yogi100

1 hour ago, alanrchase said:

Perhaps you should not have claimed there was never a peep about it before 2016 then? 

Well I hadn't heard of this college electoral system mentioned before and I'm the first to admit it. Neither had most British people. In fact few of them understand what it actually is. Neither probably do most Americans.

Do you fully understand it? I had to look it up on the internet and I still don't quite get it.

Now it seems most democrats are against it because it's not worked in their interest. Yet it was introduced over 200 years ago to ensure the democracy that the US govt is said to be in favour of remains in place.

Trump supporters are constantly referred to as rednecks and racists just like Brexit supporters are in the UK by their betters and are also called bigots and stupid and did not know what they voted for.

It would help us immensely if you could explain it briefly in your own words in few sentences rather than referring to some website on the internet.

17 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

Perhaps you should not have claimed there was never a peep about it before 2016 then? 

I said I never heard a peep about it in the MSM and I didn't, I never heard about it till the Democrats started wailing about it when Trump got elected.

Wasn't your previous president a Democrat, why didn't his government try and get it changed?

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't see the merit in bragging about how superficial your knowledge is of the American election process.

BTW -- Snopes is extremely well known by Americans.

 

Explain how and where I've 'bragged' about anything, especially my knowledge of the American election process.

I have admitted that I'm not fully aware of all aspects of it but if anything that is the opposite of bragging. 

Bragging is another word for boasting. If so inclined someone could brag or boast about how much the know about a certain subject but hardly do so about how much they don't know.

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Just because you never heard it yourself, doesn't prove anything.

Ask any American that lived through BUSH vs. GORE and you would retract your misinformed opinion.

 

http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm

I've not tried to prove anything and neither have I claimed to have done so. And you can't indicate a word I've typed that says otherwise.

And are you seriously suggesting that I trawl through a long boring archival article about controversial American presidents since 1800 that have absolutely no bearing on who is gonna win the next American Presidential election.

I can give you a link to Herbert Asquith being elected to Number 10 Downing Street if you wish. Or if you're interested. 

11 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

Really?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-described-the-electoral-college-as-a-disaster/&ved=2ahUKEwiZh76GqMPmAhXqILcAHbdDB7kQFjANegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw26GHjj2-399D5kUlC4jn93

That article is dated 2012 isn't it? That was six years before your last election when you elected Trump. Oh, well done by the way.

As I said I'm a limey and you can't really expect us to trawl the backwoods of the internet from 2012 about about the ins and outs of your electoral system any more than we would expect you to do the same regarding ours. You would not be interested anyway.

And till I saw your link I had never heard of 'Snopes' so I doubt many Americans had either

We have various TV and radio news stations and newpapers that tell us the basics of your presidential election but that's about it. All we got told was that Trump had no chance and Hillary was the odds on favourite to be the next resident of the White House. There was no mention of any electoral colleges.

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong. It's not a new issue at all! 

 

Sorted? 

 

No and it won't be either. 

 

 

That would take passing a constitutional amendment. Almost impossible to do with this issue. 

 

 

 

I'm not wrong!

I have never said nor implied that it was a new issue. Nor an old one.

I just said that no one objected to it nor complained about it from what we heard about the set up in the UK.

I just indicated that we heard no complaints about it before the election but now that Trump has won the other side have been going on about it for three and a half years.

And are still doing so here and now in this very topic.

2 minutes ago, allen303 said:

You know old Bill lied under oath in the federal civil right testimony about her. If you or I lie about this under oath, even if it’s a civil trial, we will go to federal prison.

 

 Had a police officer who was totally worthless, run out of our Sheriff’s department. The local city in the north county gave him a job.  Because his daddy was a big-time donor to the DNC party in the area. He ended up meeting stripers from the south end at night while he was on duty. The FBI came in to see if it was a civil right violation. It was all voluntary on their part, so no civil right problem.

 

 

 

But he lied about it at first to the FBI, 3 months in a minimum-security federal prison.

 

So bottom line, Clinton did commit a Felony, not debatable.

 

Well that's Republicans for you, think they can just $<deleted> and lie their way through life and get away with it.

Hold on, wasn't Clinton a Democrat?

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

She did win the popular vote. She lost the Electorial college by a combined 77,000 votes. Good luck repeating that with 40% approval. Never has seen any positive approval rating. Just saying.

There was never a peep heard by either party about how the popular vote might be better for the country than the electoral vote prior to the actual 2016 election. 

But we hear it all the time now. Why is that? It genuinely puzzles some of us limeys. Has it been sorted out for 2020?

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

"Followers" may be not a good translation. 

I refer to the ones who "admire" him. 

He is lying frequently, I suppose that's not a crime. 

Is his telephone call to be considered as a crime? 

We will never know, as there will not be an impartial judgement on it :

Guilty for Democrats, Not guilty for Republicans. 

