Fat is a type of crazy

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

I was joking about the source but it happened - throw in songs by Rufus Wainright and Sinead O'Connor. Odd. Then of course he said to vote on January 5 but I'll give him a pass on that.

Not correct by what I saw. Yes someone fainted. He said play Ave Maria. Fine. Second person same. Said play Ave Maria. OK. Then from that point - after 5 questions only - he decided to play songs from his song list while he shuffled - not sure if 39 minutes included the two Ave Maria songs but he played YMCA, a Guns n Roses song, Memories from Cats etc etc - his own Teleprompter said to ask questions - the host suggested more questions - but he kept on with it. Jimmy Kimmel and Colbert confirm this and they wouldn't lie.

Probably all saw too how he kept playing his music at the Pennsylvania town hall. Bizarre. 5 questions at the start and nothing more. Imagine going there to ask the nominee an important question for your life and he just plays his songs for 39 minutes and shuffles on stage. Overconfidence or something's going wrong.

Your response probably hits at the key to why Trump may win. He clearly has a sense of how to manipulate certain types of people which is a skill and a kind of smarts - but people assume he's intelligent when I think he clearly is not. His tv show added to the reputation as the smart guy for a certain audience . Everything I've heard Trump say about economics or about most policy topics is not insightful nor indicative that he understands in detail what is going on. The big concern for a second term is he is less likely to get help from the experts he'll need. Let alone 100 other issues that make him a poor choice.

It's all been said but low inflation under Trump followed on from a long period of low inflation - and then covid spending, Trump spending on handouts and supply issues, and a bit of Biden spending early on that didn't help resulted in bad inflation. Do you really think Trump had some super smart low inflation policy that worked in those first two years or <deleted> just happened. Biden now has low inflation compared to most comparable countries and a booming economy. I watched the video and I think the problem isn't that she doesn't understand the Ukraine issue but that she was a bit patronising thinking she had to put things in too simple terms to that audience. As president she'll consult experts. He'll tell toadies what should be done based on what's best for him.

True. Except vegetables and meat is cheap here if you are cooking. Jomtiem night market for tourists on the beach much better and cheaper than similar in Australia. You noted you bought a double seat on the plane from Australia last time for comfort. Next time sit in one seat for the 9 hours and with the extra $1000 you can buy expensive thongs and eat Subway. Unless you made that story up.

She may not communicate all that well at times but do you think Trump has a better grasp of economics and policy issues than Kamala. I think not. So its funny to criticise a candidate when the other one doesn't know what he's on about but is good only at making you think the opposition is bad and America is a crumbling wreck that only he can fix. Inflation policy. Tariffs policy. Child care policy. Hopeless but his fans don't care.

For some weird reason people thought Trump was a good candidate in 2016 - unbelievably again in 2020 and unfathomably in 2024. I lost faith in the intelligence of people in 2016 and it's got worse from there. Kamala is not the best candidate but she needs to be seen as much as possible in the next 3 weeks so good for her. Talk to Pete before hand.

Don't know why I recall such details but in a different post he's got a decent amount of super and working till saving 800,000 so he'll get nothing. Unless he spends a decent chunk before 67. So all this budget talk is either trolling or he can't get used to the idea of actually spending after saving after 30 years or more of working.

He can say stuff like this and his supporters don't think about what it means - they just like decisive. So many people seem to see Trump as available - real - whatever he says good or bad people think he's a thing. I think Kamala needs to get out on the road and do rally after rally - interview after interview - make mistakes - whatever - be seen.

Come on man I know you get a good hourly rate with probably double time Sunday and superannuation payments of 11 per cent. You won't be eligible for the age pension.

Accommodation is the big expense and for longer term tourists such as the likes of you and I - nice accommodation in places like Jomtiem and Koh Chang so much cheaper compared to Bali by what I've seen - and of course Australia.

There were 2 booths that look the same in Jomtiem 150 metres apart the other day. One 22 One 21. Worth a walk. But last trip it was 24 so not the best.

Not trying to be smart but do you think your experience with women - seemingly some bad eggs - has left you a bit jaded such that you have made incorrect conclusions about women's intelligence and natural place in society.

I say nothing is off limits but you have to be willing to cop some back. The way say Ricky Gervais dealt with this type of joke in the Office was funny in my opinion because it kind of made fun of all parties - be it about the disabled, different races, sexuality, whatever. A lot of what he did would now be more difficult I concede but the general point is the more potentially offensive the more clever it needs to be. Happy for everyone to have the piss taken. To me though - seems kind of obvious - calling someone a spaz is lazy - it has no subtlety, no funny angle, nothing but being a bit mean.

I'm sure you don't mean anything bad but I ask are you laughing with them or at them and a term like spaz to me sounds like at them. I think how the person in question would feel if he was called that name. Lifes hard enough and I see spaz as pretty derogatory but there can often be nothing wrong with having a joke about life's predicament if done in the right way. In my opinion.

Not funny. Never was except amongst 5 year olds. People exaggerate a bit how times have changed. Ian Dury got into strife with his song Spasticus Autisticus back in 1981 - unfairly in my opinion - and even though he meant well.

Right now a pensioner who has been away for 5 years is a non-resident and the pension is taxable. They are not a focus it seems. Same under the new rules - they are a non-resident and nothing new proposed - as far as I know - suggesting new enforcement rules to affect them as such. If there is a sudden appetite to deal with such taxpayers then that alters the situation. They are non-residents now and they'll be non-residents if and when there are new rules . An automatic reduction in payment for long term expats is of course technically possible but that is possible now and not done. As has been pointed out to you they could not use automatic reductions in the first years away because the rules are not clear cut e.g. you are not automatically a non-resident after 183 days outside Australia. You have suggested the latter - been corrected - but keep saying it for some reason or other.

Though the age pension is taxable right now - the proposed new rules are simply a variation of old rules - and their is no proposal as far as I know to enforce taxation or follow it up - for say age pensioners. As has been noted - but to no effect on the poster - the new rules do not mean that more than 183 days outside makes you a non-resident automatically - so you could not simply automatically tax at non-resident rates for someone outside for 183 days from say the first year. The scenario it could potentially be possible to tax automatically - if it ever came to pass - is if you were away for a number of years for a long period each year so clearly a non-resident - but you are a non-resident under current rules too - so nothing new. That's my take on things.