CaptHaddock

4 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

You're in denial. Or, you don't understand the pertinent points in the video. Have a nice day.

You neither know nor understand American history.

54 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

 

Low turnouts are largely unrelated to the electoral college; they occur in local elections all the time.  This video may help. The Founding Fathers actually developed a solid, long lasting system for the every four year Presidential Election.

The video is a good example of American propaganda, although more flagrantly anti-democratic than most.  Notice how the narrator never cites any history to support her claims about the intentions of the authors of the Constitution.  That's because she wants to avoid acknowledging that the motivation for the Electoral College was to protect slavery.  The Three Fifths Compromise, by counting a slave as three-fifths of a citizen for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives, along with the allocation of seats in the Senate by state and not by population, gave the South substantial over-representation in Congress.  Indeed, slaveholder James Madison said at the time that unless the Southern States were so over-represented they would not join the union.  By creating the Electoral College, an institution unknown in other democracies, the advantage the South had in the Congress got translated into electing the president.  And the EC worked like magic.  Although the antebellum South never had more than one third of the US population compared to two-thirds for the North, twelve out of the first fifteen presidents were slaveholders.

By design the Electoral College can never be amended out of existence, because of the requirement of ratification of three-quarters of the states.  To ratify an amendment to abolish the EC would therefore require support from small states who would be giving up the anti-democratic advantage they currently enjoy. 

So the advantage that the framers locked in for the slave-holding South is now responsible for inflicting presidents like G. W. Bush and Trump on the US against the wishes of the majority.

Probably there is someone in Thailand who can prepare your taxes, but why look here where such people are scarce and therefore more expensive.  Tax preparers are a dime a dozen in the US and presumably many of them can manage a Skype conversation.  Is there any particular reason that you would need ever to be in the same room with your tax preparer?

What do you think a google search on "us tax preparer expats" would turn up?

Is the recipient in Thailand a Thai national or an American with a US bank account?  If the latter, then there are a variety of free US bank to US bank transfer methods such as popmoney and zell.  Depends on the banks involved as to which methods are supported.

The purpose of the English phrase "it would be great if" is to soften the request to avoid any impression of giving an order, the literal meaning being irrelevant.   Of course, it is possible to make a literal translation which would be something like

ถ้าคุณจะติด Facebook มือถืออีกครั้ง ก็ดี

But it would not have the meaning of softening a request.  I think the Thai listener may be puzzled as to whether a request is actually being made.  It sounds more like a statement.

The usual way to soften a request in Thai is this:

ช่วยติด Facebook กับมืถืออีกหน่อย ได้ไหมครับ

When we are trying to find ways to translate English statements, it's best to start with the most straightforward English version that doesn't rely on idioms, metaphors, mottos, or favorite phrases from movies and other sources.  These will almost never translate literally.  So, if we are inclined to say, "A stitch in time saves nine," then we should start with something like, "It would be better to address the problem sooner, don't you think?" 

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Let's not forget Trump's declaration to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in the Oval Office, along with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak:

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” .... “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, followup comments to Trump's statements:

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?mcubz=0

Then there was that time at the G20 meeting after the formal meeting between Putin and Trump, that Trump went over and talked with Putin without any American advisor or translator present.  That would be a first such unaccompanied contact between a US and Russian president.  And this is the same administration that attempted through Kushner to set up a communications line to Moscow that would be secret even from US intelligence.

So, if it walks like a duck, etc. etc.

In addition, Thai credit cards do not have a statutory requirement to hold you harmless in the event of fraudulent use of the card, unlike US cards, for example.  This is a big liability.  You are on the hook for all charges on the card unless you can convince a bank otherwise.

I wouldn't accept a Thai CC under any circumstances.

On one of the American news broadcasts a commentator said that there is now a suggestion that Manafort was sent by the Russians to work on Trump's campaign.  So far, I can't find a source for that accusation.  However, it is curious that Manafort took the job running Trump's campaign for free, without a salary.  Maybe payments from the Russians were sufficient.

