historical and recent proven election fraud cases concerned Republicans, and even Republican politicians, I wouldn't shout too loud on my soap box if I was you.

Even if that is true.  Why the objection to the elimination of any fraud irrespective of party.  Would you favor elimination of checking ID at airports since there have only been 5 instances of hijacking in the past twenty years.  No.  If the vote is honest, then there should be no objection to a "reasonable" procedure to ensure the vote is honest if for no other reason than to eradicate the notion that elections can be fixed. 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Can you point to the voter fraud for us?

 

Big difference between could be, and is.

 

Why change what is working.

I guess using your logic, the bank should not put money in a vault, because it has not been robbed, locks should not be put on your doors since your home has not been broken into.  A policeman should not carry a gun, because he/she has not been shot at.  Fire stations and hydrants are not needed since this area has no history of fires.  

Right now, there is no way of ascertaining if fraud has or has not occurred. 

1 hour ago, MikeyIdea said:

weden has had mail-in voting since 1942!!! that's Seventy-Eight-Years ago, never any election fraud. 

I know the refrain has been there is no election fraud.  Honestly, I don't know how you in a mail in voting system you would ever know or without extensive follow up one on one audits that you could ever uncover it. 

Consider in the USA you register to vote.  However you do not have to update your address if you move.  I am still registered to vote in Michigan despite not having lived there since 2018.  If a person resides in more than one state there is no process to cross check if the person who has a residence lets say in Florida and is registered to vote, also does not have an address in New York and is registered to vote. 

Now a huge number of states have just mailed out absentee ballots to all registered voters.  Now consider the records of those registered voters are very imperfect with numerous people no longer living at an old address, registered at another address, or perhaps deceased.  There is no mechanism to cross check. 

Now consider, with unemployment benefits whose records are also kept by the government.  It is estimated that between 35% and 40% of the claims are fraud.  So how can it be that a huge percentage of applications to get money are fraud but that a miniscule to nonexistent number of votes are fraudulent. 

Now the ballot is received, there is no way to guarantee that the ballot was actually received by the registered voter, and no way to determine if the return ballot was actually filled out by the registered voter. Some states have computer signature verification but like all OCR systems it is fraught with errors. 

 Finally, at polling stations places to vote are to be politics free.  That is those who wish to either support or oppose specific candidates are not permitted to engage with those that vote.  With mail in ballots there is no way to determine if a persons vote was tainted by others through inducement to vote.  

In order to open a bank account you have to show up in person and present ID.  In order to purchase alcohol you have to show up in person and if close to the legal age, show ID. To purchase a firearm you have to show up in person and show an ID.  You can not "pre-board" online to avoid showing an ID to fly on a commercial airline.   Many transactions some as insignificant as verifying a Facebook account require picture ID.  However somehow there is this mantra being preached that voting is not that important, requiring ID is somehow discriminatory, and is voter suppression.   

It is estimated that Medicare fraud totals $415 billion a year, unemployment fraud just with the pandemic relief program is estimated to be $36 billion.  This is old data but a 2013 report by the IRS showed 5  million returns filed with stolen identities.  In 2019 the IRS who should have far better data than they individual states with voter registration mailed out 1 million Covid Relief checks to dead people.  To look at the rampant fraud with other government online systems and not think that fraud exists in voting is ludicrous.  With a fake tax return you might walk away with a few thousand.  With a swung election with trillions of tax dollars as the ultimate prize there is a far greater incentive on the part of some. 

Assuming it could be done, which I think technologically it can, there would be nothing wrong with using fingerprints, retinal scans, or facial recognition systems in lieu of picture ID to verify voters.  While I still would favor in person voting, at least those sorts of systems done online would verify the person placing the vote, was in fact the registered voter, and they could be centralized so a person unlike now can not vote in multiple states. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/scammers-have-taken-36-billion-in-fraudulent-unemployment-payments-.html
 

24 minutes ago, ericthai said:

They don't need a Thai girlfriend or wife. The law office will handle it and provide Thai nominee that will own the 51%. So all your friends their houses are really owned 51% by Thais they dont know. 

I suspect you are right.  I don't know how the law office would handle the matter of distribution of assets upon sale of the property and dissolution of the company.  I would guess relative to voting rights they could have different share classes and voting rights.  Now beyond my pay grade in terms of how it could be structured so that the 49% owner receives 100% of the proceeds from the sale of the property if/when the property is ever sold again.  

