thaibeachlovers

On 4/12/2024 at 4:01 AM, Excogitator said:

Wars under Trump:

In 2018 a large regional war involving Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan started.

In 2020 Armenia and Azerbajan went to war

Also in 2020 Western Sahara and Morocco went to war

There were several clashes between Israel and Gaza in the trump years

Ongoing wars in Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia

Many smaller civil wars and conflicts.

 

Trump gave 3-4 billion dollar in military aid to Israel and Netanyahoo every year during his term. Many of these weapons were used in the clashes with Gaza and in the current war.

 

Trumps governent also 'benefited from war' as you say, selling huge amounts of weapons to among others Saudi Arabia, who used them on Yemen.

I think you know that he meant "how many wars did Trump start".

His support of israel is my only disappointment with Trump.

14 hours ago, Suphawk said:

Has anyone had any experience trying to buy a house and land where your wife/girlfriend owns the land and leases it to you for a 30 year contract, and you keep ownership of the house itself?

As has been pointed out many times on the forum, if one gets divorced ( unless in a very amicable way ) the chances of staying on in the house that one paid for would likely be zero. There are probably hundreds of ways that she and/or the family can make it impossible to remain in it.

Keep the money and live in her house with her. You do trust her, don't you?

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Reality disagrees with you:

 

“Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the American economy added 353,000 jobs in January, bringing the total jobs created under President Biden to 14.8 million. The unemployment rate held at its steady, low rate of 3.7 percent. This continues a two-year trend of a jobless rate under four percent, the longest stretch in more than 50 years.

 

Your number of 2 million jobs created by Biden is fake.

One has to remember that the employment rate was low because Biden took over during covid. The only accurate comparison would be between now and prior to covid.

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

I agree with you.

 

It is totally inappropriate to call for jailing political opponents during an election campaign.

Thank you. That must be the first time you have agreed with anything I say.

Just now, Danderman123 said:

What's your point?

 

Another transitory talking point? If Trump is convicted next month, are you going to post that "Trump has never served time"?

 

If Trump is sent to Rikers, are you going to post "Trump has never served time in Federal prison"?

 

My opinion is that Trump has the resources to appeal convictions for the rest of his life, BTW.

I was responding to a poster saying to lock him up. Far as I know, the US does not lock up citizens without a guilty conviction.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Watch and learn.

 

"Trump has not been convicted yet" is not the great defense you think it is.

I didn't post it as a defense. It's a fact that he has never served time for a crime. Do you disagree?

9 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Not yet. He's good at negotiating settlements. Like with Stormy.

 

Throughout his history of criminal enterprise he’s been a party to over 4,000 legal cases in state and federal courts.

 

He (and his family) have been found guilty of defrauding a charity; defrauding students at trump U; sexual assault; defamation, etc. 

 

A very abbreviated listing follows: 

 

In 1973, he was convicted regarding the federal housing suit for violating the Fair Housing Act. 

 

In 1985, New York City brought a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly using tactics to force out tenants of 100 Central Park South. That was resolved when he agreed to allow the tenants to live in condos. 

 

In 1988, the Justice Department sued Trump for violating procedures related to public notifications when buying voting stock in a company related to his attempted takeovers of Holiday Corporation and Bally Manufacturing Corporation in 1986. Trump agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the civil penalties of the antitrust lawsuit. 

 

In 1985, New York City brought a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly using tactics to force out tenants of 100 Central Park South. That was resolved when he agreed to allow the tenants to live in condos. 

 

In 2000, Donald Trump paid $250,000 to settle fines related to charges brought by New York State Lobbying Commission director David Grandeau. Trump was charged with circumventing state law to spend $150,000 lobbying against government approval of plans to construct an Indian-run casino in the Catskills, which would have diminished casino traffic to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City. (He can’t ever own a casino again.) 

 

In 2001, the US Security and Exchange Commission brought a financial-reporting case against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., alleging that the company had committed several "misleading statements in the company's third-quarter 1999 earnings release". 

 

On December 6, 2022, trump's company, The Trump Organization, was convicted on 17 criminal charges.

 

In January 2023, a federal judge fined Trump and his attorney nearly $1 million, characterizing him as "a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries.” 

 

Trump has been involved in more legal cases than his fellow magnates Edward J. DeBartolo jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Siverstein, combined. (Wikipedia)  These are just a few of his convictions.

