33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

uBlock Origin is your friend.

Can't agree more ... it works a treat with utube and removes so much clutter everywhere you browse too. Completely different internet with Ublock Origin.

"Tourists are rejoicing" ... I have my doubts

My experience is that the biggest impediment to getting through to a departure gate is the scanners and luggage check - not immigration!

On arrival ... now I can (maybe) get my passport processed quickly and then begin to complain about how long I have to wait for my luggage.

The inevitable consequences of an "unelected" PM ... who found the job comes with a checkbook.

When will he announce that tax increases, which mostly impact the poor/marginalized, are unavoidable?

The same people he claims to champion will eventually pick up the tab.

Thailand "bent over" for the "Chinese Tourist Police" ...
now about to take the "booster".

22 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Why are you conducting this poll?

 

You mention 'expat(s)'  What is the definition of expat(s) for this specific poll?
 

Why? <shrug> ... why do u post here? (you're not obligated to take the poll)
I sometimes find it interesting to learn something about the demographics of the community - that just me.

His definition of "expat" is explicit in the options he allowed us to choose

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I think these 2 sentences highlight the source of all the ire and confusion.

 

1 I have never filed a Thai tax return because I do not believe that the income I remit is taxable in Thailand due to the UK - Thai DTA

 

2. But, will I now have to file a Nil tax return, but listing my non taxable income on an annual basis.

 

3. Or, will it be a case of carry on as before, not filing annual tax returns.

 

Personally, I am not really bothered what I might have to do, I would just like clarity on it.

I am not bothered either, however/whatever the changes and the affect on me, I've no intention of going anywhere - it is what it is <shrug>

I been avoiding these topics mostly because, well, I'll deal with it when/if/however they decide to move forward.  I'm definitely a "don't get out over your skis" kinda guy.  I will wait until they demand something from me.

If you have no intention of leaving, then don't stress about it or do anything.

That my strategy.

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Lies and faulty logic, if one can use the term logic.

 

I posted "no failure" because Ukraine was expected to fall within days, and it's still standing.  Are you going to dispute that?

 

NATO is suing for peace?  Really?  Please provide a source for that one.

 

Do you think abandoning Ukraine will make Taiwan look less tempting to China?  Explain that one.

 

All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through.

1) "Lies and faulty logic, if one can use the term logic."
Impressive, resort to name calling and denigrating a community member expressing their own opinion/analysis by name calling, so proud.

2) "I posted "no failure" because Ukraine was expected to fall within days, and it's still standing.  Are you going to dispute that?"
I respect that you thought the war might end quickly, but it just analysis/opinion, that is all it is - it does not mean that Kiev failing to fall in the opening days of the war was a Russian failure, unless you of course have a link to the Russian military's plans that explicitly stipulates Kiev falling as an objective, maybe a pocket book version that you can share?

3) "NATO is suing for peace?  Really?  Please provide a source for that one."
I did provide a source (the headline anyway), NBC news, you can find the article by searching the headline. Exactly what is suing for peace?  Its when one of the co-belligerents approaches another and seeks to end the conflict (as it appears the US/NATO is preparing to do), and might I add typically the side that is losing.

4) "Do you think abandoning Ukraine will make Taiwan look less tempting to China?  Explain that one."
No, a loss in Ukraine by US/NATO would look weak, a geopolitical loss with enormous implications.  What I did was offer my analysis on how China (and the rest of the world) might view a "Russian win in Ukraine".

5) "All those places around the world that think they're protected by the US are watching, so the US needs to see this through."

This is all a matter of global political strategic thinking/analysis ... I would agree that the US/NATO losing in Ukraine is a disaster, but that I think the conflict is heading in that direction.  Should the US see it through to a loss?

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ukraine has survived when everybody, especially Putin, thought it would fall within days.  That's no failure, and I doubt that the Ukrainian people think it is.  At this point Putin is hoping to hold onto the slices of Ukraine he's managed to steal and maybe make Crimea safe enough for his Black Sea fleet to use again.

You say "no failure", despite ...
NBCNEWS - U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official.

Lets review...
For the past 2 years we've had NATO countries send hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine, a quantity of weapons so enormous it depleted their own reserves, a vast undisclosed amount of mercenary soldiers, and threw everything but the kitchen sink in terms of sanctions to cripple Russia. The result? It simply didn't work, NATO is now suing for peace and Ukraine will probably end up having lost at least a fifth of its country.

All this after having been told during almost the entire duration of the war that Ukraine was winning...

Of course people will be told that it's not a defeat, merely a "stalemate", that NATO comes out of it reinforced with additional members, that it's Ukraine or Zelensky's fault anyhow, bla bla bla...

But the crux of the matter is NATO defined an extremely clear objective - which was to "drive Russians back to pre-invasion lines" to directly quote Anthony Blinken - and that failed miserably despite their unprecedented efforts. Which means that the West is much less powerful than they thought they were, they just couldn't collectively defeat Russia. This has immense implications.

First of which being: if they can't defeat Russia, what hope do they have against China which is likely - just looking at metrics (number of people, production capacity, military budget, etc.) - at least 5 times more powerful? The answer is obvious.

Another one is that all those places around the world who thought they were protected by the US will start (in fact are already starting) asking themselves: "wait a minute... That protection isn't worth much, is it?" And so we'll likely witness very significant shifts of alliances and protection arrangements.

Lastly people in Western countries will at some point wake up from their propagandized haze and ask very simple questions like: why did we ruin ourselves for Ukraine with almost nothing to show for it? Wouldn't we and the Ukrainians have been better off if we'd respected Minsk 2 and if we hadn't tried to convert Ukraine into a Western bulwark against Russia? And so this will likely serve as a hard lesson domestically that we'd better be much more humble about our geopolitical ambitions (assuming the West still is capable of learning lessons, which is far from certain).

All in all, this will undoubtedly be seen by history as the defining event that signified we moved from Western hegemony into a multipolar world. A very long chapter of our collective world history book has just been closed.

Only time will tell for sure .....