Meanwhile the Dept. of Homeland Security, previously run by Gen. Kelly, the last hope to manage Trump, took ten months to notify twenty-one states that their electoral functions had been attacked by the Russians in the 2016 election.  Shows the contempt that Trump and Kelly have for American Democracy.  At the same time Trump immediately called a commission to investigate non-existent "voter fraud."

It would seem to me that failure to live up to his oath to defend the Constitution by protecting the election process could be an impeachable offense.  I hope it makes Mueller's list.

2 hours ago, Slip said:

"Quacks" like the American Psychoanalytic Association? A professional body with over 100 year's standing that produces "One of the world’s most respected publications in psychoanalysis".

 

 

Psychoanalysis is indeed quackery.  Freud never conducted scientific research; he just made things up based on what he took to be his own psychology.  Nor is there any subsequent body of scientific research supporting the claims of psychoanalysis.  The Nobel Prize that Freud won was in Literature.

8 minutes ago, kenk24 said:

That is exactly the point I am trying to make - - the OP asks why the baht is weakening and I do not see it weakening... 

Since about Sept 19 until now, the period of interest to me, if not, perhaps, to you, the number of baht to the dollar has increased representing a decrease in the value of the baht.  Is there something difficult to understand here?

8 minutes ago, tonray said:

 

You are looking at a chart of the past 1 month...went from 36 baht to the dollar to about 33 baht to the dollar since last November. Baht has been strengthening against the dollar....anyway you look at it.

We look at exchange rates for different purposes.  Some of us watch them for timing of inflows from assets abroad.  If you are deciding when to do such a conversion the most recent little uptick is the most significant part of that graph.  If, on the other hand, you are summarizing rate changes during the month that last little blip is insignificant.  Perhaps I should have identified my perspective clearly.

Even in the larger view, though, that last uptick may be quite significant if it represents a decision by the BOT to intervene to start a period of weakening the baht.  The evidence that Setser presents for baht manipulation suggest that we may see further weakening.

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The THB has been strengthening against the USD for the past 23 1/2 months. What your blogger sees as currency manipulation I see as fiscal prudence. Would that the boom/bust Western economies display as much fiscally prudent behaviour.

Thanks for your contribution of unsubstantiated, if strident, opinion.

Now let's look at the data to see if a pattern of fiscal prudence emerges.  First, government spending, which we see is up since the beloved coup.

But increased spending might still be prudent if debt does not increase as well.  Here's govt debt to GDP.   So, debt spiked after the global financial crisis of 2008, which was a universal phenomenon.  During the Yingluck regime, 2011 to 2014, debt starts low and increases.  In the current period since the coup govt debt does not show a clear trend.

GDP is up over this period, due to the continued recovery of the world economy.  So, changes in debt-to-GDP ratio may reflect GDP growth more than reduction of debt or deficits, if any.

Depends on your time frame.  Very recently the baht has declined some, but certainly over the past year or more it has gained.

For those who prefer explanations of an economist over unsubstantiated opinion:

https://www.cfr.org/blog/thailand-currency-manipulator

Here's a good summary about the latest revelations on Manafort and how his history of working with the oligarchs fits in:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/a-dizzying-week-of-trump-russia-revelations

You don’t have to be Louise Mensch, the much-mocked amateur sleuth and Russia-conspiracy theorist, to wonder why, after years of working closely with pro-Russia parties in the Ukraine and a Russian oligarch, Paul Manafort suddenly reëmerged in American politics as the head of the Presidential campaign that Vladimir Putin wanted to win. One theory, which has been floating around for months, is that after Manafort fell out with Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch who accused Manafort of essentially stealing millions of dollars from him, he seized on Trump’s rise as a way for currying favor with Deripaska and Putin, Deripaska’s close ally.

1 hour ago, iReason said:

DID JARED KUSHNER’S DATA OPERATION HELP SELECT FACEBOOK TARGETS FOR THE RUSSIANS?

“I called somebody who works for one of the technology companies that I work with, and I had them give me a tutorial on how to use Facebook micro-targeting,” Kushner told  Steven Bertoni of Forbes."

 

“We brought in Cambridge Analytica."

 

"And I asked them how to scale this stuff . . . We basically had to build a $400 million operation, with 1,500 people operating in 50 states.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/jared-kushner-data-operation-russia-facebook

 

Cambridge Analytica

"Cambridge Analytica (CA) is a privately held company that combines data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for the electoral process."

