Fat is a type of crazy

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You don't get it.

Kennedy isn't a serious challenger.

You can't beat a somebody with a nobody.

If someone like Gavin Newsom not that he will and not that I like him challenged Biden there might be a contest.

I wasn't suggesting this was the contender

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No chance to win even one state.

Last name recognition might work for some random people. 

Biden assuming he's running will not face any real opposition in the democratic primary.

We'll see. I think a lot can happen in 12 months. Old is OK but I think this is a step too far and I think it will become more apparent and either he won't run or doubt will become palpable. I don't think the next president inaugurated will be 82. 

Articles like this aren't bad too that look at the situation post the new legislation. 

Changes in Main Residence Exemption for Expats (homeloanexperts.com.au)

3 hours ago, h90 said:

Yes as history proofs again and again how good these socialist policies work. You can't make everyone rich, but you can make every rich poor.

I hear from whence you come, but this is not Sweden or Australia, it is a country where the rich are extremely rich with a high proportion of poor, where the highest marginal tax rate is fairly low on a world scale or at least compared to Australia, corruption is rife, where wages and conditions are terrible for many, and if a political party redistributes wealth in a tiny way I don't see it as a bad thing. 

29 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Oh dear.....

????????

Every tax and spend policy has winners and losers. Whether it is giving health care to the poor, or direct payments such as these which are less targetted, there is an argument that it is better than the status quo where the poor get little. A payment like this is not that unusual. For example, in my locality a similar payment was made to all households as a one off payment, to help with utility bills. If your concerns are due to potential inflation or I am missing something it would be nice to hear it rather than your normal short cynical posts. 

Given there's an Australian bent to this thread I am curious what people do. Some here say they have maintained Australian health insurance. I am wondering if that means you do not have insurance in Thailand, or a limited one for say accidents only,  and hope you can get home if required. Or do you have two policies. Or one that covers both countries. 

If I were to stop my Australian policy I might be up for the 2 per cent extra tax per year that kicks in at the age of 30 though I assume it would start from when I stopped. I think you can stop and recommence for a limited period and get no penalty. 

Ideally I could extend my Australian policy to be consistent with Australian tax rules and include Thailand. Bit that does not appear to be possible. Or I can limit trips to three months or so at a time and buy travel insurance. Difficult. 

4 hours ago, Woof999 said:

 

 

I've been involved with a major business behind the clipboard warriors that you see at shopping malls, asking to you save dogs, save the children

  It can be odd that big and worthy charities will allow marketing companies to have spruikers at shopping centres etc, gathering funds or subscriptions on their behalf, diminishing substantially the percentage actually helping people. Could be as little as 15 per cent or worse actually does good and a big chunk of the rest helps the marketing company and spruiker. I suppose they feel that some is better than none. 

I see in the area near my work the people who donate always look like nice caring people who probably have no idea such a small amount will actually help the kiddies or dogs or whatever.

If donating best to give direct to charity site rather than feeding the inbetweeners. 

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

YAWN.... 

 

Even though you mention that you would only want to to wear this around your own apartment or pool.... I do wonder why anyone wants to potentially antagonise others... 

 

 

Alternatively..... a shirt that states ’Stop ALL war’... (because the Russia Ukraine conflict of over a decade and only recently publicised with Russia’s escalation) is not the only war going on.

 

What about showing support for Hong Kong or Taiwan ?.

Rohingya conflict ? Myanmar Civil War ? Ethiopian civil conflict ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

There may be an argument not to buy the shirts but saying that someone is wrong to be passionate about stopping one murderous criminal, because there are others in the world, is not it.  Nor in my opinion is it that because there was an ongoing conflict between 2014 to 2022, that what happened after that is the same or it is all too complicated, when it is clearly something different and to a whole new scale of barbarism.

So wearing the shirts comes with risks but go for it Bob. Try and buy one where the proceeds go to Ukrainian orphans or something. 

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Have you read the "statement of facts" issued by Bragg's office in support of the indictment? It contains evidence that the payment was linked to the election.

 

Donald J. Trump - Statement of Facts

 

As it states:

 

As the statement goes on to say, there are emails and text messages between Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, David Pecker that attest to this.

