Longwood50

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

Hunter isn't the only one either. At least the niece is hot.

 

I was in banking for years and Joe Biden was for a consideable length of time the head of the Senate Banking Committee.  In my opinion he lacked mental clarity and was a gaffe artist for decades and his age has made it mental faculties and the amount of gaffes only more severe. 

With that said.  Virtually every president has had relatives with problems.  I can recall Billy Carter, and Billy Beer.  The Kennedy's have had several family members involved in scandals including Ted Kennedy.  It is not fair to somehow convey that the actions of another family member is an indictment on them. 

However with Hunter, he flew on Air Force 2.  His father took actions against Ukraine to punish them for failing to fire a prosecutor.  Clearly illegal involvement in the policies of another government.  You have millions of dollars flowing to many members of the Biden family.  All of that cries to find out why.  If and I repeat if Joe Biden is complicit and inproperly recieved money he should be prosecuted and condemned for HIS ACTIONS not those of other family members. 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Oh look, more deep state stuff. Of course, never ever been a credible accusation of a rigged grand jury. Never let that stop a good conspiracy theory.

First off he didn't say it was rigged. He said a good prosecutor could persuade a Grand Jury to get an indictment if that is what the prosecutor was seeking.  

Also do you know what the Dunning Krueger Syndrome.  That is when someone holds themselves out to be an expert in a field that they know little to nothing about. 

Now Sol Watchler was the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court.  Now I know this will come as a shock to you but given his background I have more than a slightly greater prejudice to believe his opinions on the grand jury process and its accuracy than yours. 



 

Thailand’s EV sector hopes for spark


I think I might have chosen a different word than spark when mentioning EV's 
 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

There it is. Again.

Total garbage anti LGBT rhetoric.

Marketing to LGBT people is not targeting behaviors.

Now what other than being LGTBQ is not a behavior.  

There is no other attribute that was mentioned other than being LGTBQ.  That is a behavior.  Not any different than being heterosexual is a behavior.  If you target gamblers that is a behavior.  If you target young people that is an age group.  If you target neighboring countries that is a geographic demographic.  

Now LGTBQ may have larger incomes but you are not targeting basded on income or net worth.  If you were doing that you would target the wealthy not based on sexual orientation. 

Anyway I hope you wake up someday and that not every waking moment is consumed with the singular obsession about being LGTBQ.  It apparently defines what your self image is of yourself. 

As I have repeatedly said, I am not saying not to welcome LGTBQ to Thailand I am saying that expending marketing dollars would be better spent targeting the neighboring countries that comprise almost half the worlds population.  A baht spent to attract an LGTBQ is a baht not spent attracting someone from China, India, or Indonesia.  I suggest you will get a better return on your marketing expenditures targeting those that are close not those who wish to come to Thailand for a hookup. 

PS you are now 5.6 times higher than the next highest poster regarding this subject. 

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Promoting LGBT tourism does not take away from promoting other identifiable segments such as Chinese.

It is obvious that you were never in business or marketing.  A baht spent to attract one segment is a baht not spent to attract another.  I am merely pointing out as I did in my original comment, the idea to point specifically at the LGTBQ community is not for economic reasons it is to be seen as WOKE.  The marketing baht are not unlimited.  So if you spent lets say 50 million baht on a marketing campaign to attract LGTBQ I suggest you will have a lower repsonse and less economic benefit than if you spent the same 50 million baht targeting not a behavior but rather large population groups that are geographically close.  That sir is commons sense. 

Cruise lines have marketing campaigns targeted at gamblers Why?  They tend to be the most profitable.  Airlines have campaigns targeted to the business traveler Why?  They travel the most often, travel often in business class and are not price sensitive.  Toy manufacturers will do campaigns for groups known to have young children.  I worked for Merrill Lynch we targeted groups identified with large net worths and higher incomes. 

However when you target based on behavior, you should expect that what you will attract are people not necessarily with the best revenue potential but rather those that focus on that activity.  If you target backpackers for Thailand expect the people you are successful to come for the backpacking.  If Thailand was to start a gaming industry and target gamblers expect that since you selected them for their gambling they will come for the gambling.  If you target LGTBQ you are not targeting them for their income but rather their sexual orientation and it is naive to expect they would not come to Thailand seeking companionship no different than the single men have flocked to Thailand for years because of its night life, bars, and bar girls.  

