unicorn

I was making fun of the article, not the trans people. That should have been obvious from the text of my post. I found the use of that term silly and insulting. You're kind of slow on the uptake. And you posted nothing to discredit my investigation that such terms, as used by the article, are offensive. You simply misdirect, which is not a way to discredit a posting. And you certainly don't appear to feel foolish about being proven factually wrong.

No, you're factually wrong. I have been there. 😄 I'm no expert as to trans lingo there, which is why I looked it up, as you saw in my prior posting. Written by a Thai person, as I previously quoted, "The term of ladyboy is a foreigner thing, Thais don't use that term. Equivalent is kathoey, and almost all trans woman find it derogatory and hate to be called kathoey...".

You're right. I haven't been there since Thais switched to speaking English instead of Thai. 😉

The elections are not decided by Democrats or by Republicans. Republicans will vote for Trump regardless of how obvious it is that he's a fraud. Elections are decided by independents. One would think that anyone with an independent mind would be ashamed to have our country represented by a convicted felon.

Neither of us knows all of the facts. I'll be the first to admit it. That being said, the article you paraphrased was clearly biased, as evidenced by using a slur to describe the trans women/girls. It's something Fox News would do--are you a fan of theirs? While the facts need to come out--as they did with Trump--one can certainly make rational inferences from what we do know. Cohen's a sleazebag, and certainly not an ideal witness. That being said, only a fool would believe that he spent $130,000 of his own money simply to protect Trump (certainly none of the jurors bought that story). Likewise, only a fool would believe that this was some random attack which came out of the blue. Obviously, people shouldn't take the law into their own hands, especially with violence. However, trans people have extremely high rates of being bullied at school, and are multiple times more likely to be bullied rather than the bullier: https://www.hrc.org/news/new-cdc-data-shows-lgbtq-youth-are-more-likely-to-be-bullied-than-straight-cisgender-youth "...43% of transgender youth have been bullied on school property..." Hopefully, the facts will come out during the legal process. I'm curious as to what those facts are. If, as I suspect, the 17 year-old who was beat up had repeatedly bullied one or more of her attackers (especially if the bullying was physical), then my sympathy for her goes down. That goes double if some of the attackers in this incident had tried the legal route to obtain protection, but failed. If you were never bullied, how fortunate for you. However, there comes a point when the bullied person has enough. Better this than suicide, another huge problem, as that article discusses: "...29% of transgender youth have attempted suicide, compared to 7% of cisgender youth...". I want to make clear that I'm not saying I know for a fact that the attackers had been victims themselves. However, neither do I buy the right-wing press narrative that trans gangs are going around attacking people out of the blue. It doesn't take too much brains, in my view, to find that news organization's inferences unlikely. Or maybe you're one of those who believes Trump's the victim, as presented by Fox News.

When will he be sentenced, typically?

Well, certainly in the US the term "ladyboys" would be considered offensive. I've never lived in Thailand, obviously, but I looked it up, and it looks as though that term comes off as offensive there as well: "...most of them see themselves as woman, especially post-ops. Even at Tinder you can see post-ops saying "I'm %100 woman", and they sincerely believe that. Also when a Thai begins to dress as woman in public, you can see that they immediately change their gender to female on Facebook. More educated/west oriented ones see themselves as transgender woman and fight for trans rights. For example for the right to change their gender to female at their IDs, which is currently forbidden. Also male to transgender/gay marriages are not allowed, this is a big issue. The term of ladyboy is a foreigner thing, Thais don't use that term. Equivalent is kathoey, and almost all trans woman find it derogatory and hate to be called kathoey. Also if you ask a post-op if she is ladyboy, she will most probably and say "no I'm a woman".".. As for the 17 year-old "victim" of the attack, it looks as though she went to the same high school as some of the other apparent participants in the attack. I strongly suspect that this "victim" probably did similar stuff to one of the members of the group, who likely responded in kind when he had supporters with him (as I suspect the 17 year-old did when the trans high school student was by herself). The Thaiger article you paraphrased seems to merely fuel transphobia, rather than provide a complete picture of what was really going on. That being said, there was a hint: "...The 17 year old daughter of the woman, Ruay, sustained the most severe injuries in the attack, suffering multiple bruises and wounds across her face and body, with her left eye particularly swollen. The other victims suffered only minor injuries. The 14 year old Burmese girl, Ae, told Channel 3 that the transgender teenagers study at the same school as her and her siblings, Borrai Wittayakhom School...". My sense is not that a bunch of trans women suddenly attacked the family for no reason. I would bet that the trans women saw the opportunity for revenge, and that the minor injuries were sustained by those who attempted to assist the 17 year-old. I'm not sure that one can condone violence, but if school and/or legal authorities don't help trans women when they're being bullied, such reactions are hardly surprising.