 

Who was the president who got caught out $hagging his secretary and denied it, wasn't he a Republican. The woman's name was Lewinsky and their cavorting made her a household name all over the world.

There was even a bar named after her in Soi 13/2 in Pattayaland when it was the heart of that town's red light district.

A fine state of affairs when the POTUS is caught rumping his secretary in the actual White House. How could anybody be expected to trust him after that especially his wife.

It makes Trump look like a choirboy.

45 minutes ago, newatthis said:

So Unsworth loses and the US judge has taken a bribe. Wow! That is absolute pitiful <deleted>!

1. The verdict was not given by a judge but a jury. (Now, you'll say that Musk bribed the jurors)

2. The jury foreman said that Unsworth's lawyers should have focused more on the evidence and instead of trying to play people's emotions. Hopefully, always, it is evidence, not emotions, that gets people convicted.

All these TV / newspaper interviews that Unsworth is doing now are exactly the same.......playing on people's emotions. There's truth in the saying:

"Don't play the victim in the circumstances you created yourself."

Did the American judge not direct the American jurors as to their verdict in this case?

I've served on a UK jury and the judge can definitely influence a jury. I doubt that it is much different in an American court where their legal system is roughly based on ours.

And who said the US judge took a bribe. I did not. I said that through history certain judges have done so. You are the one who has said that 'the US judge has taken a bribe' in the first sentence of your post.

But you are insinuating that I did.

3 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

The release that Unsworth signed against further action maybe only applies to the US. Maybe Unsworth can take a shot in the UK or Thailand.

I hope he does. 

A public insinuation that is now common knowledge all around the world that someone is a paedophile is an evil, vile act that demands proper justice. What's worse is that even Musk himself who'd never even heard of Unsworth had absolutely no evidence let alone proof that Unsworth  had anything remotely to do with any form of paedophilia.

A few years back in the UK some vigilantes tried to attack someone they thought was Paedophile. It turned out their target was in fact a paediatrician which is a doctor who specialises in children's illnesses and diseases but his would be attackers were that ignorant that they never knew that.

But that goes to show how dangerous these false accusations can be and calling someone a pedo guy is a dangerous accusation to make in anyone's language. If any one on any internet forum was to call another member a 'pedo guy' in a post he would be banned for life. Or I hope he would be.

The remarks by Unsworth about Musk and his midget submarine pale into insignificance by comparison.

I agree about the 190 million dollars being ridiculously high. The amount of compensation involved should be left to the court to decide.

But it shows you how the elite, the wealthy, those in authority and the influential in any society have one another in their pockets and will look after each other while poor old Joe Bloggs or Vernon Unsworth can be called a paedophile and when he objects to it finds that he can go and get stuffed and any quest he may make for justice will be made in vain.

American court, American judge, American jury.

Musk is a ridiculously wealthy American citizen. Unsworth is just an ordinary retired working man who is not American.

The US is an exceedingly jingoistic nation and will stick by their own be they right or wrong. Google Lt Calley and the My Lai Massacre.

It would be very naive for us to believe that Musk's wealth did not help influence the judge's decision. It's well documented that certain American judges throughout the relatively short history of the USA have been bribed to give verdicts in favour of rich people who have appeared in front of them.

Nothing new.

There would have been more justice seen had the case been heard in Thailand or the UK.

4 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Yes,

 

Been there, read the book, seen the film and starred in the play,! I got out of that nonsense over fifteen years ago now and do not miss it in the slightest.

 

I learned many years ago what the score was in Pattays and it certainly hasn't improved.

 

What do you expect 'Pattays' to be.

It's a knocking shop where dirty old men can get cheap sex from women who would not give them the time of day in the real world.

And that's why you went there in the first place just like I still do.

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

Oh come on, two grown men calling each other names, really?

 

Had Vern just brushed it off, it would have been totally forgotten and he would be remembered as the hero who helped save those kids.

 

Now he'll just be remembered as 'Oh Yeah the guy who tried to sue Musk'.

 

Opportunistic greed does terrible things to people

No they won't just remember him as the man who tried sue Musk.

They'll remember him also as the man who was accused of being a paedophile and the court supported the man who made the accusation.

And would you just brush it off if someone publicly called you a 'pedo'. In many peoples' opinion being called a paedophile is about the worst thing a man can be called and not without good reason.

People have been attacked and murdered on the strength of mere rumours of paedophilia. In prisons they have to be segregated from the general population for their own safety.

They are also hated by all decent and normal people. What would you do if one interfered with your child.

12 hours ago, newatthis said:

When he lost the court case, you commented that you and folks around your way have a lot of respect for Unsworth and thought he was a good bloke.

Do you think he is a paedophile? No, you don't.

Do I think he is a paedophile? No, I don't 

Do other posters here think he's a paedophile? No, they don't.

Did the jury believe that everybody now thinks that Unsworth is a paedophile? No, they didn't.

He was not defamed. 

