Silencer

I am in the same boat as you. I have had very few negative reactions, even if the person does not like American politics. The off-the-rails ones (as if I represent US policy), I move along.

It is convenient to take one case to make your point, but not logical. If I enter Thailand illegally and have a child or two (with a Thai wife) and later I am discovered as overstaying for 5-10 years, you think the Thai government should allow me to stay in Thailand because I have Thai children? Because it is humane to do so? How about if I have a foreign wife, the same two children born here, both of us on overstay, you think Thailand should let my family stay? Would be sad I can't be with my family but I would have knowingly broke the immigration laws and knew the potential consequences. If I wanted my family together, I would need to make another plan outside the country if I was banned. Why do you not think the same should not apply in the US? The alternative is some notion that we are all world citizens and we should be able to live wherever we want, have children wherever we want, and maybe free or local gov't support in countries that offer it? When you apply your arguement to one illegal immigrant mother in the US forced to take or leave her child when deported, and apply that worldwide (as your arguement should on "humanity" grounds), it would cause immigration chaos. While individual cases are sad, there are consequences to bad choices in all aspects of life. In your example, ofcourse the mother should take her children with her, THAT is the humane thing to do if she believes a family together is better than apart. In more extreme cases, what if the mother broike the law, was a drug addict, a social drain to the economy, a liar and cheat, would any of that matter to you on her immigration status? There are always unique circumstances but you need to be clear that you are talking about illegal immigrants, that broke the law to enter, and from that point forward they know they can be deported at any time.

Although I think the US purchasing Greenland is absurd on many levels, I'll play the game and say there is a pathway to that becoming a reality. First, the US would have to negotiate with the people of Greenland (more on that below) and they agree to vote on a referundum of independence from Denmark (which they have been given the right to do). Once independent, they either sell their nation to the US or less likely, agreee to become the 51st state ("Trumpland" probably). Then they get their monetary awards that were agreed to. Could be $1-2M each (about $50-100B total) and profit sharing (via shares) on various energy and mineral sales that would be worth billions more over the decades to every Greenland family. The current market estimates for Greenland are from $70-100B to $1T. Will cost a lot of money to make Greenland viable for exploration and production, and military installations. Would you get enough islanders to agree? Who know. But this seems to be a non-lethal and legal way to make it happen.

To ask this question, assumes you have apprehension about being an American meeting a foreigner and THEIR reaction, if discovering you are from the US. Thoughts... Don't mention nationality if not brought up. Own your nationality, not boastful nor sheepish. If they react negatively, aggressively, stupidly, that is their problem. Give it a laugh. If they are incapable of not being able to distinguish between a nation and an individual, they are not worth knowing or talking to. If you are so inclined to talk politics with someone new with contrarian views, that is your call, but nothing good will likely result, especially if alcohol involved.

Who knows Venezuela's immediate future. The opposition leader (who actually won the last election) is living in Spain, maybe he returns again at some point after the expected turmoil settles. The Nobel peace prize recipient supports him. Maybe the VP takes over for a bit, maybe civil war, or miltary dictatorship attempt in the short-term. Otherwise a rather bold and successful operation, plucking the head of state and his wife away in the middle of the night, what an embarrassment to Venezuelan military and security forces. Maduro deserves his day in court, and jail.

WW3 over Ukraine. Very, very, unlikely. Would Trump (US) assist the EU/NATO if Russia attacked Europe. Yes. One thing this conflict has put a focus on is EU defense spending, with many countries now deciding they need to spend more. It even resulted in an expansion of NATO. The Soviet Union "peace dividend" ended when Putin took over Russia and became its defacto dictator. But it was not until the invasion of Ukraine for that point to hit home. A strong Europe is a good thing. An expanded NATO and increased EU defense spending are big negatives for Putin. Although Russia has siezed territory, they failed in their initial attempt to take Ukraine, even before significant US and EU assistance. Who didn't expect those columns from Belarus to make it to Kiev? That was a huge embarrassment for Putin and showed Russian army weakness, or stupidity. Given this, and the slow progress since, Putin knows he does not have the capability to fight NATO (with or without the US) in a convential war. Besides, Russia neither has the men or materiel to do so at this point. So, the only choice is nuclear, which hopefully even Putin knows would be fatal. While prolonging the war likely benefits Russia in the short-term (more territory) it certainly benefits the West's defenses as Russia becomes more weakened militarily. It also gives time for EU countries to build up their own capabilities, while Ukraine continues to suffer and fight the good fight. Recovery and rebuilding what is left will be a long-term project. Trump is a wild-card, but whatever deal is done (if any) it should not negate the facts above. A stronger and bigger NATO will exist and the limitations of Russian conventional war capabilities is diminshed both in fact and in perception. Trump is around 3 more years, EU/NATO-Russia issues will be around much longer.

I'm surprised people would be shocked by Trump posting that video. Everyone knows he is crass and childish in his actions and emotions. Most Americans fault him for that yet half give him a pass because they want many of his policies (crack down on crime, deporting illegals, trying to throw out birth-right citizenship (Supreme Court will need to decide), downside the government, cut taxes and services. Many U-turns on social issues as well. Although I prefer not talking politics (and religion) with most people, I can tell you many Euro expats have told me that they wish their governments could do what Trump is doing, without his more boorish and childish inclinations. Trump is only being Trump and he will continue that way for 3 more years. He has so much coming at you, domestically and internationally, that it is hard to form an opinion or react before the next thing happens. He lies or changes his mind whenever he likes to shield his failures and realign with his base, throwing his critics for loops but he is already on the next thing. He has very few constraints now on him, he has a very weak/sheepish Congress and a mostly supportive Supreme Court. This AI video will fade by tomorrow as there will be so many new things on the table to like or dislike, and "non-Presidential" language, insults, and comments will continue, so no reason to be shocked each time it happens. Look at his policies and actions, some are quite good, others questionable, while others are bad. He's the ultimate bull in the China shop, no doubt. Love him or hate him, he has your attention, and that is all he really wants.