 

"On May 18, 2017, Time Magazine reported that the US Congress is investigating CA in connection with Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election."

 

"The report alleges that CA may have coordinated the spread of Russian propaganda using its microtargetting capabilities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Investigations_into_Russian_involvement_in_the_2016_US_Presidential_election

 

 

Robert Mercer is a major investor in Cambridge Analytica, and principal financier of Breitbart News and Steve Bannon, vice president of Cambridge Analytica until he joined the Trump campaign:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer_(businessman)

Jared,

Just be sure to pick a fight the very first day.  Doesn't matter who.  Doesn't matter that you'll lose.  But you'll be better off in the long run.  Ask your dad.

Now that I am following the daily news about the Russia investigation I have, for the first time, found myself watching a variety of American newscasts on youtube, e.g. CNN, MSNBC, but also independents like David Pakman, etc.  I notice that not only do every one of these broadcasters have exactly the same news to report, i.e. search warrant for Manafort house no-knock, FBI picked lock, entered with guns drawn, searched Mrs. M. for weapons, etc., but even what I would naively have assumed was original commentary matches all the other broadcasters virtually word for word.  For example, after recounting these facts all of these people then go on to explain, breathlessly, that these actions mean that Mueller must have convinced a FISA judge that a crime had probably been committed, evidence of the crime could probably be found at Manafort's house, and Manafort would likely destroy that evidence given the chance.  These people, whom I now recognize as actors playing the part of broadcast journalists, express the same wonder at the implications.

What none of them talk about is that we have encountered these FISA courts before.  They are secret courts set up by the Bush Administration after 9/11 whose judges are not identified.  FISA courts do not try cases, because they have a sole purpose which is to decide whether to approve subpoenas and warrants from intelligence agencies.  The scandal that emerged when the FISA courts were first discussed was that up until that time no FISA judge had ever refused a subpoenas from the spooks.  So, they were Soviet-style kangaroo courts that rubber-stamped every government request.  Although claims were made that FISA courts were to be reformed, I have never read any followup as to whether and to what extent they were.

This history has direct bearing on how much we should be persuaded that the fact that Mueller got FISA warrants should encourage us to believe in Manafort's guilt.  Therefore, if the commentators were actual newsmen doing actual analysis of events they ought to have recapitulated this relevant history.  Yet not a single one of them whom I have reviewed has done so.

So much for the independence of the American media.

20 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Comey, Clapper and Rogers lied to congress.  Guess who is going to jail now!  Fun!

 

March 20, 2017

At the House Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers both deny that there was any information supporting Trump’s allegations in his original tweet.

"With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey said. "The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets."

 

Source 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/21/timeline-donald-trumps-false-wiretapping-charge/

It is possible that the intelligence community did target Trump and that they sought to tap his phone calls by getting a warrant on someone he talks to frequently, such as Manafort.  That is a known technique of the CIA in getting around the restriction on targetting Americans.

I would certainly not believe anything Clapper had to say, since he perjured himself before Congress when he denied surveiling Americans before Snowden exposed the NSA's massive domestic surveillance programs.

While I loathe Trump, I certainly have no faith whatsoever in the security state.

20 minutes ago, The manic said:

Find something more useful to do

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  You waste your time and it annoys the pig.

3 minutes ago, The manic said:

There is no burden of truth required except in your mind.

I hope your amulet works for you when you need it.

1 minute ago, iReason said:

Senate Cancels Meeting With Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen

"WASHINGTON — Senate investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election canceled an interview on Tuesday with longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen because they believe Cohen broke an agreement by speaking with the media."

 

"The Senate Intelligence Committee will now subpoena Cohen, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told NBC News."

 

"The committee intended to pursue several lines of questioning with Cohen, according to congressional sources, with the goal of putting him on the record on key topics that have drawn scrutiny during the investigation, including potential direct contacts between Trump associates and people with close ties to the Kremlin."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-lawyer-cohen-answer-senate-questions-about-russia-n802321

 

Put him under oath. 

Either way, Federal statute makes any misleading or false testimony to Congress subject to criminal penalty.