 

So they have the words of Trump himself linking it to the election, supported by documentary evidence of communications between the involved parties.

Fair point and the facts as a whole seem fairly overwhelming.

On a short search of the document though, it strongly relies on the testimony of Lawyer A being Cohen, and that Cohen had always at the time been speaking on Trump's behalf. He could be seen as a fixer over a period of time, well before the election, and his predilection to lie in the past appears to give the case some potential difficulties. 

I concur the evidence is strong but I guess I was looking for some new smoking gun or links to other issues, from today's proceedings, but it didn't seem to be there. 

17 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Usual straw man argument often seen here. Nobody but extreme carnivores suggest or even imply cutting out carbs.

 

Who said, "better?" And what kind of workout, exactly, in detail? According to what schedule? Muddled. This study is merely observational, BTW. Main point to take away is that engaging in too much prolonged vigorous exercise brings about a diminishing return. Nothing new there, inevitable conclusion really.

 

Meanwhile, you have P. D. Mangan's relatively short intense (30 min/wk x 2) workouts, and a low carb diet, producing impressive (natural) results in a 68-year-old former skinny geek microbiologist, great blood markers. I'm finding his general principles (derived from the Arthur Jones/Doug McGuff/Atkins line) personally effective. Less work, more results a la Pareto Principle.

 

Better than what? The study isn't examining any "short sharp" exercise variable. 

 

The blood lipid numbers are the key indicators of effectiveness. You may feel really great while chronic disease progresses behind the scenes. Seen that, in fact. Keeping it a bay may be--SHOCK--less difficult for some than for others, as with many things in life, except for those truly favored by the Genetics Voodoo. Here, our Life Coaches generally advocate for that short but happy life ending with a smile on one's face during a bonk. It never seems to work out quite that way, according to so many posts in the Health forum.

 

A few of us prefer to avoid the need for meds and make some effort towards a long but happy life, postponing and compressing the fight against chronic disease to a shorter period towards the very end.

 

Up2u. It's the same old discussion repeated countless times here. Really not worth having again and again.

I was waiting for Big Star. 

My point, and I acknowledged it is subjective and possibly obvious, is that scientific advice and statistics are important, but the way diet and exercise makes you feel is a key factor too.

Of course, you have to be careful, because if you have a bad diet to begin with, you may not be in a position to know what is good, e.g. the feeling that a tub of ice cream feels good and therefore one a day is good.

But if you have a good diet and good exercise then it gets to a point where you can rely more on how you feel and what diet and exercise works for you. Nothing amazing in that. Doesn't mean you deny other factors offered by doctors and science. 

I don't think I indicated the options were an extreme all protein diet and no carbs or a so called mixed diet so I am not sure why you call it a straw man argument.

I may have mixed up my exercise studies - there were a few that came out - including this one that shows running can be good as against necessarily wearing out your joints Is running bad for your knees? Research shows impact on marathoners (nbcnews.com) The other study suggested longer exercise appears to be optimal for health. 

The rest of your post is stuff and nonsense you seem to pull out at every opportunity, classifying anyone who doesn't fully comply with your point of view as being happy to cop a short happy life, on medications or whatever.

Haven't taken a medication in my life except for the odd antibiotic or whatever for short term illness as advised by doctor. Not even a pain killer tablet ever except maybe after injury when I was 10 or at the dentist. 

So no need to go into your prearranged script that makes you feel good but adds nothing to the argument. I am not even disagreeing with your logic but simply noting that as you get fit and healthy listening to your body can help you in decisions about diet and exercise. 

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

But why is it 'infinitesimal'? By bribing Stormy D and taking care of all the other stories that were being bandied around at the time through 'catch and kill', he effectively paid his way out of any negative press at a time when it could have seen him lose the White House. This is pretty significant when you consider Hilary lost because of the server stories being touted at exactly the same time. 

One could argue it was far from ' infinitesimal' when you consider what was at stake.

 

But my understanding, and it is limited I will admit, is that this strategy was used by Trump over a period of years with other women, and other payments, and it is not so easy to link it to the election as against, say, keeping it from his family or the public in general.