Which party is the most gay-friendly?

New slide at the Georgia O'Keeffe playground: "When people read erotic symbols into my paintings, they're really talking about their own affairs."

I don't think those new rules would have prevented last week's incident, in which the turbulence came completely suddenly and violently. Like many reactionary rules, they're just window-dressing to appear to be "doing something," in order to give false reassurance over unreasonable fears over extremely rare events. There are some 100,000 commercial flights every single day, and well over 30 million commercial flights every year. These freak events happen less than once a year. As we are repeatedly advised when flying, it's wisest to keep one's seatbelt on when seated, even when the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign is off. Rather than a "Fasten Seatbelt" sign, it should read "Stay in Seat." However, these freak events can't be avoided. The truth of the matter is commercial flights are far safer than car or even rail travel. https://www.oag.com/airline-frequency-and-capacity-statistics#:~:text=SCHEDULED FLIGHT COUNTER&text=With 14%2C323%2C610 flights in total,flights per day is 97%2C439. Absolutely, it's wise the keep the seatbelt on whenever seated. However, passengers do need to use facilities from time to time (with the frequency depending on their bladder size and various health conditions they might have), and they do need to be fed and hydrated. Pilots are hopefully trained to do their best to predict and avoid turbulence. Freak events are extremely rare, and probably unavoidable.

Well, I think the main reason Trump wants to be POTUS again is that he wants to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever imagined that such a corrupt President and political party would ever come into power, but unless the impossible happens--Democrats get over 60% of the US Senate seats and a majority of the House--his win would assure him that he'll stay out of prison until 2029 (by which time he'll be pretty near death, if he makes it even that long given his terrible physical health). As you pointed out, the economies, and especially, inflation, of most western countries are improving following the problems of the early 20s. The high inflation of the early 20s wasn't due to Johnson/Truss policies nor Biden's, but rather due to rampant price hikes resulting from China's disastrous "Zero-Covid" policy and to Saudi Arabia's price gouging in the oil and gas market.

As previous posts have indicated, you have to be an active, contributing member. Although I don't think a precise number has been divulged, I'd guess it means you have to be a member for a certain amount of time, and have posted a certain number of posts/contributions.

Well, "why not?" seems like a silly "reason," since the answer is obviously to give enough time for your policies to work. I do thank you for the article, though, which suggests what might be the real reason: he's really rich, doesn't like the residence, and doesn't care that he's throwing his fellow MP's under the bus. "... from all accounts, Sunak doesn’t seem to be loving life at No. 10... Frustrated politically, life in the cramped flat in No. 10 must have seemed less and less appealing. Especially after his and his wife’s personal fortune increased by £120 million to £651 million in the latest Sunday Times rich list...". His decision, therefore, might just be a way of quitting (at the expense of his party). Now, if only Biden could pressure the President of Israel to call a prompt new election in Israel, maybe they'd get rid of BN...

The press is stating that his conservative party is expected to lose in the upcoming election, but he himself chose the early election date. At first glance, it would not seem to be in his interest to hold an early election. If one of you understands why he's doing this, maybe you might educate me. Thanks

You learn something new every day. I just learned that not all male ballet dancers are gay...

