Anti-Yingluck activists to face prosecutors

[Denim]

10 hours ago, nikmar said:

Aye. Very true. There is no one who can take the moral high ground.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

The moral high ground in Thai politics is lower than the shores of the Dead Sea in which there is almost no life save but a few species of crustacea.

[halloween]

18 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I find this to be a fascinating story. I find it fascinating not for it's content, but for the fact not a single post even remotely feels that the story is true or that the people mentioned will actually be prosecuted. Not a single one (at the time of writing).

 

This story epitomizes why I (and I assume others, but they can speak for themselves) tend to lean in favour of the "Red" side over the "Yellows" side. I think the most important thing to begin with is that it doesn't matter what I think as I don't get a vote or even participate in Thai politics. However, for the sake of argument...

 

I fully agree with the vast majority of negative views regarding the 'Reds'; they are arrogant, sleazy, duplicitous, power-happy, arrogant, two-faced, arrogant, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. I really can't argue much with any of it; I think it is all basically true. Yet, I still think they are better than the 'Yellows'.

 

Why?

 

Good question.

 

The best analogy that I can come up with is to compare Thai politics to a football (soccer) game. The Reds, as a team, take dives all the time, they yell at the Refs, they kick the opposing players in the groin the second that they think they can get away with it, they bitch and whine over every call made against them, they use every last minute detail of the rules to try to seek advantage for their side, they mouth off to their opponents throughout the entire game (and nothing less than the most vulgar, offensive things possible). In short, they are a team that is oh so easy to hate, and to hate with a good reason. And to hate with a passion. But they play inside the rules (barely) because they have to.

 

The 'Yellows', on the other hand, cheat. They bribe the Ref and/or change the rules to give themselves an advantage when they cannot win cleanly or fairly. They don't work hard to use the rules in their favour; if they are not benefiting from the rules, they change them. If a game is going to go badly, they boycott the game and take their ball home. If they know they will lose, they block the game and say that it never happened. And 'their' Ref agrees with them.

 

Which is worse? To me, the cheating is worse. 

 

For all their many, many faults, I prefer those who play the game by the rules over those who change the rules for their benefit.

 

Thoughts?

 

Which rule allows random shootings of the opposition (and bystanders), and the use of explosive devices in urban areas? The overwhelming majority of lethal political violence has been carried out by the reds at the urging of the UDD - but apparently that is within your "rules".

Edited January 13, 2018 by halloween

[Bob12345]

18 hours ago, robblok said:

So you accept too that the reds are the more violent of the two. [...]

 

As for your excuses... it never excuses violence in my book.  (your excuses also count for the poor yellows)

I'll post it again as my previous comment was deleted because there was a p.s. in there that referred to the 2010 protests.

 

What stood out for me was that I asked you WHY the reds behaved more violently and instead you only read that i agree THAT the reds are more violent.

 

So again, why do you think the reds show more violence?

That also implies the question why the yellows show less violent behavior.

 

 

In my opinion it has a lot to do with the options they have (which does not mean I condone what they are doing).

 

When the yellow side does not agree with how the country is being run, or when they get angry they lost an election, they can:

- employ their army to do a coup

- get a judge to make a ruling to disband the government

- get the NACC to find dirt on the politicians (something they can always find)

- get the election commission (or some other puppet group) to announce irregularities and demand a re-election

- go on the streets and protest

- use violence

 

Of all these options it is preferable for everybody to take one of the first 4 routes, while last time they had to go with option 5 which comes at a higher economical price and unfortunately often ends up in option 6.

 

Now when the red side does not agree with how the country is being run, or when they get angry they lost an election, they can:

- go on the streets and protest

- use violence

 

And thats it. They don't have the army backing them, they don't control the judges, they don't have the NACC in their pocket, they are not the puppet masters over the election committee, all they have is millions of "poorer farmers" with useless voting rights.

 

 

It is easy to hate the red side for their protests and violence, but they have very limited options to work with.

Every time they win an election it gets taken away from them and it all starts over again but now with a slightly larger handicap.

And that seems to continue until they finally lose an election; which might be the upcoming election where getting the most votes will mean next to nothing with all the posts stacked with junta-cronies and a 20-year plan in place and empty coffers.

[Samui Bodoh]

14 hours ago, JAG said:

Your premise,  that "The choice isn't exactly a free and informed one " is contradicted by international observers, including ANFREL. Yes, the electoral process here, largely "binary" in nature and returning geographical and political "blocs" lacks the nuances of a modern western system of proportional representation, but it essentially reflected (as was recognised by those observers; and the Thai Election Commission - hardly enthusiasts for "red" government) the wishes of the electorate. Their choice was free. They had a choice, which is rather more than the present regime has offered, or seems likely to. Nor for that matter did Suthep or his backers, during their campaign before the coup, seem to believe that the choice should be available.

 

Taking your point further - you say " I believe Red and Yellow control their own fiefdoms; and control them very well. The reason the Reds win an election is there are more people in their fiefdom. So the Yellows use ways to bypass elections." Is the sentence which I underline, any sort of reason to nullify the election results and hand power to the losers? Elections are won by the side which garners the most votes.

