KanchanaburiGuy

Hmmm The rich could make dramatically more on price movement.......... If they know beforehand that it's likely to move........... (which they'd know to some degree if it's being manipulated) .......... than they could ever hope make with the baht merely remaining strong. Baht is going down, buy up the foreign. Baht gets pushed back up, sell the foreign and buy back the baht. Upward movements make a profit........... downward movements make a profit. But if it's artificially being kept high, then the rich stand to benefit much less, because the movement has been curtailed. ------------ Once had a case where I was staying almost next door to a money exchange at a time when the baht-to-dollar was bouncing like a ping pong ball. Day 1, changed baht to dollars. Day 2, changed dollars back to baht. Day 3, changed baht back to dollars. Day 4, changed dollars back to baht. On days 2, 3 and 4, I made about 300 baht profit each time. Altogether, spent maybe 30 minutes altogether walking to and fro, plus a little more for exchange time. Cleared a 900 baht profit, roughly, for less than an hour's effort. Lol Not big money in my case, of course. Small potatoes. But when you've GOT big money, you don't want the baht fixed high. You want volitility........... so you can skim a little profit again and again and again! A little on the up............ then a little on the down! Then a little on the up......... then a little on the down! They don't want manipulation to make it easier to buy a big house in Switzerland. They want manipulation so that volitility becomes dramatically more predictable! If they've got THAT........ then the 3rd, 4th, and 5th houses follow the 2nd one pretty quickly! Cheers!

Yeah, sorry. Sometimes it takes me 1,000 words to be as ridiculous as others manage with far fewer........... Cheers! ------------- (By the way, there's a wonderful scene in the movie Amadeus where Mozart has just performed his new masterpiece for the king. After finishing, Amadeus turns to the king to see his reaction. The only thing the king says is, "My, it seems to have a lot of notes. Does there need to be so many notes?" To which Mozart replies, "I'm sorry your highness, it only has as many notes as it took." . I always think of that scene and chuckle............ whenever someone deems it necessary to criticize the lengthiness of my posts........ . "It only contains as many words as it took!") Cheers, again!

Your premise depends heavily on something not yet proven............ that Trump knew he was lying. That he, "believed his own lies." I've asked a couple of times in this thread whether anyone could present any evidence, testimony, speech transcripts or clips, or interview segments............. ANY AT ALL.......... where Trump EVER said something that indicates that he doesn't wholeheartedly believe everything he's been saying about the election. So far, nothing. Nothing, nada, zero, zip! See, for someone to "believe their own lies," first they have to know they ARE lies. To this point, there are probably HUNDREDS of clips of Trump speaking about this issue......... as well as many hours of testimony on record by people who saw him frequently or even daily.......... yet, as far as I've seen, there's not one indicator.......... NOT ONE!........ that Trump doesn't believe 100% in the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of what he's saying! It's not "believing your own lies"......... when you believe you are speaking the absolute truth! So sorry, a counter-argument saying he's been "believing his own lies"........... doesn't fly. Produce some evidence that Trump doesn't believe in the absolute truth of what he's been saying........... JUST ONE!........ and that'll change everything! Certainly, asking for examples a couple of times here............. still has yet to produced any! Can you? Cheers!

Personally, I think Garland ought to recuse himself from any and all Trump-related indictments and prosecutions. Trump having been given the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice for the position that Garland might consider "his"........... any indictment or prosecution by Garland might be considered retaliatory or vindictive. Trump didn't cause the Senate to drag their feet........... But!!............ he was the one who chose someone else, rather than him! Remember............. not just impropriety, but the APPEARANCE OF impropriety! Garland, like Sessions before him, has very capable people under him. He should let one of them take charge, for all things concerning Trump. Cheers!

First off, it wasn't Pence's "Constitutional Duty" to certify the Electoral Count. It was his Constitutional Duty to determine whether the Electoral Vote merited being certified. Inherent in the requirement that the votes be "certified"....... is the possibility that they might not be. Say, for example, Pence had found some votes that were obviously fraudulent; that were the exact opposite from the outcome he already knew a State had arrived at. Should he certify them, anyway? Of course not! Because inherent in the need to certify......... is the possibility that he might not! And that's why a NEXT STEP has already been defined in the Constitution! It IMMEDIATELY goes to the House for a 1-vote-per-State ballot, with the choice being made from slate of a maximum of three candidates. Simple logic should make clear that the next-step wouldn't be there........... if refusing to certify wasn't an option!

Lol....... There are those within the United States and without who would say he did that with MAGA....... "Make America Great AGAIN!" "Again?" they'd say. "Was it EVER?" LOL

Wasn't it you who clarified mens rea............ when knowledge that something is a crime........... is a required element of the crime? And you seem to have breezed past the point that Trump has a long history of taking his own counsel, and ignoring what "experts" are trying to tell him. He believes he IS the expert! This is why he practically had to have a revolving door installed in the White House............ with people coming in and going out........... ("Experts," presumably).......... getting frustrated, then quitting or getting fired! I guess it was the last year and a half, or so, that it got so bad that he quit even giving people the job! They weren't his "Chief of Staff"......... they were his TEMPORARY Chief of Staff! (Or "Interim," or "Acting".....) There were Cabinet Level positions filled with "Acting XXXs"............ for fairly long stretches! Things got so bad that he had to hire placeholders........... rather than actually giving people the job! (Too embarrassing, I assume, to have another one QUIT!) But when someone is merely a "temp" anyway........ ???????????? -------------- Experts and Advisors having talked to a different President........... might have meant something. Having Experts and Advisors tell us that they talked to Trump......... is almost as worthless to us......... as it was apparently useless to Trump! Cheers!

Does sworn testimony from a priest that he told me that "God exists, and God loves you"........... prove that I therefore believe that "God exists, and God loves me?" No, it only proves that I was told. It doesn't prove that I believe him. Surely you know it would be possible to provide DOZENS of examples of Trump declaring himself a bigger expert than all the experts.............. Afghanistan, ISIS, Covid, Trade, Negotiating, and on and on. And surely you know there must be dozens of examples of Trump believing that his own certainty......... was almost always more important to Trump than any facts he was being told. (I've read three books by former Trump Administration officials. These foibles were consistently the source of their greatest frustrations while working in the Trump White House. They'd tell him and tell him, to no avail. Eventually they'd quit or get fired............ and then Trump would blast them for their incompetence............ because they tried to tell him the truth!) No, without some evidence or testimony that Trump KNEW what the truth was and was speaking contrary to that............. there'll be no case. So tell me...... Is there any evidence or testimony that Trump KNEW what the truth was.......... and ignored it? Anything at all? All those people he dealt closely with and consulted with.............. all those people who have testified......... all those speeches and rallies......... all those interviews and press conferences............ has he said something EVEN ONCE that indicated he knew what the truth was, and was choosing to ignore it?