heybruce

Tell us about this when you have more evidence than "Comer says".

Comer is flailing about, hoping to find something he can stick on Biden, but primarily to give the illusion of action and progress. Only readers of the Washington Examiner believe the illusion is real.

"The poor people vote for those they believe will best improve their lot in life." That's what Thaksin did, and then he delivered, particularly in the north and northeast where the majority of voters live. Barely literate parents accustomed to losing children to preventable diseases saw schools and clinics opened and roads built so their children could get to them. They liked that, any corruption Thaksin was guilty of was secondary. That's what made Thaksin such a threat to the elite, he showed that democracy could work for the majority, not the privileged few. Inequity in Thailand is still so bad that the same approach still works. The voters assume all politicians are corrupt so they vote for the corrupt politicians that will get things done for them. Of course people who like the status quo (obviously that includes a great many expats) will use the corruption that has always been part of Thai politics to justify the next coup, just as they did with the last coup. They of course ignore the fact that corruption is also at the core of the coup leaders.

What you are saying is that you support whoever has the most guns and is willing to use them.

I hope you are correct.

Why do you think Fox paid almost $800 million dollars?

"I disagree, the USA will be brainwashed without him. He told stuff lies that CNN certainly wouldn't mention." Fixed if for you. You're welcome.

How can anyone think watching golf is interesting?

1. I assumed you accepted that voters have free will and can vote against Thaksin just as they voted for him. I then explained why they might not choose to do so. Why do you think voters can not vote Thaksin out of office once elected? Do you assume his will be the only name on the ballot? Do you assume he would stage a coup if voted out? In either case he becomes a coup leader, not a democratically elected leader. 2. Yes, but unless you assume voters have no free will, your opinion is ridiculous. In a democracy anyone elected can be voted out in the next election, assuming a next election is allowed. That is a poor assumption in Thailand. 3. Because people who complain about the difficulty (not impossibility) of removing popular elected officials should explain how the alternative available, seizing power at gun point, can be removed from office.

My apologies. I thought I was replying to another poster, one who seems to think that repressing protests is the greatest good a government can achieve. However I do think my post provided context to yours. Thaksin exploited a divide in Thailand, which is what politicians do. However he was not responsible for the divide. Also, for all his many faults, Thaksin did a lot of good. A former student of mine is the child of poor and barely literate parents. She has a Masters degree in Chemistry from Chiang Mai University and a PhD from a university in South Korea. I seriously doubt that her success, and the current success of many Thais her age, would have been possible had Thaksin not be elected. I don't know which party would be best for Thailand's future. I don't think it's Pheu Thai or the PPP. I don't support Thaksin, I oppose those who use or approve of undemocratic methods to prevent the Thai people from choosing their government. BTW: My former student and current friend posted a picture of herself on Facebook going to the Thai Embassy in Seoul to vote. I don't know who she voted for (it's none of my business) but I'm pleased to see that she was excited to vote. I hope many young Thais are also excited, and that their vote is respected.

Good luck to them. Unfortunately the Florida legislature has a history of ignoring or grossly misinterpreting successful ballot initiatives that they don't like.

Excellent point. Had the election been allowed in 2014, when Yingluck, Thaksin and their party were at a low point in popularity, the Shinawatra influence would have been greatly reduced and possibly eliminated. The coup served to make both of them martyrs for democracy.

First and last warning: Don't edit my post down to a single out-of-context sentence when replying. Next time I will report you. Obviously Thaksin could be voted out of office. My full post explained why the voters might choose not to do so. You neglected to explain how coup leaders can be removed from office.

The post stated that corrupt leaders can be voted out. Not that they will be voted out. If the corrupt elected leaders manage to improve the lives of the majority they can be re-elected for so long as they continue to do so. With the gross inequity in Thailand, especially before Thaksin, there were many ways to improve lives without making corruption a priority. Since corruption needs to be rooted out starting at the top, and the corrupt elites are at the top and can stage coups, it makes sense to not emphasize corruption initially but instead to improve infrastructure and opportunities for the majority. That is how democracy is sufficiently entrenched to make coups difficult. That is what Thaksin did. Now explain how corrupt coup leaders can be kicked out.