Thanks for the video. I'm amazed that the victim leaves so much out in the open. That's not something one can do here in Los Angeles. People must be very honest in whatever area that happened.

I don't suppose anyone here has a link to the video? It's difficult to look up stuff without both the given and family name.

Name-calling is childish, invoked by people who can't win a rational argument. The DA's masculinity and appearance are obviously irrelevant to the facts in the case. The jury spent weeks hearing evidence and deliberating over the facts of the case and the law (including one week in deliberations alone). They unanimously determined that the law was broken. The governor was simply scoring political points in a solidly red state at the expense of the law and justice. He can't make it legal to murder for racist reasons, since this would violate the US Constitution. So he just nullifies murder laws with the stroke of a pen.

You are probably right that Rittenhouse will have "life challenges." The huge difference between the two cases was that Rittenhouse was literally chased and attacked, whereas Perry was not. I stay clear of emotional demonstrations, since there a lot of hotheads, and things can get violent pretty quickly. Violence begets violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse "...After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, the youth fatally shot him. His name was Joseph Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd. He fatally shot a second man, Anthony Huber, after the man struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle. Gaige Grosskreutz also approached Rittenhouse, armed with a Glock pointed at him, but Rittenhouse shot and wounded him first..".

Brazilians do need visas for the US, Canada, and Australia: The US sets its visa policy not on threats/reciprocity, but on objective factors. It grants eVisas to countries by a simple formula based on the percentage of people from that country who overstay their visas. I believe the number's 2%--when the number is under that figure, no visa application is necessary from citizens of that country, when it's above that number, visas are required. Now what should be negotiable is the wait time for visa application appointments. Given the hefty fee the US charges for visas, the money is there for staffing, and I agree that there's no reason to be assholes about getting a visa interview. Requiring advance visas has advantages and disadvantages for the country requiring visas. The advantage is reducing the chance of travelers overstaying their visas. The disadvantage is the loss of tourism $$. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages is the only wise decision for a country. If there are few US citizens who overstay their visas in Brazil, it's simply foolish and shooting oneself in the foot to require advance visas. That being said, Brazil can and should negotiate adequate staffing for scheduling visa interviews. The visa fees should cover those costs, so it's simply a matter of hiring/training the additional staff.

There are two possibilities I can think of, off-hand. One is that the escort wouldn't mind meeting in exchange for minor contributions, such as a nice meal. The other is that the escort genuinely has the hots for you. Keeping general safety in mind (i.e. be careful bringing them to a place you where you have valuables), you could definitely take him up on the offer (assuming you enjoyed your time). I've had offers for reduced-fee future meetings, or offers to consider sugar-daddy situations, but never completely free repeat hook-ups.

What extraordinary lies. He made multiple comments in multiple social media postings in which he declared himself a racist. They were not jokes, and you know it. You also know damned well that the parole board is in no way "independent." They are considered a branch of the executive government and consist entirely of members appointed by the governor himself (with no control on his appointees, since the Senate's approval is perfunctory when the Senate majority is the same party as the governor). https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/opinions/partI/079.html "The Board of Pardons and Paroles is in the executive branch of state government. Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles#:~:text=In 1935%2C the Texas Constitution,authority subject to board recommendation. "In 1935, the Texas Constitution was amended to create the BPP as a member of the executive branch with constitutional authority, and making the governor's clemency authority subject to board recommendation." As you well know it's factually incorrect that they are "independent" of the governor. Also, as you know, neither side can "stack" a jury. Both sides are entitled to the same number of peremptory challenges (in California, it's 6 for misdemeanors and 10 for felonies--it looks as though it's 6 in Texas). https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&ContentID=60713&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm#:~:text=Number of Peremptory Challenges,three in the county court. "...Generally, each party is entitled to six peremptory challenges in a case tried in the district court and to three in the county court...". It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. However, you are making statements of fact which are incorrect--and you know it.

The fact remains: the governor literally let an avowed racist get away with murder. There is zero legitimacy that his self-appointed cronies agreed with him.