Masterton

Howabout this one: The operation underscores the vigilance required to dismantle these obscured undercurrents of infantile exploitation Dickens has nothing on this cat

Yes I am considering that area also, will have a look. The key factor is finding a place that has rooms/chalets right on the beach to stay in, that is what they are looking for first and foremost.

Thanks, I will check those out. Are the places in Jomtien/Na Jomtien you mentioned hotel/resorts or private condos you can rent?

Thanks, wasn't aware they had beach front rooms. I had a look and they are way above budget. Also would prefer to be further away from the centre of Pattaya ideally.

Thanks, will have a look

Thanks, the one on Koh Libong looks nice but very far. I was hoping to not have to travel too far from Bkk though, preferably by car.

Thanks, do you know or recommend any hotels like this on Koh Chang? I went to Samet about 10 yrs back and I am not sure it is suitable for them due to bad roads etc.

Hello, looking for some recommendations or names of any beachfront hotels that are literally "on the beach". Some elderly family members are visiting Thailand and want to stay in one of those hotels that has 'huts' or 'cabins' right on the beach. I am fairly sure these types of place exist in Samui or Krabi etc, but for logistical reasons I would prefer them to stay nearer to Bangkok. and nearer to civilization in general. Does anyone know of any such places in the vicinity of Pattaya for example? Away from all the chaos of the centre obviously, but near enough to make the occasion trip to some malls or tourist attractions. Along that coast, considering Koh Chang also but that might be a bit far. Hua Hin also an option, but not sure that this type of place exists there. Grateful for any suggestions. Thanks.

The claim is only "astonishing" to you because of your chosen "news" sources not reporting on it in order to further their narrative. How about using some of that intellectual curiosity to educate and inform yourself? It is not my job to eduate you, if you want to engage in a discussion about ways in which the 2020 election was stolen, then I suggest you better inform yourself. In any event, dwell in ignorance or not, I will not be responding further.

I suggest you change the title and content of the original post to be exclisively about voter fraud instead of continuously trying to deflect to that topic every time someone posts about potential ways the election could've been / was stolen. Just a suggestion to save and/or not waste anyone's time further.

You have a point. Anyone who gets their news from the Democrat Propaganda fake news media will of course have no knowledge of these facts, nor will they possess the intellectual curiosity to research it.

Says the person who still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Both are meaningless if they are not allowed to be presented in a court case. As others have repeatedly pointed out to you, most of the cases with merit were refused on procedural and standing grounds. And once again, you do not seem to understand that the thread is about the 2020 election being stolen, and as I pointed out previously, there were other factors involved in addition to 'voter fraud' which you can't seem to be able to see past. The deliberate and co-ordinated suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in itself was enough to sway the election. Stop blabbering on about voter fraud and proof, you are clearly trolling and are not worthy of any further response.

What a completely idiotic comment. There are no such things as 'fake electors'. Perhaps you should get your information from sources other than Democrat Party propaganda and do your research about elections and history. Opposing parties sending alternate slates of electors is not only legal, but in the case of the 1960 election resulted in the alternate (Democrat) slate being granted the votes. Do your own research and form your own viewpoints instead of blindly parroting fake news propaganda.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about (as usual). It is common knowledge that Pensylvania violated the terms of their own constitustion when they illegally changed their voting laws leading up to the election. No 'proof' was required by Texas to offer in order to raise the case. Just because the courts refused to hear the case, does not mean Texas were wrong to pursue it. Many legal minds absolutely disagree that Texas did not have standing, it is just one of the many injustices related to the 2020 election farce.

Followed up by a short winded way to demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Thanks for proving my points by the way... 🙄