Trump accepts Prayut’s invitation to visit Thailand

[billsmart]

2 hours ago, Mikeasq60 said:

I'm a US citizen and I'm happy about it,  you liberals what's your problem Trump won Clinton lost 

My problem with Trump is not specifically that he won the election. I didn't like that, but sadly accept that result. It's his behavior and actions before and after he won that troubles me. That, and the fact that his election gave permission for all the "deplorables" (racists, sexists, xenophobes, fundamentalist Christians, nationalists, uber-capitalists, etc,) to crawl out from under their rocks to wreak havoc on U.S. society.

[Damrongsak]

On 9/26/2019 at 2:41 AM, Nice Boyd said:

You could also talk to the many taxi drivers in BKK, who enjoyed the Americans Soldiers, not a bad word from any

When I went to Thailand in 1977, "lowly" people would ask me if the American GIs were coming back.  They admired the party hard, live for today mentality, apparently. 

[overherebc]

Can he aqueeze the visit in before the impeachment process kicks off?????

[DrTuner]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I hope he flies in by helicopter from the airport- trying to move by road would be very difficult and a security nightmare in Bkk city.

Works fine when you got a cream colored Benz.

[tomazbodner]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Too eager to post something derogatory to read the OP?

 

I wish I was there to welcome the present and future president (2020 to 2024 ) of the US as he drove past.

What's stopping you?

 

That is, of course, if he doesn't get impeached before that. Fat chance of that, but you never know...

 

As for posting derogatory stuff - I usually do it in Trump's face... well, his Twitter...

[P Funk]

Count the towels and silverware. Also get the girls ready for the Golden showers.

[Redline]

Two peas in a pod 

[bendejo]

19 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I spent two years at Fox and ended up beliveing Hannity was pure opinion. News was not part of any of his reporting. Is thier another as this one was not worthy giving it a try for the two years?

Quoth Hannity:  "I never said I was a reporter."

 

I can see a sit-down with Prayut and DT in front of the cameras, and DT goes into his usual name-calling, denials and accusations of people back in the US, while Mr P is fretting the translators "what is he saying!?!?"

 

 

[moontang]

16 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

What's stopping you?

 

That is, of course, if he doesn't get impeached before that. Fat chance of that, but you never know...

 

As for posting derogatory stuff - I usually do it in Trump's face... well, his Twitter...

Impeachment means almost nothing, ask Predator Clinton.  It doesn't mean removal from office. 

[Aj Mick]

On 9/26/2019 at 1:25 PM, Jingthing said:

I would pencil it in for now. "trump" may be too busy for such a lower priority trip while he deals with getting impeached. 

Surely it should be "Sharpie", not "pencil".

 

I'm sure that for Dubious Donald, being seen to link hands with like minded leaders will hold greater attraction than having to face the havoc he has created. Let his minions back home deal with and take the rap for all that.

[RJRS1301]

39 minutes ago, moontang said:

Impeachment means almost nothing, ask Predator Clinton.  It doesn't mean removal from office. 

Impeachment is one thing, removal from office is a harder bar to jump, has to be about endangering democracy or national security as was argued in the Clinton matter as I recall

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Impeachment is one thing, removal from office is a harder bar to jump, has to be about endangering democracy or national security as was argued in the Clinton matter as I recall

I found nothing citing "endangering democracy or national security" in the articles of impeachment.

https://www.landmarkcases.org/united-states-v-nixon/articles-of-impeachment-against-president-clinton-1998

Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:

• willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration

• willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee

• willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him

• allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action

• attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action

Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:

• encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit

• encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand

• allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence

• attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness

• allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony

• giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action

• giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I found nothing citing "endangering democracy or national security" in the articles of impeachment.

https://www.landmarkcases.org/united-states-v-nixon/articles-of-impeachment-against-president-clinton-1998

Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:

• willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration

• willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee

• willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him

• allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action

• attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action

Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:

• encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit

• encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand

• allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence

• attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness

• allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony

• giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action

• giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation

It was the argument put forward by Clintons legal team, and it won the day. Precedent set from what I have read

 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Impeachment is one thing, removal from office is a harder bar to jump, has to be about endangering democracy or national security as was argued in the Clinton matter as I recall

You're wrong! It is not limited to those things at all. 

