U.S. Expatriates in Pattaya - Gatherings?

[FarangDoingHisThing69]

    Conveniently left out of your narrative is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump.   Your prettily-colored map looks perhaps convincing to the gullible with all those vast, empty counties in the flyover states painted bright red but, in reality, America has a President the majority of the voters did not want.

Yes, New York And California’s millions of illegal welfare leeches voted for the welfare queen.

Thank god the founders wrote the constitution with this in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing]

Yes, New York And California’s millions of illegal welfare leeches voted for the welfare queen.

Thank god the founders wrote the constitution with this in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

None of that is true but never mind about that, right?

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

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, FarangDoingHisThing69 said:

Conveniently left out of your narrative is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump.   Your prettily-colored map looks perhaps convincing to the gullible with all those vast, empty counties in the flyover states painted bright red but, in reality, America has a President the majority of the voters did not want.

Farangdoinghistthing69 no I did not conveniently let that fact go.  Yes Hillary got more popular votes than Trump.  Those votes as indicated in the map came from predominately the large urban areas.  If you look at the map, the centers including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, St. Louis, Detroit, etc. are all decidedly blue for Hillary.  So you had the majority of the "minority" population voting like a block for Hillary while the "majority" of the country geographically overwhelmingly voting for Trump.  There was a 17th century historian who studied democracies and he stated that no Democracy can survive because once the people determine they can elect into power those who will give them everything by robbing the treasury, the country collapses into economic ruin.  That is where the USA is today. 

[Thomas J]

22 minutes ago, FarangDoingHisThing69 said:

    Conveniently left out of your narrative is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump.   Your prettily-colored map looks perhaps convincing to the gullible with all those vast, empty counties in the flyover states painted bright red but, in reality, America has a President the majority of the voters did not want.

Farangdoinghisthing69 You somehow seem to equate the votes of the majority as somehow being virtuous and correct.  The attached memes show the hypocrisy in that.  There is nothing inherently intelligent about having a millions of in many cases illiterate people cast votes strictly based on who will give them the greatest amount of welfare.  If you removed from the voter roles those that paid nothing in Federal Income Tax you would never see another Democrat elected into office. PS that is the way our founding fathers set the system up.  Only landowners "those with a vested interest" in the success of the nation being able to vote.  That is the way corporations allow votes.  You have to have "some skin in the game" by owning shares.  43% of the tax returns filed in the USA now pay zero income tax with many getting "refunds" for money they never paid in.  

 

 

[timendres]

33 minutes ago, newnative said:

Conveniently left out of your narrative is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump.   Your prettily-colored map looks perhaps convincing to the gullible with all those vast, empty counties in the flyover states painted bright red but, in reality, America has a President the majority of the voters did not want.

48.2% versus 46.1% does not exactly indicate that "the majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump", especially since only approximately 60% of eligible voters cast a ballet. Hillary won the popular vote, by a small margin, and Trump won the electoral college, which was what mattered. Frankly, I believe every US citizen was disappointed by the choice they were offered, and have been for some time now. We are not being offered, in my opinion, strong leadership to choose from.

 

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, timendres said:

48.2% versus 46.1% does not exactly indicate that "the majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump", especially since only approximately 60% of eligible voters cast a ballet. Hillary won the popular vote, by a small margin, and Trump won the electoral college, which was what mattered. Frankly, I believe every US citizen was disappointed by the choice they were offered, and have been for some time now. We are not being offered, in my opinion, strong leadership to choose from.

 

timendres that election was unquestionably the two worst candidates of all time.  Having said that, though I and I believe many people would have preferred someone who was more articulate, less brusque and a more impressive statesman than Trump, the economy has performed better under his administration than under, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. or even Reagan.  If the American People want to elect someone based on their "likable" personality than maybe the candidates should all be former Ms. Congeniality winners.  I may not like Tiger Woods but he is a winner, I may not like Tom Brady but he is a winner.  If given a choice of a "likable" president with a miserable economy or Trump, I will swallow hard and tip my hat. 

[gk10002000]

8 hours ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

And now you know why I've been watching more One America News. LOL.  I still watch Fox, especially "the five" when I can get the full program, but they only bash the lies from the other networks and make fun of the lying politicians, even the republican liers. 

FOX just covers the same thing over and over for hours days weeks months, and not even going to mention how biased they are.  One America so far gives pretty fair treatment as best I can tell and actually covers news stories

[Jingthing]

Even further right wing than Fox. Wow.