 

I do believe that the choice of the people as expressed in the election is paramount - and my view is confirmed by the conclusion of those international observers that the choice was free. You declare that the electorate were ill-informed, perhaps a more effective campaign by the losing side may have made them "better informed", and changed the result.

 

I'm left with the conclusion that the governments resulting from these several electoral processes are for you unpalatable, and therefore you are prepared to accept that the choice of a majority should be overturned by the military at the behest of a minority, We disagree fundamentally on that point, and probably ever will do...

 

Does that make me a "Democratic Soldier"?

Excellent post.

 

I get so tired of people who claim that Thai elections were rigged and/or unfair. It is simply a case of losers whingeing for their own benefit based on nothing. I have worked for the UN as an Election Advisor (running elections) and as an Election Observer (monitoring elections for fairness) in several countries and can tell you that it is pretty easy to spot cheating. However, the best test is if national and international monitors endorse the elections (in Thailand they did) and if the parties themselves endorse the result (again, in Thailand they did).

 

This idea that Thailand's political and/or geographical blocs are bad in any way is also ludicrous. Virtually every country in the world has regional blocs within their political systems; in the US look at the South for the Republicans and the East and West coasts for the Democrats. In the UK look at northern England for Labour and the SE of England for the Conservatives. Etc. Etc. Etc. Regions in a country tend to vote in a similar fashion; Thailand is no different from virtually any other country in the world (I wish Thai political parties would try to expand their base of support more, but that is a different post).

 

The problem in Thailand is that one side of the political divide seems to think that power is a god given right, so if they can't get it legitimately, they cheat and steal it. The irony is that if the 'Yellow' side had actually followed the system, they likely would have attained power legitimately by now; in almost every democracy the ruling party gets tired and arrogant, then thrown out by the voters. It is counter-factual history so we will never know, but I think the 'Reds' would have been voted out by now if they had been allowed to govern.

 

PS JAG- I hate the PR system of elections. Sometime in the next rainy season let's have a debate about it...

[Bob12345]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Which rule allows random shootings of the opposition (and bystanders), and the use of explosive devices in urban areas? The overwhelming majority of lethal political violence has been carried out by the reds at the urging of the UDD - but apparently that is within your "rules".

You seem to misunderstand how an analogy works.

There isn't really a soccer match going on with rules.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

I get so tired of people who claim that Thai elections were rigged and/or unfair. It is simply a case of losers whingeing for their own benefit based on nothing.

As an aside to this and the rest of your post, I would just like to add -

1. Mrs baboon says she has never been offered money for her vote.

2. I have been with her a couple of times when she did go to vote. Officials were friendly, but insistent I keep a distance from the actual voting area. Now this might have been because of my "See you in Pyongyang" Tshirt, but I doubt it. ()

 

I am just saying that although I have no doubt that a certain amount of cheating and skullduggery goes/went on in these elections, I do not believe it was as commonplace and widespread as some make out.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Bob12345 said:

I'll post it again as my previous comment was deleted because there was a p.s. in there that referred to the 2010 protests.

 

What stood out for me was that I asked you WHY the reds behaved more violently and instead you only read that i agree THAT the reds are more violent.

 

So again, why do you think the reds show more violence?

That also implies the question why the yellows show less violent behavior.

 

 

In my opinion it has a lot to do with the options they have (which does not mean I condone what they are doing).

 

When the yellow side does not agree with how the country is being run, or when they get angry they lost an election, they can:

- employ their army to do a coup

- get a judge to make a ruling to disband the government

- get the NACC to find dirt on the politicians (something they can always find)

- get the election commission (or some other puppet group) to announce irregularities and demand a re-election

- go on the streets and protest

- use violence

 

Of all these options it is preferable for everybody to take one of the first 4 routes, while last time they had to go with option 5 which comes at a higher economical price and unfortunately often ends up in option 6.

 

Now when the red side does not agree with how the country is being run, or when they get angry they lost an election, they can:

- go on the streets and protest

- use violence

 

And thats it. They don't have the army backing them, they don't control the judges, they don't have the NACC in their pocket, they are not the puppet masters over the election committee, all they have is millions of "poorer farmers" with useless voting rights.

 

 

It is easy to hate the red side for their protests and violence, but they have very limited options to work with.

Every time they win an election it gets taken away from them and it all starts over again but now with a slightly larger handicap.

And that seems to continue until they finally lose an election; which might be the upcoming election where getting the most votes will mean next to nothing with all the posts stacked with junta-cronies and a 20-year plan in place and empty coffers.

You and I have a different idea about the WHY i say its because of their leaders, you will see that their speeches are made so their followers get violence. Just look at them listen to them translated and you see. Why do you think rabble rousers like Jattuporn get so high up in the ranks.. because they are good at turning the mob violent.

 

Having less options does not mean that violence is acceptable and if violence were an option it should have been directed at the army or people in power. Not at soft targets like political protesters. That is terrorism. I don't get it how you can excuse terrorism by saying they have less opportunity. You only say its a why .. maybe you not excuse it but think that the explanation cuts it.. now it does not in my book. 