 

Next  …

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong! It is not limited to those things at all. 

 

Next  …

Did not mean "limited to", but from my recall it was the argument used successfully in the Clinton case.

Impeachment one thing though, and removal from office very different. 

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Did not mean "limited to", but from my recall it was the argument used successfully in the Clinton case.

Impeachment one thing though, and removal from office very different. 

 

Your points are irrelevant. Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process that is fully supported by the constitution. A president can be impeached and convicted for anything congress decides. There is no specific legal definition for high crimes and misdemeanors. 

[KhunFred]

I have noticed that Facebook has blocked this news item, saying that "others have reported it as abusive". How can a legitimate news story be "abusive"???

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Impeachment is one thing, removal from office is a harder bar to jump, has to be about endangering democracy or national security as was argued in the Clinton matter as I recall

 

The House of Representatives can impeach the miserable sod, being kind of the equivalent of an indictment. But for him to be kicked out of office, the Senate has to in effect hold a trial on the charges and then convict him of something, I believe by a two-thirds vote of Senators present.

 

Quote

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senators] present" for at least one article is required. If there is no single charge commanding a "guilty" vote of two-thirds majority of the senators present, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Senate:_Trial

 

Quote

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[2] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[3]

 

[Jingthing]

 

That's correct. Need a conviction on at least one article of impeachment. Articles of Impeachment are not the same as laws. The only possible consequences of such a conviction is removal from office. It's not a criminal trial. 

Speaking of which the idea of hyper prudish puritan VP Pence coming to Bangkok instead along with his homely wife that he calls Mother is amusing to consider.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[dcnx]

Wow. A US president had never visited Thailand before. Way to go General Prayut! Groundbreaking stuff.

[DrTuner]

Wouldn't it be fun if Trump is impeached a few weeks before the elections and then wins them by a landslide. I think our genious Troll-in-Chief will pull that off.

[PatOngo]

Yes! Peach the b@$t@rd!

 

 

[jayboy]

On 9/26/2019 at 12:50 PM, Cadbury said:

and for old time's sake going via Soi Cowboy which his troops used as their playground in the Vietnam war

No they didn't because apart from a single pub there was absolutely nothing there of any interest until 1977 until Cowboy (lately of Mitch'nNam Soul Food Restaurant) moved there.By that time the American GIs had long gone home.Their happy hunting ground was Petchburi Road and strange as it may now seem, Gaysorn.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, jayboy said:

and for old time's sake going via Soi Cowboy which his troops used as their playground in the Vietnam war

Trump was not around for the Vietnam troops he was to busy with his sore feet avoiding the call up

[moontang]

5 hours ago, dcnx said:

Wow. A US president had never visited Thailand before. Way to go General Prayut! Groundbreaking stuff.

The good old days, when girls were girls, and men were.. women. 

[bendejo]

6 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Yes! Peach the b@$t@rd!

 

 

Maureen Dowd beat you to the pun last Saturday

Impeaching the Peach One

 

 

[bendejo]

6 hours ago, jayboy said:

No they didn't because apart from a single pub there was absolutely nothing there of any interest until 1977 until Cowboy (lately of Mitch'nNam Soul Food Restaurant) moved there.By that time the American GIs had long gone home.Their happy hunting ground was Petchburi Road and strange as it may now seem, Gaysorn.

Yes.  When I came to Bkk in 1975 the cheap traveler (now called backpackers) area was around Hualumpong, and there was buzz about a new area of cheap hotels called Soi Cowboy, but never checked it out myself.  Just think, if the flesh trade hadn't moved in it could have wound up being like KSR.

 

 

[Reigntax]

On 9/27/2019 at 1:43 AM, Jingthing said:

No it is happening.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

It's been "happening" since the day after Trump was elected and that's getting close to 3 years ago.

 

Trump may not be the normal polished politician who will say whatever makes him popular but he has certainly ruffled the feathers of the democrats and shown just how inert they are.

[jerojero]

Two peas, same dictatorial philosophical pod. Tiny minded men, playing big because of illegitimate political events. Now will join hands and waltz down the path together.

[SuwadeeS]

WeHopefully, North Korea will not attack during the landing or take off of the air force one. Because, any plane is very vulnerable during this stage of flight.