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

[timendres]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

timendres that election was unquestionably the two worst candidates of all time.  Having said that, though I and I believe many people would have preferred someone who was more articulate, less brusque and a more impressive statesman than Trump, the economy has performed better under his administration than under, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. or even Reagan.  If the American People want to elect someone based on their "likable" personality than maybe the candidates should all be former Ms. Congeniality winners.  I may not like Tiger Woods but he is a winner, I may not like Tom Brady but he is a winner.  If given a choice of a "likable" president with a miserable economy or Trump, I will swallow hard and tip my hat. 

Precisely why I used the phrase "strong leadership", and never once referred to "likable".

[rumak]

9 hours ago, jingjai9 said:

Listen to MSNBC, CNN or Fox News and note the adjectives used to describe people and their opinions. Imagine listening to this every day month in and month out. People don't have to watch and listen but they do.

I have called out one or two TV members for using that same tactic.  So easy to throw out a few labels to put the other person on the defensive.  The ones I remember do happen to be Americans.  Moved here to get away from  confrontational  people.   I sure am not looking to seek them out .

The thing is.... the nice ones (yes, there are) tend to be interesting folks

[timendres]

24 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I am old, and that is the first time I have ever seen that quote. Fantastic quote.

[rumak]

Look at these posts.  The Americans are at each others throats again !   Sure,  let's all meet up   hahaha

[IAMHERE]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

The majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump. 

The majority of American voters, which is substantially less than the majority of Americans. The constittution was written to protect rural America from the ruled over by large cities.

[newnative]

52 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

The majority of American voters, which is substantially less than the majority of Americans. The constittution was written to protect rural America from the ruled over by large cities.

But, still, substantially more than what Trump got.

 

1 hour ago, timendres said:

48.2% versus 46.1% does not exactly indicate that "the majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump", especially since only approximately 60% of eligible voters cast a ballet. Hillary won the popular vote, by a small margin, and Trump won the electoral college, which was what mattered. Frankly, I believe every US citizen was disappointed by the choice they were offered, and have been for some time now. We are not being offered, in my opinion, strong leadership to choose from.

 

   Totally agree that our choices for President from both parties have been poor, and for many years now.    

[wisperone]

10 hours ago, jingjai9 said:

Listen to MSNBC, CNN or Fox News and note the adjectives used to describe people and their opinions. Imagine listening to this every day month in and month out. People don't have to watch and listen but they do.

I never watch any of it. To me it doesn't exist. We have the power not to turn the tv on. Simple.

I don't find Americans angry. I'm sure depending on ones circles they choose to hang out in, you can be in with angry people anywhere in the world.

[ratcatcher]

10 hours ago, soistalker said:

I wouldn't want to get caught in a conversation with any of those boring octogenarians. Just watching them on the TElevision in Pattaya makes me want to fall asleep.

But what about the sexagenarians and septuagenarians among them?

[carken]

16 hours ago, newnative said:

    Sadly, this is so true.   It's like a pack of rabid dogs seizing on any scrap of any utterance the least bit provocative--or even not provocative--or any opinion not totally in line with what is politically correct at the moment or in agreement with this conservative group or that liberal group and then tearing it to shreds.   So, it's an environment where poor Scarlett Johansson makes a statement that she would like to be able to play any part that interests her as an actor--and be crucified after a handful of people objected loudly on social media and then it's blown up on all the news outlets with 24 long hours to fill.  How dare her want to play a tree!    

   All these famous people must be getting so tired of "walking back" statements they made that someone, somewhere found something to object to. 

   Famous actor person X:  "It's a beautiful day today, isn't it?"

   Someone on Twitter"  "X made a very insensitive comment on the state of the weather today, completely ignoring the climate change crisis, not to mention all the migrant children locked up in sweltering cages. It wasn't a beautiful day for THEM locked up in record temperatures!  Apparently X is so rich and in his own spoiled, pampered world that he cares nothing for anyone but himself.  If he's so interested in the weather, why isn't he doing more to call attention to climate change, and the migrants' problems, too?

News media after a number of garbled and incorrect tweets: 

     X finds himself in hot water today with a very controversial statement he made that appeared to blame migrants for the world's climate change problems.  X has since walked back his comment and stated that it was taken out of context and he certainly did not mean to offend anyone.  His apology did not appear to be sincere enough for some, who expressed outrage on social media  for his weak, uncaring, response, and he has since been fired from the upcoming film he was slated to star in, ironically the climate change disaster flick, 'Inferno in the Sky'.  