On 2/18/2021 at 3:42 PM, OliverKlozerof said:

I'm wondering how to deposit i

Not sure about Schwab but I have a Chase bank account and had checks deposited without a problem.  I even had some checks that were sent to my daughter in the USA.  She took photo's and emailed them.  I printed them off, signed them and scanned them into my bank account without a problem.  If Schwab offers it, they must be using a USA bank.  Schwab is a brokerage firm so it would need a bank.  Schwab in Hong Kong uses Citibank so I suspect that the USA Schwab account is a citibank account and you scan it, deposit it, and they sort through that account to credit your check to your brokerage account.  Really the same as if you mailed a personal check to them for deposit into your brokerage account.  They deposit the check into Schwab's checking account then post the credit to your Schwab account. 

30 minutes ago, khunPer said:

Best is, if the company has more activities than just being owner of one property leased out to a shareholder, including having someone employed and paying social security of the wage.

That is the best explanation I have heard.  However here in my village there are about 30 homes and upwards of 10 of them are owned by "companies"  The people who have the company are living in the homes and have for years.  One man has two homes.  He rents one out and lives in the other.  The others strictly live in the home.  One man has a Thai girlfriend so I suppose that could be the other shareholder"  The other two, one is Lebanese and he has a Russian Wife.  The other is a single man, who is is Moroccan but a French citizen.  The latter two for sure don't sound like the description of companies legally allowed to own land since they don't engage in the rental of the home.  Another home is an absentee owner has not lived here for years.  He and his wife are both Chinese.  

1 hour ago, NCC1701A said:

what do you think so far? clear on everything?

Like most things in Thailand.  Clear as mud. 

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If there is a second battery in the phones then it is very likely tiny. These batteries are good enough to keep information like the time but they don't have the capacity to use GPS and transmit data

Apparently the NSA can track you.  I suspect that the average tracker would not be able to find you.  However, one way or another removing the battery is becoming increasingly less of an option since a good share of the cell phones have permanent batteries installed. 

https://slate.com/technology/2013/07/nsa-can-reportedly-track-cellphones-even-when-they-re-turned-off.html#:~:text=NSA Can Reportedly Track Phones Even When They're Turned Off&text=But it doesn't end there.&text=In most cases%2C when you,when it was powered down.

1 minute ago, holy cow cm said:

Sounds like BKK to me and not CM

No Pattaya the ramp leading up to the expressway is on the far right side and almost immediately the exit to the street is 3 lanes over on the left side and the white lines extend on the expressway entrance for some distance. 

On 2/21/2021 at 8:00 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

If you want to be 100% sure remove the battery.

I am not sure if that would even be sufficient.  I read one time that the phone can rebuild after it is powered up again much like a laptop there is still residual power in the phone that keeps tracking.  One way or another, many of the modern phones don't have batteries than can be removed. 

I received a ticket for crossing a white line upon entering the expressway and there was a camera set up to catch that.  However they deliberately set up that camera knowing that people such as myself who were going to take the first exit on the left would have cross the white line to merge left in time to make the exit.  I just paid the 500 thb and avoid using that route to get to the drivers license bureau any longer. 

16 hours ago, Credo said:

None of your listed reasons are a right, they are a privilege.  You don't have the right to buy alcohol, cigarettes or open a cell phone account.

So that seems to be a difference without a distinction.  Does that mean that exercising your right is somehow less critical.  Also the second amendment gives the right of people to bear arms.  That does not mean the government can not and does not require reasonable steps to allow people to purchase a gun.  The first amendment gives people the right to free speech.  However to start a radio or television station you need to secure permits. To conduct a demonstration or parade you will in most instances have to apply for and receive a permit.  

Lets be honest.  Not requiring someone to show identification to vote is a Red Herring argument.  In today's world it is virtually impossible for a person to function without identification.  They would not be able to rent a hotel room, drive a car, open a bank account, apply for government benefits, fly on an airplane, buy alcohol or cigarettes, pick up prescription medicine.  

Even if I bought the premise that obtaining an ID would be difficult.  Certainly in today's world with facial and/or biological recognition of retinas or fingerprints it is totally possible and it does not strip someone of their right to vote.  Rather it protects that it is only them who can exercise it in their name. 