So many people post that. None of them give evidence of the vote buying. Although even if you can prove that elections were decided by vote buying (you can't), that is still preferable to seizing power at gunpoint.

From your source: "While the rural population had more than enough to eat, their economic opportunities and upward mobility were limited by a shoddy education system and docile state-run media that fed them soap operas and official messages. For a nobody to become a somebody, all roads led to Bangkok and its prestigious prep schools and universities. Thailand's farms became increasingly alienated from the urban elite. Thaksin recognised this urban-rural divide and shrewdly exploited it, upending the elite consensus that had long prevailed." Of course the problem was more than just poor schools and television, and that the "prestigious prep schools and universities" were denied to the children who went to these poor schools. While Bangkok was building a first world Sky Train there were children in the north dying of polio because their parents couldn't get them to a clinic for vaccinations. Thailand was the Bangkok Empire, and the provinces existed solely for the glory of Bangkok. Bangkok was wealthy, the rest of the country was poor and denied the opportunity to improve their lot, and the Bangkok elite were content with this. Thaksin's "crime" was in demonstrating that in a democracy the government could serve all the people, not just the elites. The elites crime was and is in rejecting a democracy that serves the majority. Yes, Thaksin was corrupt and enriched himself, but no more than the unelected autocrats that came before and after him. However he actually improved the lot of the majority, while the autocrats were primarily concerned with keeping them in-line, using military force to accomplish this. The autocrats haven't changed. Perhaps Thaksin hasn't changed either, but I don't presume to know. However the voters are much better informed than before and eager to choose Thailand's leaders democratically. If the elites continue to deny them this right, either by military force or using a compliant judiciary, the country will blow up. You seem primarily concerned with keeping the country peaceful. If you want that, you should support democracy, not autocracy.

How is your condescending opinion of the Thai people an argument for or against any candidate?

So the all-knowing OneMoreFarang knows what Thaksin intends, why Prayut is better, and what is best for the Thai people. Is that your argument against democracy and elections?

While it's not for you or me to tell the Thai people how to vote, I suspect their standards don't quite meet up to your illustrious ideals because they have lived their entire lives in an endemically corrupt country ruled by the corrupt elites and military. Why do you think corrupt military rule is going to change that?

Really? You think that a barricade thrown up using tires and bamboo is something that requires great organization and engineering skills? Nice that you didn't dispute my point about Thaksin improving the lives of the majority of Thais. Too bad the elites don't do that; they wouldn't have to resort to coups if they did.

democracy dĭ-mŏk′rə-sē noun Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. A political or social unit that has such a government. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. The above is an acceptable definition of democracy. Do you maintain that Thailand has that?

"Which part is so difficult to understand that if you vote for corrupt crooks then you will have corrupt crooks as your leaders who do what corrupt crooks do. A hint: They don't do what is good for the people." And yet Thaksin did enough for the neglected majority of Thais--roads, schools, clinics in the north and northeast--to be unstoppable in elections. That's why the Bangkok elites resorted the coups to retain power. Better elected crooks than corrupt military government. The elected crooks can be voted out. As this topic suggests, the unelected crooks find ways to avoid that.

I agree the Suthep led protests against elections and democracy seemed well organized and well financed. The redshirt protests not so much. Regarding Thais not having much interest in protests, that's your Bangkok-centric view. Try living in the provinces where the majority of Thais live and see how they react to being denied democracy.

You don't have to spell it out for us, you have repeatedly made it very clear. You think that the Thai people shouldn't have democracy unless they vote the way you want them to vote. You think the same way as Prayut and the elites, and your thinking isn't about democracy.

"I liked and still like especially that is it quiet on the streets. No red-shirts, not fires, no no-go-zones in the middle of the city." The lesson most people read from Thailand's recent history is that repressing democracy and overturning legitimate elections leads to protests. The lesson you learned is that repression works. From the full article: "It is clear that should one or both parties get dissolved, massive street protests will likely occur. The student protests that grew during Covid were started because of the dissolution of the Future Forward Party. The protesters called for the resignation of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his administration, accusing them of suppressing freedom of speech and violating human rights." "If another dissolution occurs, one can expect protests to be even larger in scale."