MikeandDow

48 minutes ago, h90 said:

you would need to mark the ballots also, else you wouldn't know who voted what. You need to do that for the vote buying payment.

(recall the MPs locked in the hotel when they got paid to vote for Abhisit, but as it was a small majority, Thaksins wife tried to buy a few out with more money....)

You must dream of Thaksin becuase i have not seen a post with out you bring him up

the goverment already knows how to conduct secret ballots

35 minutes ago, h90 said:

I hope it is something not radical that destroys Thailand......

Why do all the news papers call it a coalition because according to you there is no coalition as it has not been voted for

He is doing what is expected of him as 2nd in comand of the coalition.

that will be some grilling of pita i bet !!! wish it could be on tv

39 minutes ago, h90 said:

lets see what happens and who get PM.....there will be a compromise....

Do you have a crystal  ball  how can you say that "there will be a Compromise" you should say There MIGHT be a compromise, unless you know something the rest dont know

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Provide sources for your claims.  That's what credible posters do.

 

Trolls post lots of claims and tell everyone who questions them to do their own research.

i am not giving you anything so just go away

told you not claiming anything just the facts 

1 minute ago, bannork said:

Prayuth could have used the 1959 constitution if the public rejected the 2017 one 

Wikipedia -

A temporary charter was promulgated in February 1959 and remained in place for nine years, even after Sarit's death in 1964. The charter has been called "perhaps the most repressive in Thailand's history."^[19] It granted the premier near absolute power, including the authority to order summary executions.^[26] It banned political parties and called for an appointed unicameral parliament, consisting of 240 mostly military appointees.^[19] It contained only 20 articles, making it the shortest charter in Thai history.

 

 

he might have. but they still had a choice  good or bad  that is my point  Thai's are apathetic they voted for. this the outcome is the possibility of a crippled and unstable civilian government dictated to by a band of unelected elites. Under the 2017 Constitution, Thailand’s political future does not look promising.

21 minutes ago, bannork said:

If they did not vote for the 2017 Constitution, Prayuth was going to impose an older, likely a more repressive constitution.

Where is the choice in this devil or the deep blue sea alternatives? 

A more repressive constitution ????  i am afraid the only on i can think of is 2017, The 2017 Constitution limits the next government’s ability to formulate its own policy, as it has already provided a list of preferred policy choices. Chapters on the Duty of the State and the Basic Policy Guidelines address a wide range of topics, from religion to national security, from education to environment, from Thai traditional medicine to satellite frequency. Formerly, these used to be policy guidelines with no legal authority. Now these government duties are enforceable in the courts. this is just an example of repressive constitution.

A new government will navigate the roadblocks put in front it by the 2017 Constitution. After a year-long barrage of propaganda, the outcome is the possibility of a crippled and unstable civilian government dictated to by a band of unelected elites. Under the 2017 Constitution, Thailand’s political future does not look promising.

there has been 20 constitution

this is happing now and the Thai's voted this in

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Then you will have no problem providing a link.  That's what credible posters do when they make a claim.

 

You might also explain why anyone would trust the general who promised there would be no coup.

 

Correction:  He promised "this is not a coup".  ????  https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5734782/thai-coup-not-coup-prayuth-video

no google your own reseach,  have give you plenty of clues  get off ur laze backside i am not making any claim  just stating facts

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

They had a Hobson's choice:

Vote for the 2017 Constitution with no public criticism/ debate allowed of its contents..

Reject or not vote for the 2017 Constitution and then an unknown previous constitution would be imposed.

That's not a genuine choice, the public have no input/ say in the constitution .

 

I really understand what you are saying, but i were Thai  and i had the same choice  i would NOT vote  a previous one is better as none of them hobble thailand as the junta one  and i dont think thailand would be in the mess as it is

I totally agree the thai people should have had there input

but again good or bad  they had a choice

17 minutes ago, bannork said:

From Wikipedia

National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) unveiled a draft constitution on 29 March 2016.[65] In the run-up to the 7 August 2016 referendum on the new constitution, the army conducted a "grassroots information campaign." There was no debate permitted on its merits.[66] Under the junta's rules, "people who propagate information deemed distorted, violent, aggressive, inciting or threatening so that voters do not vote or vote in a particular way" faced up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to 200,000 baht.[67] The 105-page, 279-article constitution[2][3] was approved by 61.4 percent of Thai voters on 7 August 2016 with 59.4 percent of the public

yes i know this  i can google    40 %of the people did not vote they made a choice  if  the rest did Not vote !!! it called Passive resistance but this did not happen therefore i have no sympathy  they voted this in by choice

3 minutes ago, bannork said:

Let me help you 

"The government had previously made a new constitution a prerequisite for a general election, but Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said a vote would go ahead in mid-2017, even if it had to be held under an old constitution.' 