 

30 minutes ago, mtraveler said:

 

1- Make getting an ID and registering to vote easy

Thank you for the civil response.  In terms of making ID and registering easy, I agree with you and certainly the government can and should provide State ID cards with pictures at no cost for those who don't have a drivers license.  However, I disagree with you regarding mail in votes.  Those "were intended" for people who legitimately were out of their voting districts at the time of the election or were incapacitated in some fashion.  

You would not allow "mail in" identification to buy alcohol online.  You would not think of allowing "mail in" verification for pre-boarding an airplane. You would not allow "mail in" documentation to purchase a firearm.  Yet in the USA numerous states Illinois being one of them, you do not have to show any form of ID in order to vote even if you show up in person.  If you know the persons name and the precinct they are registered in, anyone can show up and vote on their behalf.  

I can tell you, I opened a brokerage account online.  In order to get approved I had to present ID to a Notary Public and mail in copies of my passport, and drivers license along with that notary statement attesting to my identity.  I then had to video conference with the brokerage house holding my passport next to my face at the same time so they could record it. 

Some states allow voter harvesting where people can go out and collect mail in ballots.  All of those run counter to not having a voter be influenced.  I see no one complain when a hotel, rental car, bank, insurance company, immigration, drivers license bureau etc ask for ID yet somehow the idea that voting does not require the same degree of due diligence I find strange. 

1 hour ago, blackcab said:

I'm absolutely sure. Unless you are an American citizen, the total non-Thai ownership of a Thai limited company can be a maximum of 49 per cent. Additionally, there must be a minimum of three shareholders.

 

American citizens can form a Treaty of Amity company, and they can own 100 per cent of the company. A Treaty of Amity company, however, cannot be used to own land.

I know I have read about the 49% rule before.  I never heard about the exception for American Citizens.  I do know this.  I am the only American Citizen in the village.  I do not have a company but engaged to a Thai and the home was hers for many years.  All of the others, are from Lebanon, Morroco, China, and Scotland.  They have companies and the homes are in the names of those companies.  The man from Lebanon has a wife from Russia.  The Morrocon man lives alone.  The Chinese couple are absentee owners both from China and The Scotland man does have a Thai wife and a second Scotland man has a Thai girlfriend   So in 3 of the 5 instances the companies would not have the wife as a 51% owner.  I "thought" that if the sole purpose of forming a company was to buy land, that action was prohibited.  The Morrocan man and Lebanon man work.  The Lebanon man for some oil company I am not sure about the man from Morroco.  The Scotland men are both retired, and the Chinese couple as mentioned don't even reside here not do they lease the property.  That is why I raised the question.  It seems so common that this is being done yet these clearly are not "companies' engaged in any business that employs people which is what I thought the intent of the exception of allowing companies to own land was all about. 

1 hour ago, blackcab said:

The key thing to understand is that they do not own the company. At best, they own 49 per cent of the company.

Well I am not sure in that regards.  One home I know is owned by a Chinese Couple.  No Thai so they would have to have someone other than the spouse to be the 51% owner.  In another instance the man is from Lebanon and his wife is Russian so again, I don't see how this could work without risking ownership to a non-spouse.  Yet another has the two homes.  He is from Scotland, but has a Thai girlfriend that lives with him.  I suppose they could put the 51% in her name but he has already had one Thai wife leave him and take the house so putting in the company name would seem to equally put him at risk.  Finally if there is not a "legitimate" business isn't the purchase of the home in the name of the company really fraud? 

I know that to own real estate not a condo you can not if you are not Thai. However in my village numerous people are foreign, and have their homes in the name of the company they own. These people really don’t have a functioning business. They are retired and live in the homes. One owns two homes, lives in one and rents the other out. Another will infrequently rents out but lives there the majority of the time. However most are just retired and live in the home

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I'm happy with Roojai, good quote and their service is good. I have not had a claim yet, so I can't comment on that side of their service, but we use them for car, motorbike, home and contents, even our Covid cover is through them. 

Yes I have them for auto insurance also. However they don’t sell home insurance 

Have home in Huay Yai. Any suggestions for a good insurance company with competitive pricing

Why bother to negotiate. 

You have Iran who even if they promised, they would not keep their end of the bargain.  When two people or countries negotiate and put into writing their respective responsibilities, that agreement is only as good as the character of the people or country who signed it.  

Iran like North Korea is bent on having a nuclear capability.  Even if they agreed to stop the program, without intensive rigid inspections the agreement to stop is only a collection of words on a piece of paper.  

Hitler and Stalin negotiated a non-aggression pact.  How did that work out.