GroveHillWanderer

The various articles about this make it clear that this not just the same as in the past and that for instance, many of the countries issuing advisories to their citizens about travelling to the US are doing so in direct response to Trump administration policies. Here's just one such article. Countries Are Now Issuing Advisories for Travelers Visiting the U.S.—What to Know https://www.travelandleisure.com/countries-are-now-issuing-advisories-for-travelers-visiting-the-usa-11706306

Your memory is correct. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22996-shingles-vaccine

That's the older vaccine, Zostavax. For the newer Shingrix vaccine, the following is the info:

Where on earth are you getting this from? Thom Hartmann is a "radio personality, author, businessman and progressive political commentator." He hasn't been involved with international relief work since the 1970’s and doesn't have an NGO. He used to work with Salem International which is a German charitable organisation and has nothing to do with the US government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

Totally agree that the repercussions of this ruling are highly significant. However, what this ruling doesn't do, is provide a definition of what a woman is, in a wider sense - as the court specifically pointed out.

I think this ruling has been somewhat misreported and misinterpreted. The decision does not provide a definition of a woman. It simply holds that for the purposes of the Equalities Act 2010, any reference to "woman" in the Act is a reference to a biological woman. It doesn't apply anywhere else. It is based, not on any understanding of what a woman is or isn't, but simply on the way in which, on a matter of legal interpretation, the term is to be understood when used in the Act. The court was at some pains to emphasise this in its ruling, stating as follows:

This ruling doesn't actually change things in this particular regard. The Equalities Act 2010 already allowed sports bodies to exclude trans people from sports competitions. Here is the wording from the 2010 act. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/

Are you sure China desperately needs to sell these products to the US? In 2023, China's export value of rare earth compounds, worldwide, was $763 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1230682/china-export-value-of-rare-earths/ In the same year, China's total exports were valued at $3.42 trillion. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn So rare earth exports represent approximately 0.02% of China's total exports. I can't find any statistics of what percentage of China's rare earth exports go to the US but even if it was 100% (which it obviously isn't) that means China could forgo the entirety of its rare earth exports to the US and still not feel the pinch .

What I would call that is abiding by the terms of the 15th amendment to the US Constitution. You know, rule of law and everything. And it's silly word games to ask what "voting against the interests of the original population" is? You're the one who came out with such an opaque phrase - you should know what you meant by it.

Not sure what you mean by "voting against the interests of the original population." (The interests of native American Indians, perhaps)? Anyway, in elections, people vote for a candidate from one or other of the two main parties (or for an independent). A vote for which one of the following: Democrat, Republican or Independent, is a vote against the interests of the "original population", in your opinion?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does apply to them. As stated in the pleadings currently before the court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354797/20250404145223563_2025 0404 Birthright SCOTUS SPA Opp File.pdf New Jersey v. Trump - in the Supreme Court of the United States

That has nothing to do with what I said. I did not express any opinion about the state of the country, nor any belief that "anybody and everybody can be deported." You said they would not want to deport US citizens. I provided evidence that Donald Trump has stated he would love to deport US citizens to El Salvador, and would be honored to do so. Which kind of makes it sound like he at least, does want to.

Yes it is, so try reading the articles again, carefully. Neither of them states that "many people" want the US troops to remain. The first article makes it very clear that the "shock" they want to avert is a withdrawal without proper coordination - not the withdrawal itself. It clearly states that European officials have accepted that a withdrawal is almost certain, they just want it to be coordinated properly. And the second article is not in any way about Europeans wanting US troops to stay, instead it talks about how the US can't be trusted and Europe needs to get serious about protecting itself.

Trump's words (quoted verbatim in the article) did not say anything about the US citizens that he would love to deport to El Salvador being gang members.

Are you sure they don't want to? Trump has stated that he'd "love that", would be "honored" and "all for it" (sending some US citizens to El Salvador). Donald Trump Says He'd Be 'Honored' to Deport Americans to El Salvador Prison: 'I'm All for It' https://people.com/donald-trump-honored-deport-americans-el-salvador-prison-11710177

Did you even read the articles you linked to? Neither of them says that many people from Europe feel the US should continue to defend them. The first article says the Europeans, "have accepted that President Donald Trump’s administration will almost certainly withdraw some of the roughly 80,000 US troops deployed in Europe," but would like any such withdrawal to be coordinated properly. The second article talks about the fact that Europe can no longer trust the US to protect it (that's literally the title of the article) and points out among other things that, "the Trump administration seems intent on giving the Europeans plenty of reasons to get brutally serious about taking responsibility for their own defence." So where is the evidence of the "many people" of whom you speak? (Hint: it's not in either of those articles).

That's right - it isn't used in literature or poetry any more these days but still exists in Scottish/Irish folk songs, some of which go back centuries. I think it's partly because of the popularity of the phrase in Gaelic. I'm not sure if you've ever watched the Outlander TV series but the primary male protagonist (who speaks Scottish Gaelic) often refers to the main female character as, "mo nighean donn" - my brown-haired lass (or maid).

So maybe they're wasn't quite as much "waste and fraud" as Musk and his DOGE minions would have had us believe. Elon Musk drastically drops DOGE’s savings goal from $2 trillion to $150 billion for the year https://fortune.com/2025/04/11/elon-musk-drastically-drops-doge-savings-goal-2-trillion-150-billion-year/

"Nut brown maid" seems to have been a popular phrase in medieval times throughout the British Isles in songs, poems and folk literature. For instance, you have the ballad "The Nut-Brown Maid" that made its first printed appearance in The Customs of London, published in 1502. Then there is what is said to be the most popular traditional Scottish Gaelic folk song of all time, "Horo mo nighean donn boyche." "Mo nighean donn boyche" translates as "my nut brown maid." Ireland is probably no exception to this trend. Incidentally, "nut brown" refers to the hair colour of the women in question, rather than their complexion.

You missed one important point there. As a judge has now pointed out in court, the confidential informant's information was not credible. So there's no real evidentiary basis for believing Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang. Supreme Court orders Maryland dad Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US from El Salvador prison https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-trump-maryland-father-el-salvador-prison-b2730368.html

Trump isn't even trying to hide this. He's even bragging about how much money his friends made from his actions. Trump brags in Oval Office that his billionaire pals made a killing in stocks after he pulled the plug on tariffs https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-billionaire-profits-dropped-tariffs-b2731386.html

I clearly stated that the Megawatt chargers are not widely available yet. And this is the ICE vs EV thread, so it's about general trends, not only what's available in Thailand. There's another thread for that and I deliberately didn't post in that thread because this info isn't really relevant to Thailand (yet). But in any event, it's a chicken and egg situation. When there were not enough vehicles around that could take advantage of them, obviously no-one would go to the bother of installing them. Now that those vehicles are starting to appear, Megawatt chargers will gradually follow. In addition, as the previous article alludes to and this other article makes clear, you can also 'double up' to get better speeds with existing fast chargers. BYD's Five-Minute Fast-Charging EV Is Even Cheaper Than We Thought

Fully 75% of those deported had not been convicted of a crime, but even if they had, they still must be afforded due process again, in terms of their deportation, as the recent US Supreme Court ruling clearly states. Here's part of that ruling. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Not without due process though, according to the US Supreme Court ruling recently handed down - so therefore not in the way the Trump administration did it. This ruling states (inter alia): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Based on the recent US Supreme Court ruling, it should have been impossible to deport nearly 300 detainees to El Salvador without affording them due process first but the Trump administration just blithely went ahead and did it anyway. What used to be or what should be impossible is no longer a reliable guide these days.