He set out to humiliate Musk and he lost. Musk didn't set out to destroy Unsworth, Musk set out to defend himself in a court of law and he won.

All the TV / talk shows are not going to change the truth. (Maybe, help Mark Stephens offset some costs though)

You've probably been to Thailand like I have.

Just a few years ago anyone who went to the LOS was suspected of being a paedo and behind our backs others probably voiced these suspicions. They would not say anything to your face or anywhere from where it might to get back to you.

But if those who believed it had their way they could possibly have destroyed us.

Twenty years ago a couple of pals and myself were discussing our Thai holiday. Some bloke overheard and chimed in with "Thailand, ain't that where all the nonces go". It nearly caused a fight.

You can bet that some take such gossip seriously and believe it and now there will be those who took Musk's accusation without a pinch of salt. If you throw a handful of $h!t at a wall some of it will stick.

Musk told the world and in the world there are those who'll think Musk might have a point if Thailand is involved. They'll think that there is no smoke without a fire.

Musk has damaged Unsworth's reputation forever and should have been made to pay for his disgusting insinuation. Maybe not $190M of course but he should have been made to pay something or have been made to make a public apology. 

5 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

I was in the UK recently and saw people who work in the Police force, Ambulance service and government offices all sporting tattoos and piercings. It has become rather fashionable, people pay a lot of money for them and it is their choice..

 

No doubt they would be appalled by fat old men pretending they can speak Thai sitting on bar stools drooling over women young enough to be their grand daughters whilst talking to other sleazy individuals about last nights conquests, in between worrying if their pension will be enough to cover their next retirement extension.

 

Teach me not to judge another until I have walked a week in his shoes!

Have you actually walked a week in the shoes of one of these fat old men you're referring to?

15 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

 

And that´s because both US and UK is overloaded with criminality, which also can be seen by counting the arrests of foreigners in Thailand every year.

How do you work that out! Is it some sort of riddle?

On 12/18/2019 at 9:41 AM, Old Croc said:

Other totalitarian states setting examples include UK, Australia, NZ, USA, etc. etc.

 

https://www.gov.uk/report-immigration-crime

 

https://cxcentral.com.au/industry-news/call-centre-report-illegal-citizens/

 

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/contact/report-fraud

 

https://www.fairus.org/get-involved/how-report-illegal-immigrants

Don't include us in your 'totalitarian states' claptrap.

The UK has just welcomed over 80 'asylum seekers' who sailed across the English Channel from France in one day! All Muslims.

Here's the source.

On 12/18/2019 at 10:16 AM, Silencer said:

You will get zero response in the US by reporting a known or suspected overstay. These tip lines "might" respond to a report of a crime. If petty crime, forget it.

It's the same in the UK. The police put it down to a lack of man power. They now often fail to attend domestic burglaries. They just give you a crime number over the phone for your insurance. And that's only if you request one.

However if you are too enthusiastic about reporting the crimes of certain ethnicities you'll find yourself banged up for committing a hate crime. Ask Tommy Robinson.

On 12/18/2019 at 10:03 AM, losername said:

I don't have knowledge of the police in many countries but in the UK information provided by the public is an essential part of the law enforcement process.  It enables officers to spend their valuable time attending tasks where they are actually needed rather than simply patrolling looking for incidents.  Some may feel that there is no direct comparison between the British police and the various branches of the RTP.  It's Stasi by the way.

The majority of criminal arrests in the UK are the result of information supplied by members of the public for a whole variety of reasons.

6 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

LK Metro was meant to replace Walking St but it's nowhere near as good. This is probably the only use of the Avenue that may work, but won't be popular with farang, which isn't the intention anyway

Very few falangs I know go to WS any more. They are happier in LKM and Sois Diana and Bhukaow.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Get a grip man. I don't have a single tattoo.

As for learning the language, what makes you think we want to talk about food all day, or understand Thai soaps?

What makes you think the post was directed at yourself regarding your tattoos or lack of them and I apologise as I seem to have I hit a raw nerve with the other comments.

Neither was it suggested that anybody learn Thai let alone enough to be able to follow Thailand's answers to Coronation Street or Eastenders.

It was simply a comment about the decline in the popularity of Pattaya's bars.

9 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Which scam?? It's just a checkpoint! If you have the required documents, it's just a 1 minute stop, then you get a "thank you" and you are back on your way.

 

I bet there is more in the story that was is posted in the OP. And don't tell me that he found nobody to translate his ticket at the Pattaya Police Station ! 

It's nationalism, racism, financial and sexual jealousy, an inability to read the language and being the hated falang. It's encouraged in the Land of Smiles yet outlawed in our Western society.

I remember some graffiti on South Pattaya Rd. My chum's lady friend translated it. It basically said 'f..k off falang' or words to that effect. This was about 5 years ago.

Oh and he's put himself on offer by driving a vehicle.

Silly boy.