     

ROFLMFAO ....... Wow!!!! newnative that was absolutely spot on, ya nailed it ... In today's society one has to think carefully before speaking or writing, what ya say could land ya in jail or in a lawsuit or get ya killed ... today's society is totally %$#@&*

up ... gonna use your story/example and send to my friends back home in USA, they're gonna love it ... it's a very small group as I don't want to chance pissin' somebody off and then dealing with it for months to follow ... thanks again, my man  a wonnerful, a wonnerful ???? turn on the bubble machine

[aledale]

14 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Non so se userei la parola odio, ma certamente direi che il mondo ha generalmente grandi idee sbagliate sugli Stati Uniti. Ciò che le persone "credono" è ciò che "percepiscono". Questa percezione è modellata dai media e da Internet. I media usano oggi per "riferire" notizie che sono armi di propaganda che massaggiano il messaggio e arrivano persino a dire allo spettatore / lettore cosa credere. Se hai ascoltato molti europei, pensano che gli Stati Uniti siano una regione senza legge in cui le persone indossano armi per proteggersi. La verità è che la maggior parte degli omicidi è concentrata nelle aree delle bande minoritarie urbane. Gli Stati Uniti hanno 330 milioni di persone, quindi sì, abbiamo più episodi di violenza. Per ascoltare il discorso medio europeo su Trump si potrebbe pensare che sia stato eletto da un gruppo radicale marginale. Né i media europei né statunitensi mettono mai in mostra i risultati raggiunti. Il tasso di disoccupazione più basso degli ultimi 50 anni, il tasso di disoccupazione nero, ispanico, asiatico e femminile più basso della storia. Perché? Prima di tutto, la maggior parte dei media è orientata verso il liberalismo e, in secondo luogo, una storia che crea una spaccatura tra due punti di vista opposti diventa molto più spettatrice che complimentarsi con uno. Per quanto riguarda il gruppo marginale che elegge Trump. In allegato è la mappa delle contee che hanno votato per Trump su Clinton. A differenza della maggior parte degli altri paesi del mondo, siamo composti da un mosaico di etnie. Le città principali sono prevalentemente minoranze e, quindi, spettano ai democratici per i benefici del governo. La stragrande maggioranza del paese non è squilibrata. Sono solo stanchi di andare a lavorare ogni giorno per sostenere coloro che scelgono di non sostenersi. Il rosso sulla mappa allegata sono le contee che hanno votato per Trump. Le aree blu sono quasi esclusivamente grandi aree urbane costituite da grandi popolazioni minoritarie.

Yes, you are right... I'm Italian and I can't read or watch the traditional media, as you wrote. Luckily bloggers and some reporters and little channel give us the truth. And luckily today many people stopped to follow traditional media, if they are not the "pure" left side and LGBT.

I'm sorry I'm not politically correct.

[OneMoreFarang]

Do they talk about politics at such meetings?

If yes, then I guess there must be at least two clubs by now and they hate each other.

 

 

[Tony125]

15 hours ago, newnative said:

    Conveniently left out of your narrative is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The majority of Americans preferred for her to be President, not Trump.   Your prettily-colored map looks perhaps convincing to the gullible with all those vast, empty counties in the flyover states painted bright red but, in reality, America has a President the majority of the voters did not want.

Trump was ahead in both the electorial and popular vote untill California voted but the electorial college was set  up so that 1 state with dense population could not overthrow the will of the other  smaller states.

Trump got 54% of the white women's vote which means more women voted for him than Hillory regardless of the things said about his attitude towards women.

[newnative]

5 hours ago, carken said:

ROFLMFAO ....... Wow!!!! newnative that was absolutely spot on, ya nailed it ... In today's society one has to think carefully before speaking or writing, what ya say could land ya in jail or in a lawsuit or get ya killed ... today's society is totally %$#@&*

up ... gonna use your story/example and send to my friends back home in USA, they're gonna love it ... it's a very small group as I don't want to chance pissin' somebody off and then dealing with it for months to follow ... thanks again, my man  a wonnerful, a wonnerful ???? turn on the bubble machine

Thanks!

[newnative]

33 minutes ago, Tony125 said:

Trump was ahead in both the electorial and popular vote untill California voted but the electorial college was set  up so that 1 state with dense population could not overthrow the will of the other  smaller states.

Trump got 54% of the white women's vote which means more women voted for him than Hillory regardless of the things said about his attitude towards women.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Heard all that ad infinitum.  I'm in the camp with the majority of Americans who support abolishing the Electoral College.

[timendres]

8 hours ago, newnative said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Heard all that ad infinitum.  I'm in the camp with the majority of Americans who support abolishing the Electoral College.

And I am with the founders' wisdom that created the electoral college. I would even like to see a reversion to the Senate being elected by the state legislatures and not the popular vote.

