BangkokHank

Why would that make him feel better? He's trying to convince people NOT to get vaccinated - so they can AVOID such side effects - and much worse ones.

At least none that you know of. And there won't be - since the "vaccines" are known to be safe and effective, right? So any injury will be attributed to something else.

Right. Exactly. If it was as rare as they say it is, then it would be very unlikely for any of us to know anybody who has been injured by the "vaccines". And yet you (and I) both know people who have been injured.

Yes, really. And your response shows that not only do you have no clue about economics, you also have trouble with simple arithmetic. Either that, or you are just being deliberately deceptive. (Please let us know which one it is.) Here are the numbers that you presented: 1.9 trillion covid relief bill 1.2 trillion dollar infrastructure bill 53 billion dollar chips bill 700 billion dollar inflation reduction bill These add up to USD 3.853 trillion. You said that the chips bill was only recently signed into law and that the inflation "reduction" (ha) bill has yet to be ratified. So of this total of USD 3.853 trillion, 3.1 trillion, or roughly 80% of it, has already been created out of this air and distributed. But then you suggest that because the remaining 20% has not been distributed yet that government creation of money out of thin air could not possibly have anything to do with the inflation that the world is experiencing now. The fact is that 3.1 trillion dollars is a HUGE amount of money. And when that amount of money is suddenly injected into the economy, with no corresponding increase (and an actual - and deliberate DECREASE) in the amount of goods existing in the world, then serious inflation is inevitable. I await with great interest your attempt to weasel your way out of this.

I'm guessing that you never studied economics. These are precisely the things that are CAUSING the inflation that the world is experiencing now.

You wouldn't happen to be the president of the Chiang Mai Transport Mafia Union, would you? And if you're not, why would you so strongly support an obviously inadequate transport system?

I am happy to use it on rare occasions late at night when the regular bus system is not operating. But I don't want to have to rely on it as my main means of transport. Is this an acceptable explanation to you?

I live in Bangkok, which I think has a great public transport system. I can get to just about everywhere I need to on very comfortable, frequent buses, as well as the BTS when I'm in the city center. And when I'm out late at night when the buses aren't running anymore, then I can used one of the many fairly priced normal metered taxis, or Bolt. So the problem is not with me - or with Thailand. The problem is with Chiang Mai.

Since a man's gotta eat, he should think of ways to earn money that don't offend the people who provide his income.

So you think it's reasonable to have to rely on friends and neighbors and taxis to get around a city? What about a public bus system, as is the norm in cities of that size?

I would love to live in Chiang Mai, but the main reason I refuse to is its complete lack of a modern/fair/reasonable transport system. So they allow the transport mafia to win, while everybody else loses out.

Were they vaccinated?

That's what happens when the left-wing, mainstream, corporate media has lost all credibility - with its bought and paid-for fact-checking sites.

Whenever I hear that something has been "debunked", that's a sure sign to me that it's true.

Exactly. Voting by mail doesn't work out well for Republicans - because Democrats use it to cheat.

Unless you can provide some credible evidence to support your ridiculous claim that Democrats work for a living and Republicans don't, then, according to the rules of this forum, it should be removed as misinformation. Or, as far as I'm concerned, it can be left up for its comedic value. I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

It's a beautiful house.

"Everyone knew" that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots, because the media had been brainwashing people into believing that for weeks before the election. The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election. Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots? If they had said that, for example, older people are more likely to vote via absentee ballots because they have trouble getting to the polling stations, that would have been plausible. But to suggest that voters for one entire party are more likely to vote by the way that just happens to be easier to cheat with is patently ridiculous. So please, don't try your "everyone knew" with me. You just make yourself look silly.

My claim is based on my observations during the vote counting. On election night, when I went to bed, Trump had an insurmountable lead in most, if not all, of the swing states. As I slept, the vote counting was paused in those swing states - to allow the Democrats to figure out how many votes they needed to steal to win the election. Then, during the next few hours, almost all of the remaining votes that came in were for Biden. By the time I woke up the next morning, a mathematics-defying miracle had happened - and Biden had "won" the election. The reason why even Republicans accepted this sham election was because they didn't like Trump either. He interrupted "business as usual" in Washington, under which there is an agreement between the two parties that they will take turns fleecing the American people every four to eight years - while not doing anything for the country or its people. Trump got in the way of that - by trying to do at least some good for the country. It's not that I think that Trump is a good person or an ideal candidate by any means. But in elections, people can only choose from among the available candidates. And in that election, Trump was infinitely better for the country that Biden was, which most observers would agree with based on Biden's "performance" over the past couple of years.

Only when it's against Whites.

Voting no longer has any meaning - now that the Democrats have realized that they can get away with stealing elections. You approve of the theft because the party you favor "won" the election this time. But what happens next time, if the other part steals the election? Will you still be in favor of rigged elections then? When trust in the election system is gone, the whole concept of democracy breaks down. And I'd say we're already at that point.

Noted. Thanks very much!

Absolutely. It is precisely for this situation that our founding fathers affirmed our right to keep and bear arms.

What will that achieve - now that the Democrats have figured out that they can just steal the elections?

Since I have lots of experience leaving Thailand, I know that there are always plenty of immigration officers at the airport to stamp me out of the country. But since I have never gotten a re-entry permit at the airport, I am (or rather was) concerned about that. However, after reading all of the comments on the topic here, I now feel confident enough to get my re-entry permit directly at the airport. I'll just go to the airport a bit earlier than I otherwise would have. Maybe even a full hour earlier, just to be safe. (What can I say? I'm a cautious person!) Thanks to all who commented - and helped to save me a long and unnecessary trip out to Chaeng Wattana.