 

Currently he’s under state and federal indictments which are accounted for in the daily news. He will probably lose these, too.  trump in nothing more than a criminal running a criminal enterprise (and he doesn’t do it very well). One would need to be deaf, dumb and blind to have not paid attention to his very long history of criminal conduct.

Soooo, none at all then.

On 4/30/2024 at 11:44 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

It depends exactly what kind of GBH was involved. It covers a wide range of things, and can for instance include passing on a disease to  someone or causing psychiatric harm (as well as more serious offences).

 

Assault - UK Sentencing Council

Those crimes you mention should be treated as if they were a GHB, IMO.

On 4/30/2024 at 1:40 PM, KhunLA said:

... "he was convicted of grievous bodily harm and handed an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence—a sentence with a minimum term but no end date"

 

That not self explanatory enough ? 

 

Along with more than a few details left out...

 

"In 2003, Rider was jailed for assaulting their father. He was later released and, Mahon says, went on to clean his life up and find a girlfriend. But in 2005, while still on licence for the earlier offence, he was arrested again after assaulting a colleague and given an IPP sentence with a minimum tariff of 23 months.

 

Mahon, a nurse from Durham from whom he was estranged, only found out he was serving an IPP sentence after he died. She said she had never heard of them before and was stunned that it meant the length of his punishment lay in the hands of a parole board rather than a judge.

 

She is now campaigning for the cases of all IPP prisoners to be reviewed. “I do not condone what Scott has done. In 17 years, he committed 47 offences and was convicted of 22. But I think these sentences are inhumane and they need to be abolished. To get a 23-month sentence and serve 17 years… how can they justify it?” Mahon said."   (source)

 

Not exactly someone I want walking around in society.  Convicted of 22 crimes, in 17 years, more than one a year.   Career criminal comes to mind,  with 2 violent assaults, last one while on 'license' for assault, and then commits another.  I guess the first 21 conviction didn't teach him anything.

 

And sis now a crusader, though I'm getting the impression, she distanced herself from him (estranged) , as didn't even know he was sentenced 'IPP'.   Guess she didn't visit much.   Not much hope when your family abandons you.   Big surprised he off'd himself 

 

I love this part .... "Rider’s sister said that the sentence robbed her brother “of the chance to have a family and the chance to turn his life around”.

 

Actually, he got 21 chance, but simply chose to ignore them 

 

How about a story about the guy in jail, apparently forever, for stealing a phone.   What's up with that ?.  That might actually be a story.

Agree with you. My only complaint is that anyone that commits a violent crime, or even dealing drugs etc has any chance of release. Society is better off without them in it. Its a nonsense to give someone a life sentence and then let them out because they manage to fool a parole board. Life should mean life for murder etc and 3 strikes and out for life for the rest.

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not even sure that climate change (if it's happening) is a bad thing.

I'd quite like the UK to be  bit warmer!

Agree. I'd like NZ to be a LOT warmer. Getting very chilly now.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Per EVENKEEL above, Poor whites and blacks

I guess it's cheaper to exploit illegals then. I don't imagine all the poor whites and blacks just vanished.

26 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Joe will take whatever stance will get him the most votes. It's politics. I should say Joe's handlers will tell joe which way the wind is blowing and what to read.

Except Joe can't take back all that "israel all the way hey hey hey" ranting, and how people that don't like thousands of kids being blown up don't understand that it's OK to do so if they would just listen to him explain it.

5 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

More tax to solve an unsolvable problem.

IMO the biggest con in the whole scam is that if we pay enough taxes or drive an EV we can change the weather ( climate ) to something else, which is a nonsense. If, and I say if, CO2 is in fact the driver of climate change the CO2 is not going away ergo climate change is going to continue, no matter how much tax we pay.

IMO climate change is occurring, but there is absolutely nothing we can do about it except adapt to it.

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Do you deny the above?

Yes.

27 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Already is. That's who picks the crops. But as I said I would like to see Biden win, it is far from a sure thing.

 

Sooooo, who picked the crops before the illegals started arriving?

I'm sure that ( just like NZ does ) if they invited people from other countries to legally come and pick crops, they'd get enough workers that way.