Sure the Stormy stuff was close to the election, but it was a pattern of behaviour, and if you look at the impact Madoff had I would say a few payments to keep an ex lover quiet, and some dodgy recording of it, is infinitesimal in comparison. Having said that, the impact on the world of four Trump years was significant, but that is in a sense a separate issue if you accept that the issue is the crime itself. 

30 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

The issue at hand is that Trump has managed to make his followers believe he is the only one ever to be taken to task and is being persecuted.  He uses the term witch hunt so much that folks believe his drivel, without looking further to enlighten themselves. Trump is not the first and will not be the last: Below is a article regarding White Collar Crime. Read the first sentence under the Link, and this is exactly what Trump has done and has been indicted for.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/white-collar-crime.asp

 

White-collar crime is a nonviolent crime often characterized by deceit or concealment to obtain or avoid losing money or property, or to gain a personal or business advantage.

 

High-profile individuals convicted of white-collar crimes include Ivan Boesky, Bernard Ebbers, Michael Milken, and Bernie Madoff. Their crimes have included insider trading, accounting scandals, securities fraud, and Ponzi schemes.

The point I guess opponents will make is what Trump did is infinitesimal compared to those noted above, particularly Madoff, and though he has done something wrong, it would not normally warrant this response, given limited DA resources. Could be that Bragg is holding further key tidbits to release later beefing up the finding.

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

My answer to your question "But would have they put the resources into this over something that happened some years ago if it wasn't Trump.", is yes they would, and white collar crime for the most part is never printed in papers, but prosecutions do occur and unfortunately those with less money than Mr. Trump do jail time.  My Daughter as a Honors Business major and MBA student did her thesis on white collar crime. It was recommended by the University she graduated from that she send it out to be published as a small book which they could use for classes in the future for Students studying on business crimes as part of the syllabus. 

That's reassuring and hopefully they can communicate that message a bit more to the people. It still could be there's a bit more to come out too and I am being unduly pessimistic. 

1 hour ago, Drumbuie said:

"And justice for all.." 

Nobody should be above the law. 

 

What brought down Al Capone wasn't his career as a mobster, it was tax evasion. Those who don't understand history - or accountancy - are doomed to repeat it. 

 

That's the type of opinion that is problematic in my opinion. 

I agree in some ways that seeing him get charged is a bit of the Emperor's new clothes and people see he's a mere mortal and not above the law.

But I don't see Trump as an Al Capone, not as clever or as criminal truth be told, and from the point of view of the average voter, perception is important, and opinion might sway his way, if they see that this is for offences from years ago, that wouldn't have been faced by most others. 

I would hate for this to backfire and lead to four more years. Unlikely but possible. 

I think the other charges are more likely to get him fair and square and will be seen to be fair too. 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is falsifying business records in the first degree a crime?

This case breaks what is only a convention of not indicting a former President.

 

Bringing more indictments against the Defendant just got a whole lot easier, a whole lot more certain. 

I am not saying it is not a crime or that in an ideal world charges are not appropriate. But would have they put the resources into this over something that happened some years ago if it wasn't Trump. Not sure. It certainly gives the right ammunition to suggest he is getting special treatment. That is if my interpretation of what has come out is correct. 

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The immediacy is there right in front of you, I’ll grant you the Defendant hasn’t kicked off with his usual whinny histrionics, even he seems to have grasped the gravity of the situation he’s put himself in.

 

I’m hopeful your wish with respect to other investigations the Defendant faces will meet your wishes and tgen some.

This case is open to being interpreted as being followed up for political purposes - given the time the alleged acts happened and the substantiveness of the issues.

I had looked to whether the facts, for the basis and reasoning of proceeding with the case, would put it beyond doubt that that it was not done for those reasons. The argument for the case indicates it is a thing, and is I guess likely laws were broken, but it seems the right WILL have a basis to say this was done for political reasons. It may be that more will come out to justify these actions over time. 

As others have said, the other cases appear to be much more serious, and the argument to take matters further against a former president more substantive. 

A tad underwhelming. It is what it was likely to be but no more. 

