Fat is a type of crazy

There's a lot more to it than simply saying that report came out and is correct. It seems odd that the actions happened before the curfew during a protest that was peaceful at the time and right at the time of Trump and friends walk. The two views is that it was cleared to complete fencing in daylight - even though it was completed mainly at night - the second that it was done to protect Trump during his walk - the latter stated by the Justice Departments own lawyers. This Washington Post report is interesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/24/trump-ig-report-lafayette-square/ - you'll need to provide your email to see it - as is the Wikipedia page I have posted that has lots of detail beyond your report. The broader issue is Trump's apparent opinions on what actions to take during such protests including the use of active troops by invocation of the Insurrection Act - the section on Law and Order on the Wikipedia page is interesting. Though the report you provide is interesting it appears it is not appropriate to go on a victory lap of debunking such claims as some suggest based on that report alone .

If you are referring to my post I never said the reporter was gassed. The link talks about the use of tear gas on the day. For other information you require you can find out the details in the link.

No but they were assaulted - not something we see often in Australia. Especially when protesters are basically peaceful. Discussion of use of tear gas here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church

There's text on the right. Lots of information here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church

It was a big deal in Australia because an Australian reporter was attacked by a policeman. Picture in the link. https://wjla.com/news/local/gallery/australian-journalist-attacked-live-on-abc7-during-clearing-of-lafayette-square-testifies?photo=1

Geez G You don't remember that when he held up the bible in front of Ashburton House after the park and roads were cleared.

My girlfriend says it could be to commemorate King No 5 who died on the 23rd October 1910. She said could be still a day later. She says many had a holiday yesterday so today they wear black when back at work.

This may be obvious but if you lodge a final tax return and circumstances change you would need to start lodging. A change in residency could be such a situation.

I know. I raised that in a previous thread that was deleted. What professional company responds like that. Odd. The first email received by Bubblegum 19 hours a go was strange too. Seems like a very small operation.

You're funny. Even got Flybird into the story but no Nirun this time. Can Filipino's stay long term in Thailand especially without financial support? Thanks for the story though. Edit: You did mention Nirun in a subsequent post.

My youtube playlist is stuck in decades gone by. It's hard to tell if we got old, or modern popular music does suck to cater for people who look at phones all day, or there really is a limit to how many variations of popular pop and rock there can be and we see the patterns from past songs and it is boring.

Could be totally off topic but I hate the way at Thai restaurants and at resorts they love to play the blandest western songs - Coldplay Maroon 5 or covers of the blandest 70's and 80's music. Play thai music. Or better still nothing. In Koh Chang at lovely beach resort by the sea but at breakfast it's covers of songs that sucked in the first place. At dinner it is a filipino band playing Simply the Best and Living on a Prayer. I mean they played it ok but please. No thanks.

Can you point to a Harris campaign promise about the tampons. Some time some where in some obscure situation it was probably done - harmed nobody - likely silly. Meanwhile Trump makes comments about the enemy within and using the military and cosies up to dictators. Remember when tampons in a boys bathroom would be ridiculed and forgotten but important issues like Trump's stance would be taken seriously. But you keep worrying about tampons.

The key point would be that they both agree to separate - hard to see how subsequent to this you can hold someone to such a condition. Many couples separate but don't divorce for a while. They are treated in all sorts of ways as being two separate people once separated but before the final signing. Google seems to confirm this but not based on Thai law. If you have something that says otherwise might be interesting to see.

Perfect example of massive overreaction. Yes democrats were more supportive on that type of issue i.e. letting people live how they want. Trump and others now exaggerate and say such issues are fully embraced when they are not at all. I think for good or bad Democrats don't be black and white on such issues like Trump - but I bet most Democrats would say sport should be by sex you are born with - and saying you are whatever doesn't necessarily make it objectively or scientifically so. I think Trump knows many of his policies such as low taxes for the rich aren't that appealing to the average joe so he focuses on emotive issues such as gender, guns, border crossings - the last with some good reason but the ill effects massively overstated - that get you guys excited.

Like to hear of times when it should not have a bad rap.

The blood test is normally bulk billed and free for one and all. But I suppose if you take the doctor referral into account then it's not necessarily free.

They are normally free in Australia. Your link is American.

If you've already agreed to being divorced and the relationship is done and are about to sign papers are you required to be loyal till it's actually signed. No. He'd have to prove it went further back in time to when she was supposed to be the loving wife.

A lot of it to me sounded like straight out Trump talking points - like he was doing it on behalf of Trump. Maybe you are used to that on Fox News. Normally they give the interviewee a chance to spruik some positives. Ask yourself if he would've been anything like that with Trump. The approach to the immigration questions for example - yes it is an important and key issue and there are some terrible individual consequences - but the discussion was emotive noting that 'a large number of men' had committed heinous crimes - no context or comparison to crime in general - asking for an apology three times regarding the tragic cases of the 3 ladies killed - I am not suggesting it is not important but that type of question is loaded with emotion and repeating it again after she made her statement was not fair and balanced in my opinion. He would repeat questions after she gave an answer that I consider was a reasonable response - played emotive Trump campaign ads focusing on obscure gender issues that are big Trump talking points - talking about how Trump is seen as better for this and that as part of the question e.g. saying how well Trump is going against her and attempts at gotcha questions - clearly more combative than he would be against Trump - played the wrong quote that lessened what Trump said - which Kamala picked him up on - and which the host admitted later but was too late - finishing the discussion of the Iran issue with a criticism with no ability for her to respond. If he treated Trump the same then no worries.

They had some very loaded questions - has your 4 years been terrible or very terrible? Hard to answer. But yes neither her nor Trump are the greatest at answering questions - but he's worse and since there's a 100 other reasons that Trump is a terrible option - whereas Kamala in my opinion is quite reasonable on most things - picking one because the other is so bad does make sense.

I think it's because he's become seriously unstuck during recent interviews such as the Bloomberg one and the Latino one. Serious normal questions where they expect a detailed answer and he is found wanting. Slogans and belittling others can only take you so far.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 100/100 My Time 57 seconds  

I concur that the terms of having the President chosen by parliament had an effect but I think the reason it didn't get up is that people simply thought if it ain't broke it don't need fixing. Only a small percentage I'd say had been particularly pro the British Royalty but I think many thought may as well stick with what we've got. Royals for most people I think were regarded as kind of benign and the Governor General in recent times - putting aside 1975 - did what needed to be done. I voted for the Republic for what it's worth. I disagree strongly that Turnbull was not honest in his desire for a Republic and he is still is the same. Do you have evidence for that? He did come across more arrogant in his youth which probably didn't help things in the public opinion stakes but in my opinion he is sincere and mellowed into a good politician. Well better than others such as Abbott or others but that's not hard.

For those who don't know It's a joke Joyce is a reference to an expression on Australian tv from around 55 to 60 years ago