[newnative]

2 hours ago, timendres said:

And I am with the founders' wisdom that created the electoral college. I would even like to see a reversion to the Senate being elected by the state legislatures and not the popular vote.

And, as long as you are reverting, why not go back to 1789 while you're at it when the vote was restricted to just white male tax payers or property owners.  Although Trump might not like that because, according to another poster, he apparently got 54% of the vote of white women.  

[timendres]

30 minutes ago, newnative said:

And, as long as you are reverting, why not go back to 1789 while you're at it when the vote was restricted to just white male tax payers or property owners.  Although Trump might not like that because, according to another poster, he apparently got 54% of the vote of white women.  

I am not being silly. I believe the Senate being elected by the state legislatures had real merit, for many reasons that I do not want to burden this thread with.

[pegman]

22 hours ago, Tony125 said:

Trump was ahead in both the electorial and popular vote untill California voted but the electorial college was set  up so that 1 state with dense population could not overthrow the will of the other  smaller states.

Trump got 54% of the white women's vote which means more women voted for him than Hillory regardless of the things said about his attitude towards women.

Nonsense, 54% of all women voted for Clinton. 53% of white women voted for Trump. So no, more women didn't vote for Trump.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

[Hanuman2547]

I thought that this thread was about places that Americans meet up?  Instead it appears that it is just a discussion of recent American politics.

[Jingthing]

I thought that this thread was about places that Americans meet up?  Instead it appears that it is just a discussion of recent American politics.

That's what we do when we gather these days or if not its not far under the surface.

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

[Thomas J]

6 hours ago, pegman said:

Nonsense, 54% of all women voted for Clinton. 53% of white women voted for Trump. So no, more women didn't vote for Trump.

 

Who voted for Clinton, per the attached.  The young, black, and Hispanic by wide margins.  Who received government welfare, over 50% of the blacks and Hispanics.  Blacks make up about 13%, Hispanics about 17.5%. Conclusion: Geographically there are 3141 counties in the USA. Trump won 2,626 or 83.7%. while Clinton won only 487 or 16.3%. However those counties were the major urban cities packed with huge populations of Blacks and Hispanics.  It is the minority vote alone that gave Clinton more popular votes.  Trump did receive more votes from white women than Hillary.  But black women voted virtually 100% for Clinton tipping the scales that more women voted for Hillary than Trump.  The conclusion is perfectly clear.  If you are a "taker" and user of government social welfare benefits you vote Democrat.  If you are the "payer" you vote Republican.  The Founding Fathers had voting rights for "landowners"  They felt that only those who had "skin in the game" should be the ones determine who should govern.  That is in stark contrast to today where 43% of all federal tax returns pay ZERO federal income tax and in many cases get "refunds for earned income credits" though they paid nothing into the system.  How many of you would opt for a system where 12 people were going out to dinner and 5 of them were going to go for free but get a vote on which restaurant to go to, and what to order off the menu?  The Democrats have essentially bribed voters with benefits using the taxpayers money to fund it. 

[Jingthing]

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 2:14 PM, Thomas J said:

Who voted for Clinton, per the attached.  The young, black, and Hispanic by wide margins.  Who received government welfare, over 50% of the blacks and Hispanics.  Blacks make up about 13%, Hispanics about 17.5%. Conclusion: Geographically there are 3141 counties in the USA. Trump won 2,626 or 83.7%. while Clinton won only 487 or 16.3%. However those counties were the major urban cities packed with huge populations of Blacks and Hispanics.  It is the minority vote alone that gave Clinton more popular votes.  Trump did receive more votes from white women than Hillary.  But black women voted virtually 100% for Clinton tipping the scales that more women voted for Hillary than Trump.  The conclusion is perfectly clear.  If you are a "taker" and user of government social welfare benefits you vote Democrat.  If you are the "payer" you vote Republican.  The Founding Fathers had voting rights for "landowners"  They felt that only those who had "skin in the game" should be the ones determine who should govern.  That is in stark contrast to today where 43% of all federal tax returns pay ZERO federal income tax and in many cases get "refunds for earned income credits" though they paid nothing into the system.  How many of you would opt for a system where 12 people were going out to dinner and 5 of them were going to go for free but get a vote on which restaurant to go to, and what to order off the menu?  The Democrats have essentially bribed voters with benefits using the taxpayers money to fund it. 

As you posted that blatant right wing propaganda, I think a rebuttal of sorts is apt. Funny you didn't mention STRUCTURAL ECONOMIC INEQUALITY one time in your racially charged screed.