eisfeld

Everyone that does not support him will face his vicious attacks and will be haunted by the angry mob that follows him. He truly has become a force of destruction. Question is if the US will be able to cure itself of this cancer before the damage gets too big.

Did the tourists cause the devastating wildfire or was it mismanagement of the local hawaiian officials? What about the hawaiian state official denying the request for water in time to help keep the fires in check? https://www.civilbeat.org/2023/08/a-state-official-refused-to-release-water-for-west-maui-fires-until-it-was-too-late/ Is the income from tourism helping or hurting in times like these? I don't understand why their hate towards tourists has to flare up right now. It's really not helping with the situation. They seem to have some deep running issues and frustrations and it's always easy to blame it on the foreigner or outsider in time of distress. But most of the time many issues are of ones own making. People just don't tend to complain when things are running great.

Hm the title says the EC advises but the article says the EC was advised by a commitee. Does not seem like it's a final conclusion, the case is ongoing. But I guess it's a strong indicator that the EC case will not end against Pita? Not that it matters all too much, his chance for PM is gone. I guess he could act as a MP if the EC and Constitutional Court clear him but that's of limited value.

Please don't accuse me of trying to gaslight you. I've made the point that the Senate can't prevent the House from terminating the PM or other ministers through a no-confidence vote. Be it through blocking a vote or by taking part in a vote. You claimed the Senate can block the vote but that's not the case to my understanding. I've pointed out the relevant sections in the Constitution. If you know of other ones that confirm what you claim please come forward and list them so other can read up.

Right, we are on the same page and it was good to point out the two recent no-confidence votes where the Senate clearly didn't take part in. ????

If you look at the vote counts of both the no-confidence votes in 2021 and 2022 it is a total of less than 500. The number of votes in the House of Representatives. If the Senate had a say the total number of votes would have been closer to 750. Pheu Thai is in the House, not Senate.

Please tell me where in the constitution is says that the Senate can block a no-confidence vote or that they take part in said vote. The rules are stipulated in Section 151 of the Constitution. Section 156 which stipulates the cases under which a join session of the National Assembly is required don't list anything regarding no-confidence votes.

I guess now we know how a restaurant owner funds a Rolls Royce in Thailand ????

Senators of course don't vote in the House. They vote as part of the Senate on joint sittings in the National Assembly. They do have to vote and approve bills after they pass the House so they can veto them. The one example you brought with no-confidence vote is one of the few where the Senate can *not* block the House.

I agree that PT already made some clearly very unpopular moves as evidenced by some voters burning their ensignas. Was it enough to spell their end? I wouldn't dare to tell. But they are definitely going to reach that point eventually the more stunts they pull that go against what their voters want. Definitely putting the future of the party on the line here, I think that everyone can agree on that. Yea I think you have a good point. Maybe Thaksin saw MFP anyways taking over a lot of their old role in Thai politics. So why not cash out what's left. And with that he'll accelerate the transition. It does make sense from that point of view.

Maybe. But it's not an easy deal as I think it will cost PT dearly. It would have the potential to be the start of their end and go the way of the Democrats. We'll see how this soap opera plays out soon enough I guess.

Note however even if BJT plus a few small parties and the Senate can force through their PM they can only run a government with the help of Pheu Thai to prevent the House from dismantling the PM and other ministers. The question is if Pheu Thai is willing to let Prawit get the job of PM in return for letting Thaksin back into the country.

Actually I think the Constitution pretty much spells out that the Ombudsman is supposed to refer questions like this to the Consitutional Court. It tells the Ombudsman and the Court that this is how it's supposed to be. How can the Constitutional Court refuse to take the case? Part 3 of the Constitution:

Uhm. The Constitutional Court told you that you need to petition them yourself. Why wouldn you forego this opportunity? Why would you think the Parliament will resolve the issue for you if it was the Parliament who created the issue for you in the first place? I don't understand the strategy at play here. Anyone got an explanation?

They can change their legal advisors. They can't change the judges. You gotta work with what you have. Even if they get stopped for other more dubious reasons. At least they don't trip on the easily avoidable stuff. It would increase the odds.