My point to beat a dead horse is that targeting LGTBQ is not an economic decision it is to make a social advocacy statement.  Money spent to larger population groups and those regions geographically close to Thailand make far more sense.  That is not to say you don't welcome the LGTBQ traveler but you don't do an outreach to specifally attract them. One final point.  Thailand to broaden its appeal has tried to separate itself from its sex trade image.  It professes to want to broaden its appeal across many ages, and family groups.  I suggest that even if successful in attracting the LGTBQ community that then shaping the businesses that will cater to the LGTBQ lifestyle will be at variance to broadenings its appeal to the other 7.5 billion people on earth.  I can only give you one example.  In South Carolina they host a big biker week.  The areas is flooded with both recreational bikers and biker gangs.  Though they do come and spend money the economy suffers for the other tourists avoid the community during the festival. One only has to look at Budweiser and what happens to your base of customers when they feel slighted or uncomfortable. 

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Counting posts is obnoxious.

Oh really  I am merely pointing out that you have seem to be obsessed with a single issue.  

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

LGBT travel market valued at US$211 billion a year

As said all marketing dollars are expended.  There is "no extra" only an allocation. 

Jimthing, it is not that LGTBQ travel does not generate revenue.  The issue is whether expending limited marketing dollars to attract only a small portion of the population is a good return on investment or merely to appear WOKE. 

The LGTBQ community is small.  Take just China if the same amount of baht was expended to attract the Chinese vs LGTBQ would it raise more revenue.  You only have a certain budget to spend so from purely a business standpoint you want each marketing baht to reach the greatest number of people and most importantly be effective.  

I might expend marketing dollars in Monaco saying I wanted to attract a wealthier more affluent tourist to Thailand.  However if few if any came that baht was wasted.  

Personally if lets say I have 100 million baht to spend on attracting Thailand tourists I reasonable approach would be to focus on those areas geographically close to Thailand making it conventient.  Focus on socioecomic groups in those regions that match what Thailand has to offer.  Thailand is not Monaco nor is it Bangaladesch  I might focus on those who enjoy water or beach related activities since Thailand has those to offer.  However focusing a target market strictly because of how they use their genitals is ludicrous.  The LGTBQ community is throughout the world It is estimated to be 7.1% of the population of about 550 million people.  By contrast China, India, and Indonesia have a combined population of 3 billion people.  They are all geographically close and concentrated making marketing more effective. 

So while the LGTBQ community is not non existent.  In the scheme of things it is pointing the marketing baht at the mouse and not the elephant. 

Similarly, 11.4% of Thailand's GDP was generated by tourism, with a whopping 28.1% accounted for by Chinese spending.Jul 29, 2566 BE

 

On 4/22/2022 at 11:14 AM, steve187 said:

i have been looking at a new suv, was thinking of hybrid, or ev, as the price of some brands have been reduced,

I bought a Toyota Cross hybrid.  Actually I would have purchased the all gas model but it only came in the base model.  I previously purchased in the USA a Lexus hybrid.  It was $10,000 more expensive, got no better mileage and was worth less than the gas model upon resale due to people concerned over the life of the battery. 

Suprise.  Technology with hybrids has improved.  I get 18 to 19 km per liter and the shift from gas to electric and back is absolutely imperceptible.  

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Its painfully obvious that you're biased against LGBT people being visible in the world.

No Jingthing,  

I just don't find who someone chooses to share their genitals with to be particularly entertaining, fascinating, or worth social comment. Obviously you disagree.  47 posts on this article alone.  That is 5 times the person with the second number of posts. 

As I have repeatedly said, I find it very bizzare that for some reason LGTBQ are predisposed to wanting to share their regale in their lifestyle.  You see we heterosexuals do not suffer from that mental malady that thinks that others care about our sexual habits. 

As to my comment about the marketing outreach, I did so based purely on the economics of the idea.  If you spend millions in a special effort to attract LGTBQ  from purely an economic standpoint did you get a good return on your investment.  I suggest the equal amount of money spent to attract a much larger segment of the population makes more marketing sense. 

Your comment that nothing special is being offered is naive.  As said, you don't see similar marketing focuses to other groups based purely on their sexual orientation.  Your comment that somehow Puerta Vallarta is popular because it is a popular destination of gays is also a joke.  Do you know the difference between correlation and causation.  Puerto Vallarta has been a popular tourist destination for decades.  It has margaritas and senoritas.  Turning your argument around perhaps Puerto Vallarta is not at all popular because of the gay lifestyle but in spite of it. 

One only has to look at Target and Budweiser to see that being "woke" comes with peril that you alienate the large customer base. 