E-mails "may" be a reason but more likely the reason is the US Embassy denied his Thai wife a visa. He then threatened the Embassy, specifically the Marine guards, and then later moved over to Senator Thillis and his staff, the White House and others. Saying you wish someone is dead vs. calling them and telling them you are going to kill them is a big difference. Apparently the US was considering extraditing him (but didn't) and when they were alerted he was coming to the US in 2023 they nabbed him at airport. Pleads quilty 3 days ago. I think the visa denial was what kicked this all off..and he went over the edge.

Putting aside the politics and likely negative social impacts, from an economic standpoint, IF this goes forward, wouldn't it make sense to create other economic zones? Udon, Ubon, Nong Kai, or say, Hat Yai could all use a focus and create other centers of gravity in the country for workers, hotels, restaurants, development, etc. instead of increasing the overdevelopment at the locations listed. The rich heeled in Bangkok won't be as happy but a longer-term benefit for other areas of the country possibly. I'm not advocating for casinos at all, they attract all sorts of problems, but IF it is a done deal, why not help other parts of the country economically.

When you get so stuck in your lies that you just spouting off nonsense hoping something will make sense. 🙂

You start with a flawed hypothesis as you focus on MAGA voters. Forgetting the small parties, American's have Democrats or Republicans to vote for, so you need to evaluate both sides of the equation when discussing voter trends and bias. About 40% of Americans consider them selves independents (whom you might consider are the "rational" voters). But true independents (with no party affiliation) are only 10%. The remaining 30% (who call themselves independents), lets say half of them vote Democrat or Republican at different times. So, that gives us approx. 25% of American voters are mostly independent (but some of them lean one way or another more than likely). That means 75% of American voters, both MAGA and Dems, are incapable of voting for the other side. My point being this is NOT just a MAGA thing, although Trump is such a polarizing figure that, that it just highlights these voting dynamics. Lets not forget FDR was the closest thing the US had to a king (4 election victories!), which forced a new constitutional amendment to limit a President to two terms in office. I'm sure Republicans thought he was the Dems MAGA. I, personally, thought Trump did not deserve another term in office after the 2020 election denial, the fits and tantrums he exhibited, the threats to the VP and Jan 6. However, many (not all) of his polices I supported during his first term. In 2024, the US had two very flawed choices, Biden the nice guy, losing his faculties, replaced with an inexperienced and unintelligent Presidential imposter. She faced Trump (narcissist, uncontrollable liar, thin-skinned, wannabe King/dictator/ruler). Also, the economy was not in good shape (and everyone knows it's always "the economy, stupid"), mostly due to inflation, and illegal immigration became a core issue. Beyond the 75% already locked in on their candidate, that other 25% had those choices. Most of them could see both candidates a bit more rationally, some of them decided to stay home because both were losers in their eyes, and enough of them leaned toward the economy and immigration to give Trump the victory. Remember, even Hilary Clinton had a larger lead (popular vote) over Trump, than Trump had over Harris by a bit. The midterm elections in two years will be interesting. American often prefer split government, so both parties can check the extremes of the other, and if Trump causes enough pain or pisses enough of that 25% off on one issue or another, then it is highly likely that either the House or Senate could flip, reigning in some of Trumps agenda. If thigs are going great in almost two years (economy/immigration/overall satisfaction), then Trump might keep both. So, just like MAGA has blind followers, the Dems do as well, and its this 25% (somewhere between 20-30%) that decide the election outcomes. It made some sense that Trump won, despite his many flaws, and that is how he got the votes he did. For Dems, it seems totally incomprehensible people would vote for Trump just as it would have been incomprehensible by MAGA to think Harris had won.

Wonder if Thailand will be voted off the UN Human Rights Council that they were just elected to and joined in Jan, 2025? If you are going to choose returning Chinese asylum seekers to China (and detain them for 11 years, without processing them!), why were they ever voted on in the first place.

Hospital charges seem fine. No one commenting they are excessive have ever been on a ventilator 24x7 and under sedation at a private hospital in Thailand. You have any idea what kind of monitoring would be necessary in that condition? You don't just turn the machine on, inject a drip, and walk away until the next drip refill is needed. Might be cheaper in a government hospital though, that is your choice. GoFundMe's are ok, even the stupid ones, doing stupid things, never even thinking about insurance or consequences (not saying that is the case here). It's up to you if you want to give or not but why whine about people using a legal method to plead for money. Seems to work for many (and not for many more) and also scams aplenty. Donator beware.

We all agree that there is no place for pedos anywhere, at home, or here. Every year we see a few pedo stories of tourists or expats exposed. Hopefully, all get what is coming to them. There are bigger questions about pedos able to fulfill their fantasies here in Thailand more easily though, which this story points towards, yet Thai society (including the government and media) avoid. Some poor Thai families make their underage daughters available, often within local Thai pedo circles (and we have all seen articles of such). Many more poor families encourage (or force) their daughters into both Thai and foreign sex establishments. How many are underage? How many are underage on dating apps? The victims are the children, the pedos the criminals, and Thai culture the facilitators. This is not the time or place to get into a discussion of all the reasons for this situation. Until the situation changes,, both Thai and foreign pedos don't need to "manipulate" the system, they are taking advantage of it.