You wrote in response and quoting a post that said MFP would put forward a vote of no-confidence. In your reply you said they would get the senators to ensure a win. The point that you are missing I think is that yes they can pull the senators to get a win for PM with a minority in the House but what after that? A no-confidence quickly kills that. Not sure why you are so passive aggresive in your reply.

I think MFP need to change their legal advisors. They keep getting nailed on trivial technicalities that should have been avoided. They can't afford that when the stakes are so high.

It does not address the constitutional question if the House can stipulate requirements for a PM to be put up for vote that are more restrictive than the rules that the Constitution stipulates. If the court was to rule that it did violate the Constitution then any interim vote for another candidate that might succeed could be contested and make the situation even messier. A very important question to clarify before further votes take place imho.

What a bad reasoning. Of course an MP is directly affected if their leader is not allowed to become Prime Minister. And if anything it would be an important decision to clarify this point of contention. Are there so many more important questions to solve at this time than what is crucial for the countries leadership? Is this playing a technicalities game?

Because he brought it as the reason for suddenly again having to postpone his trip to Thailand. A clear BS excuse. And her flying to Dubai at this time to escort him to the checkup is just ridicolous. It even was just a checkup, No treatment. The guy is a frickin billionaire. He can fly the best eye doctor in the world to wherever he is if he so pleases. It's a PR campaign. People need to see it for what it is.

My bull<deleted> detector is going to 11. She needs to fly to Dubai to take her dad to an eye doctor? During a crucial time for "her" party trying to form a government coalition and needing to talk to other parties on a daily basis? Oh and aparently it was OK for Thaksin to fly from Cambodia to Dubai for this eye doctor checkup which prevented him from flying to Thailand. This PR campaign is so pathetic.

The Senate does not take part in the vote of no-confidence. A majority of House of Representatives is enough to pass such a vote and to terminate any minister or even all of them. Section 151 of the Constitution. It's one of the reasons why having a minority government in Thailand is pretty much unworkable. The House can block any bills or remove the ministers.

A simple signed contract between him and another person would have made it already much much more difficult to attack him on these grounds because the constitution does not ask the transfer to be registered somewhere. Then he could also have notified the company of the share transfer to be in a pretty good position. That being said, I'm not aware of the bylaws of the company which may stipulate requirements. But seeing as they were a public company I don't think any big hurdles should exist. I have to assume the latter as any reasonable person would agree these shares are insignificant for the matter at hand. But then again it is kinda negligent to not have taken care of it given that his predecessor was nailed on these grounds.

These numbers seem to be too good to be just because of flights. Did they sell a few airplanes? Or does it have something to do with Thai Smile being merged into the mother company? An article like that would benefit heavily from an explanation how such big changes in financials have been achieved. I would like to see them succeed and be a profitable business. Would be great if they were able to turn around so quickly and well. It's just a bit surprising.

I said what I said in response to your comment about Pita being a US stooge and calling the west degenerate and the comment about MFP being "socialists". That plus all the talk about "lefties". These are words one often sees spouted in the extreme right US scene. Similarily the "left" vs "right" divide. Nobody in Thai politics talks about a split like that. Those are the reasons why I noted it. I didn't bring the US into this, I posted in reaction to your comments. This shows exactly why I think you have a problem with how democracy is supposed to work. You completely deny the right to be represented in governement for a huge and important chunk of the country - the future of the country! Don't you see that? Why not up the minimum required voting age to something more to your liking like say... 40? When does one obtain the required wisdom to be able to make the right decisions? On the flip side can I ask people over 70 to be excluded because many have declining cognitive capacity? Maybe we could also exclude anyone who had some kind of mental issues or similar disability. Oh and of course you got to have proper education to understand how a country works. Yea, yea, let's exclude the young, the old, the disabled and the poorly educated. To ensure that, we could put in place a selection commitee. Let's pick a few people by hand who will wield outsized power and ensure things continue like traditions intended to. If they don't like that then I'll show them the stick, eh the gun. We are doing that for their own good! What issues other countries are facing has no bearing on how Thailands politics should work. You seem to have been scarred by the west somehow as your mind wonders there so much.