On 4/30/2024 at 9:41 AM, Social Media said:

David Hillman, co-author of the report and director of the Stamp Out Poverty campaign, emphasizes that such a tax represents a fair and feasible means of funding the loss and damage fund. He asserts that affluent nations, historically responsible for climate change, should hold their fossil fuel industries accountable by imposing more rigorous taxation.

Given that any taxation costs will be passed on to the consumer, he wants the western fuel users to support countries that have behaved environmentally badly. As usual, that would affect the poorest citizens in western countries the most. Why should they pay because some far away country won't control it's environmental destruction?

Any time I think of it, I thank those fossil fuel industries for giving me a wonderful life, made possible by fossil fuel, and I hate that certain luvvies want to take it away from me. They wouldn't be able to even rant on about it if not for fossil fuel- ungrateful sods.

On 4/30/2024 at 9:41 AM, Social Media said:

Highlighting the devastating consequences of the climate emergency, from droughts in Africa to floods in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Hamid stresses the urgency of addressing the crisis. She underscores the disproportionate impact of climate change on communities least responsible for its onset, emphasizing the need for accountability within the fossil fuel sector.

Soooo, why are the effects of a changing climate the responsibility of the fossil fuel sector? That would be contingent on whether one can prove that that industry actually caused the climate change, or if the change would have happened anyway.

If a community is suffering from the effects of climate change, that, IMO, is down to those communities behaving badly- usually by overpopulating their environment, destruction of rain forests, destructive mining, and bad farming practices etc.

On 4/30/2024 at 9:41 AM, Social Media said:

Endorsed by numerous climate organizations worldwide, including Greenpeace, Stamp Out Poverty, Power Shift Africa, and Christian Aid, the report underscores the urgent need for global action to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable.

Accountable for what exactly? Yes, the industry has behaved very badly in places like Nigeria, and it's a crime that they have not been forced to clean up their mess, but I suspect that's not what they are talking about.

Greenpeace, Stamp Out Poverty, Power Shift Africa, and Christian Aid

The names say it all. I vaguely remember when Greenpeace was a respected environmental  organisation, but that was long ago.

On 4/30/2024 at 9:41 AM, Social Media said:

The proposed levy, the authors suggest, could be seamlessly integrated into existing tax frameworks. Beginning at $5 per tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2024 and increasing by $5 annually, the tax could amass a total of $900 billion by 2030. Of this sum, $720 billion would bolster the loss and damage fund, with the remaining $180 billion designated for a "domestic dividend" to support communities within wealthier nations during a just transition to a climate-resilient future.

Just the usual not much to say dressed up with some big words. Just what does " "domestic dividend" to support communities within wealthier nations during a just transition to a climate-resilient future." even mean, and why do they deserve $180 billion, and who comprises the intended "communities", and who decides which communities to give other people's money to?

14 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

A nothingburger.

Some explanation might be in order, or are you just trying to increase your post count?

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

First remove the fossil subsidies.

I agree with that, but I don't drive much anymore so the resulting price hikes won't affect me too much.

On 4/30/2024 at 9:41 AM, Social Media said:

A groundbreaking report suggests that implementing a tax on fossil fuel companies headquartered in the wealthiest nations could generate significant revenue to assist the most vulnerable countries in addressing the escalating climate crisis.

In other words, the report authors want to take first world money and give it to third world <deleted> <deleted> countries that have managed to destroy their environments, overpopulate themselves, and are IMO usually extremely corrupt. Perhaps they could ask the so called "leaders" of those countries to give some of the immense fortunes they have stolen to help their own countries, before demanding western nations waste even more money on them.

Anyway, just who is going to tax those companies, and send the money to those countries? Not the UN I hope.

Even if it happened, all that will eventuate is that the affected companies pack up the photocopier and move to another country that won't tax them.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

As someone who has a long-term family in Florida and myself for 20 years before moving to Thailand I would sure like to see Biden take Florida.

 

But the nature of the elderly retired population in Florida is that their kids and grand kids often or mostly do not live in Florida.

You want to see Florida full of illegal immigrants then?

7 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Hardly surprising.  While Trump says and does a lot of daft things, his critics lie about him all day long.  Luckily, courts are at least still impartial, so the accusations have to be proven.  And when things need to be proven, the left-wing narrative often falls apart.  🤷‍♂️

 That should be "so far the left-wing narrative usually falls apart".

15 hours ago, Roo Island said:

What source?

You never read any of the OPs then? That explains a lot about your posts.