As I have repeatedly said, your constant posts on this singular subject suggest that it is not you who is trying to covince others of the LGTBQ lifestyle but rather convince yourself because you obviously are seeking public affirmation of it.  A peson confidant in their decisions and lifestyle does not need others to validate it for them. 

9 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Firstly, the Thais don't care what you (or I) think is wrong. They only care about what works. It's daft to think that this is being done to be woke. Like all good tourism it's for the money.

You still miss the point.  You only have a limited amount of money to spend to market.  A smart person focuses that on the target market that will have the greatest value.  

Sure you welcome all customers.  However money spent to attract LGTBQ is money not spent to attract wealthy from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Japan, and Kuwait to name a few.  PS there are more of them than LGTBQ, they have more money per capita, and they are geographically close.  Also concentrated unlike the 7% of the LGTBQ community that is spread across the globe. 

Note what happened to Budweiser when it focused mypopically with Dylan Mulvaney.  Did it increase sales.  Hardly, it alienated others.  I can tell you I was on one of those cruises that you spoke about.  Each day we had a circular stuffed with the events of the day focused on LGTBQ.  Each day there was a flag raising ceramony to raise the pride flag.  Each day each entertainer started and interjected their performance special recognition to the LGTBQ community.  Each day there was a special pool party just for the LGTBQ.  Had the cruise line did the exact same thing but focused exclusively on being straight.  They would be criticised. Candidly I would find them equally wrong.  On a ship with upwards of 2,500 passengers those special activities were attended by at best 50 passengers.  So was the marketing effort and thousands of dollars expended to be woke financially worth it. 

You take no action that will cause you to alienate a customer, tourist, or a potential customer or tourist.  When you show favoritism to one based soley on their sexual preference you are treading on dangerous territory.  

Yes you welcome all irrespective of race, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.  But when you treat one of those markedly different strictly to be "woke" that is wrong.  

If I was running a resort and wanted its customer base to be predominately LGTBQ, then the marketing should be focused on them.  If I wanted the resort to be predominately asean oriented I would market predominatly to Asean countries.  One needs to just look at places like Atlantic City that focused on only gamblers and the unintended consequences that came with that. Thailand is already attempting to change its image to a more family and less sexually oriented tourist destination.  I hardly think that any marketing effort that is focused strictly based on sex will further that goal. 


 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

A claim that Thailand can return to a 5% GDP growth rate made by Srettha Thavisin

16 hours ago, fondue zoo said:

I will never understand why everyone is so concerned about what other people do with their genitals and related areas.  who cares.

You are absolutely correct.  I am 100% certain that no one on earth cares about my sexual preference, or behavior.  I have no delusions about that. 

Why a huge proportion of the LGTB community think that the rest of the world cares about theirs is a mystery. It must be part of the mental disparity that  leads them in that direction. 

I have the opinion that the public declaration is a "need" for affirmation about a lifestyle they are not  not to convince others is fine, but to remove their personal doubts by seeking public approval.  The constant need to inject someone's sexual orientation, is no different than the constant interjection of someones race into the conversation.  Irellevant

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So gay people aren't gay according to you

I did not say that.  You were the one who said that it was about "identity"  Today the politically correct term is called "identity"  Years ago the same actions was called by its correct term. 
Make Believe   

If this was a natural phenomena it would also be true througout the animal kingdom.  However natural selection took over and things didn't work out very well for the fish to self identified as a sheep and went ashore.

23 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So you think LGBT retirees are all sexpats? LGBT is about identity.

You are entitled to your own opinion.  Not your own facts. 

I may "identify" as a Greek God but that does not make me one. 

As to this notion of acquiesing to those who "identify" as something other than they are biologically, I adhere to the same practice as I do to talking to the invisable friends of those that are schizopherenic.  I choose not further their delusion,  

23 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So you think LGBT retirees are all sexpats? LGBT is about identity.

Now there is nothing wrong with trying to attract a population segment.  However my degree was not in Marketing but rather Business Administration.  Business majors were always taught that it was most profitable to have a target market that was large.  At best the LGTB community represents 7% of the population.  

Wouldn't it make more sense to target the 93% rather than a very decided minority population.  In addition, lets say you don't target based on sexual orientation but rather another factor perhaps gambling.  If your country is suddenly comprised of a large population of gamblers it will dramatically change the characteristics of the country.  I know Pattaya in particular has tried to shift ithe attractiveness of the city away from being just a bar with bar girl image to something more attractive to a larger segment of the population.  I can't say that I would find the transition to a city/country that similarly was sexually oriented could be done without impacting its attractiveness the the other 93% of the population.