Cohen is a long-time Trump protege, indeed he is said to have been treated like a son by DT.  And it appears he learned his lessons from the master.  Cohen and the Senate Intelligence Committee had previously agreed that he would testify privately, not under oath, and would not make a public statement beforehand.  Naturally, in true Trump style, he flagrantly violated his own agreement when he thought he could steal an advantage by putting his view in front of the public first.  Like Trump he vastly overestimates his own intelligence.  So, now the Senate committee is pissed off and will treat him still more aggressively.  Not smart. 

18 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Hahaha... like we are in a court of law. Its a debate mon ami. "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim..." Standard debating procedure. Since you claimed first that the devices do not work, "I notice that no one reports any actual experience using these devices successfully, just unsubstantiated opinion.  Well, they don't work.", the burden of evidence is on you.

 

Just for my own pleasure, what makes you think your unsubstantiated opinion is of any more value than anyone else's?

 

I haven't encountered any vicious pit bulls eager to rip my throat out as of yet but I would hazard an opinion that you would need a machete or gun in your ridiculous analogy.

 

Ultrasonic chasers are fine for normal situations (80-85%) like the OP's though.

It is not a legal question; it is a scientific question.  In science, the burden of proof is on those who claim effectiveness.  If ultrasonic dog repellent devices with regulated by the FDA, like human medical devices, the burden of proof would be on the manufacturer who claims effectiveness.  I am unable to find studies of any kind that demonstrate the effectiveness of these devices, from which I conclude that it is unlikely that they work or else the manufacturers would publish such studies.

I note that the subscriber to the effectiveness theory of the dog repellent devices here mentions only two specific instances of conflict with vicious dogs and in both of those cases the device was completely ineffective.  So the summary of his claim is that the devices do work, except when you really need them to.

So, this discussion sounds like those with other superstitious people who have a deep emotional commitment to their belief in the absence of actual evidence.

44 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

It looks like the Manafort connection is likely to bring down Trump. Does anyone remember how Manafort came to be working for the Trump campaign? And the circumstances of his departure from the campaign?

Manafort was hired in March, 2016 with the assignment to corral convention delegates to nail down the nomination for Trump.  Lewandovski, who was the campaign manager at the time, got pushed out and Manafort took his place.  Eventually, Manafort was himself pushed out because of declining poll numbers and news articles that Trump didn't like.  Thereafter, as the dirt began to come out about Manafort's connections to Russian oligarchs and Ukrainian dictators, Trump distanced himself by claiming that Manafort had worked on the campaign only briefly and that they never communicated after he left the campaign.  Now the record of phone conversations between Trump and Manafort, some of which may have been recorded, prove that they remained in contact throughout the transition and after T took office.  Just another Trump lie.  It certainly looks like Trump was going out of his way to staff the upper levels with people who had connections to the Russians.

Manafort is apparently worth tens of millions of dollars.  It is inconceivable that such a person will keep his mouth shut and fall on his sword for the Donald.  Mueller will be giving him maximum heat to flip him.  And flip he will.

Some people are unacquainted with the concept of "evidence," the burden of which falls entirely on those who assert effectiveness. 

  At least tell me a personal story about a vicious pit bull eager to rip your throat out who scurried off with his tail between his legs when you pressed the magic button. 

No one has.  I am still waiting.

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Same evidence you supplied that it does not work.

 

The answer to your question is yes, many times.

I did supply evidence of two kinds: my own experiment on dogs and the abstract of a study on cats, which showed no effect.

Your "evidence" continues to lack verisimilitude.  Maybe you think we should just take your word for it?  Seems like superstition to me.

Here's another reason why these products are bullshit.  It's not possible to produce a sound that is loud enough in the human hearing range to intimidate people using a couple of AA batteries.  You can, however, buy an aerosol can that will give a horn blast the equivalent of a semi truck's horn, that will scare the bejesus out of you if you are not expecting it.  Significantly, those products use compressed gas, not low voltage electricity, to produce the sound.  That's because there is not enough energy in batteries to produce the high decibels.  That's also true in the canine hearing range even though producing high-frequency sounds takes a little less energy than lower frequencies.

So, you'd be better off with the amulet.