I've told you this before.

Prayuth threatened to use an old constitution if the 2017 one did not pass 

He didn't specify which one but as a junta leader he would obviously choose one benefitting an authoritarian government.

The people had no choice in 2017.

 

 

dont need your help thanks

The government had previously made a new constitution a prerequisite for a general election, but Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said a vote would go ahead in mid-2017, even if it had to be held under an old constitution.' 

I've told you this before.

Prayuth threatened to use an old constitution if the 2017 one did not pass 

He didn't specify which one but as a junta leader he would obviously choose one benefitting an authoritarian government.

i agree with this

The people had no choice (dont agree, why did they go vote they had a choice )

1 minute ago, bannork said:

It was illegal for the population to debate the constitution ratified by the junta after seizing power in 2114.

It was illegal for political parties to debate the 2017 constitution.

The generals having finally managed to convince the majority of Thais to overlook the democratic activists who opposed its “democratic” roadmap.

there were  people opposed to the 2017 draft  so i would say illegal or not people where debating it

oh !! is another junta seizing power in the future 2114 you say ???

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I did.  I've encountered this before.  People post that Prayuth promised something but no one can find any record of it.

its like leading a dog to water  do you need me to show you how to use google  trying to help you

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I did.  I've encountered this before.  People post that Prayuth promised something but no one can find any record of it.

do you know how to google   because iam look at the article right now

you want another clue By Pracha Hariraksapitak

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What was the alternative given to the people? 

 

When did Prayuth say there would be an election in 2017 if the draft constitution did not pass?  What kind of election would it have been?  How could anyone trust the word of Prayuth?

do your own research  iam  not google

 i will give u a clue January 26

1 minute ago, bannork said:

And who would choose the constitution to revert to, and how many more years down the road? 

The junta 

the point is the  thai's had a choice,  they where lead like sheep,  Thais voted in favour of the junta-backed constitution draft that would later would become the 2017 Constitution.The referendum marked a victory for the National Council of Peace and Order the generals having finally managed to convince the majority of Thais to overlook the democratic activists who opposed its “democratic” roadmap.

so dont tell me It was forbidden to criticise,

how may constution have been witten 20 constitutions since the overthrow,

does not take long to rewirte a charter or constitution

Payut said Thailand will hold a general election in 2017 even if a draft constitution does not pass a referendum this year,

so dont say they had no choice

37 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Interesting headline. "judgement day". This judgement is dependant on 250 senators planted by the junta. This is not even close to democracy. The Thai population has already passed their judgement through the ballot box. This is not judgement day for Pita. It's judgement day for the future of Thailand and it's people. The very people who want the military OUT and Thailand to move foward and develop and not be dictated to by the military and minority conservative royalists. The people have spoken and the election results are overwhelmingly for change.

Can not see the point of the election if 250 senators can stop the leader of the winning party for being PM, that is not democratic and goes against the people  further more i would say its treason.

21 minutes ago, bannork said:

It was a Hobson's choice for Gawd's sake. After the coup, the junta wrote a constitution in 2015 which their own council rejected.  It was forbidden to criticise the 2017 constitution, if the public rejected it, who knows how many more years before a third would be written? 

All the while, the junta remained in power, using their ' emergency ' constitution post coup.

The public had no choice.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34149523

think you are the one who is clueless

13 minutes ago, bannork said:

It was a Hobson's choice for Gawd's sake. After the coup, the junta wrote a constitution in 2015 which their own council rejected.  It was forbidden to criticise the 2017 constitution, if the public rejected it, who knows how many more years before a third would be written? 

All the while, the junta remained in power, using their ' emergency ' constitution post coup.

The public had no choice.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34149523

see you picked note worthy newspaper full of bull   taking about bull so is your post the people did have a choice accept this 2017 constution or revert back to a old constution     you need to do research before you spout bull

11 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Clueless. 

good job i dont care what you say

13 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

It was a rigged vote.

 

What percentage of Thais do you think want the <deleted>ty junta constitution replaced?

dont care if later they say it was rigged cry after spilt milk,  they had a choice same as the present election lots of people did Not vote I have no  sympathy, thais are apathetic,  they get what is given, they have a chance but again way toooooo lazy to bother about it

1 minute ago, Denim said:

Exactly. When I first came here back in 1979 they were doing this and today they still are.

 

Only one thing has changed.

 

Back then Chiang Mai was way way smaller than it is today and there wasn't a fraction of the traffic. Now , compounding the forest fires is all the increasing pollution created by the traffic and more industrialised nature of the city.

 

I'd lay a bet that 2 years from now it will still be a problem but who will take that bet ?

only a fool would take that bet

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

It is a Thai problem, so why are you getting upset. There is nothing that you can do about it anyway.

not getting upset far from it and totally agree Thai problem but thais are so apathetic nothing will happen