Though this is a thing, put this on the back burner, and see if other investigations have a bit more immediacy and substance. 

I am there shortlyish. First proper look in ten years. Two nights in Patong will do and two nights in Phuket Town that looks like a fun place to be on the weekend. Then off to beaches off the island. 

4 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Are they Democrat experts? So Soros is clean? This must be a first!

Soros the bogeyman. Can you lay out why you and republicans put him on the pedestal of evil? Yes he supports democracy, and pushes back against despots, and backs liberal causes that may not be your cup of tea, but I have never quite heard exactly what it is he proven to have done, except have a different point of view to Republicans and some money to back his causes. If you read his Wiki page you'll see his done some positive things even from your viewpoint I should think. 

My prediction is these charges tomorrow are going to be at the higher end of expectations as I doubt they would have otherwise proceeded. 

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Here is a very good video explaining what Kundalini is and how it works.
I'm still hoping for a more scientific explanation from our materialistic friends here, but they have all gone quiet.

PS: Dismissing it as a fantasy is not going to make you look smart.

 

It's hard to know how to approach this. If someone says they experienced this thing, and they can show others experienced a similar experience, then the happening may require a look.

Of course, the feeling of something bigger than ourself could be a connection to the other, or a connection within oneself. Based on available information I would say the latter is likely and nothing here provides proof of a spiritual world at all, except the subjective sense or feeling, which is not nothing. 

If some advanced beneficiaries have psychic powers, genius, greatness in different forms of art, resulting from this, there must be examples of it's exponents showing such new powers that they did not have before. Psychic powers are of course purely theoretical. One might say an exponent would not advertise the fact, let alone bring themselves fame, as they are above that but it does not help that proof is lacking. 

I am not in a position to, or do I desire to, dismiss this. 

42 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Went to Ban Krut today (60 kms & 1 hr away), for a coffee/pastry & dinner.   I do that, lite munch, a few times a week. 

 

Dine out, at least a few times a month, somewhere between Hua Hin & Ban Krut, 170 kms stretch of surfside venues.

 

Would that be allowed ... I think not.   Wonder if there would be time limits to your time away.   Passed on a swim, though surf was looking inviting.   But would want to overnight and didn't plan on it.

 

No surf that I'd swim in within 15-45 mins 'drive' that I'd swim in, let alone be 15 min walk or bike ride.

 

Not even sure I could make it to the local surfside restaurants in 15 minutes, and they're < 5 kms away. 

 

Car yes, walk or bike it ... NO

 

So the powers to be, would like me to:

... Eat

... Sleep

... Work (if employed)

... troll AN

... watch 'approved' media

... AND be thankful I'm allowed to do even that.

 

Hell Yea ... Sign me up ????

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yea ... people seem to be adding quite a bit to fit 'their' spin.

 

I lived in a 15 minute city ...  until I was about 12 or 13 years old, then I realized there was a whole world an hour or 2 away on my bicycle.

 

OMG ... discovered even more interesting things available to see & do when having a motorized vehicle.

 

Damn if they didn't put wings on a bus, and you could fly and see other cultures and FURTHER YOUR EDUCATION IN ALL THINGS.

 

Why would anyone want to restrict people's movement and ability to communicate with other cultures & LEARN.

 

Just think if I never traveled, I'd think Philly PA USA was the center of the Universe .... or .... the USA was the greatest of everything, and everyone loved Americans from the United States.

 

Mushrooms ... feed them Sh!t & keep 'em in the dark.

Your response is understandable because of the way the original post was couched in terms of laws and regulations. Normally this concept is put in terms of simple urban planning so that people can get what they need within 15 minutes rather than being told they can't go beyond a distance travelled in 15 minutes.

That's where sometimes right wing media can be so depressing because they take what could be a good smart idea, find someone with an extreme version of it that would take away personal freedoms e.g. limit people's ability to travel etc, and throw out the baby with the bathwater i.e the good basic idea that maybe cities and towns of the future can be built around this worthwhile concept without stopping you travelling further if you wish to do so. 

This may have been addressed previously in pages 2 to 8 in which case please disregard this post.