 

They can protest all they want that is normal, but they should just keep it without violence. 

 

I keep saying the nr 1 reason is their leaders and how they rouse their minions. That turns the reds in terrorists (and yes your a terrorist in my book if you attack innocent protesters with grenades and automatic rifles)

 

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Which rule allows random shootings of the opposition (and bystanders), and the use of explosive devices in urban areas? The overwhelming majority of lethal political violence has been carried out by the reds at the urging of the UDD - but apparently that is within your "rules".

As bad as these acts of violence were, could they not be attributed to a few bad apples, or do you find fault with all of those who had cast their vote for the Shinawatres ?   The yellows, up until now, have had full military support and both have failed the Thai people miserably. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

As an aside to this and the rest of your post, I would just like to add -

1. Mrs baboon says she has never been offered money for her vote.

2. I have been with her a couple of times when she did go to vote. Officials were friendly, but insistent I keep a distance from the actual voting area. Now this might have been because of my "See you in Pyongyang" Tshirt, but I doubt it. ()

 

I am just saying that although I have no doubt that a certain amount of cheating and skullduggery goes/went on in these elections, I do not believe it was as commonplace and widespread as some make out.

Strange family of my ex always got money to vote.. Then you get people who say that money does not influence people how to vote.. i don't buy that. If it had no effect no money would be given. Maybe in your wife's case no money needed to be given because the district was well under control and not at risk of losing.

 

That is the whole problem with voting based on districts.. it discards a whole lot of votes and makes it IMHO unfair. I like the Dutch system much more where every vote counts and you can't get stuff like in the US where even if there were more votes on the democrats the republicans still won. Seems to me in a democracy most votes count.

 

I don't know if i would consider the voting in Thailand fair or not it is what it is. The whole system is rotten anyway.  It is quite possible that the money given by red and yellow cancels each-other..but giving money during elections IMHO is fraud. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

As bad as these acts of violence were, could they not be attributed to a few bad apples, or do you find fault with all of those who had cast their vote for the Shinawatres ?   The yellows, up until now, have had full military support and both have failed the Thai people miserably. 

No.. just look at the speeches of the leaders.. they were made to incite people to violence.. the Trad massacre speech that was only cut short after someone realized it was being filmed and could be used against them (l don't believe their explanation).

 

Still its not a majority of people getting violence.. so your bad apples would be all right.. were it not for how the speeches of leaders like Jattuporn and even Thaksin were made to incite violence. If their speeches were more peaceful i would have agreed with your assessment. But this comes from the top down as is evident in their speeches.   (burn down.. bring fuel.. drive over people who are in the way... all are taken from their speeches)

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Strange family of my ex always got money to vote.. Then you get people who say that money does not influence people how to vote.. i don't buy that. If it had no effect no money would be given. Maybe in your wife's case no money needed to be given because the district was well under control and not at risk of losing.

 

That is the whole problem with voting based on districts.. it discards a whole lot of votes and makes it IMHO unfair. I like the Dutch system much more where every vote counts and you can't get stuff like in the US where even if there were more votes on the democrats the republicans still won. Seems to me in a democracy most votes count.

 

I don't know if i would consider the voting in Thailand fair or not it is what it is. The whole system is rotten anyway.  It is quite possible that the money given by red and yellow cancels each-other..but giving money during elections IMHO is fraud. 

Again; I am not saying vote buying did not go on and in the interests of fairness, you could well be correct about our district being safe. Think stick-thin mustachioed angry southern machete wielding farmers and their corpulent, even angrier machete wielding wives...

They are all out at the temple but when they return, I shall ask more of them about vote buying and how safe the seats around here are, and report back...

[robblok]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Again; I am not saying vote buying did not go on and in the interests of fairness, you could well be correct about our district being safe. Think stick-thin mustachioed angry southern machete wielding farmers and their corpulent, even angrier machete wielding wives...

They are all out at the temple but when they return, I shall ask more of them about vote buying and how safe the seats around here are, and report back...

I am sure it goes on, but like you I am not sure it makes a big difference.. maybe the red and yellow money cancels each other out. I just know its a bad practice. 

[yellowboat]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

No.. just look at the speeches of the leaders.. they were made to incite people to violence.. the Trad massacre speech that was only cut short after someone realized it was being filmed and could be used against them (l don't believe their explanation).

 

Still its not a majority of people getting violence.. so your bad apples would be all right.. were it not for how the speeches of leaders like Jattuporn and even Thaksin were made to incite violence. If their speeches were more peaceful i would have agreed with your assessment. But this comes from the top down as is evident in their speeches.   (burn down.. bring fuel.. drive over people who are in the way... all are taken from their speeches)

Violence is wrong, but the army has the ultimate threat of violence, and they do nothing for fairness and go completely unchecked.  They have shut down all avenues debate, public participation and have, to this day, installed military law.  Your condemnation seems to focus on the bad apples who wear red as opposed to any of those who wear green. 

[robblok]

Just now, yellowboat said:

Violence is wrong, but the army has the ultimate threat of violence, and they do nothing for fairness and go completely unchecked.  They have shut down all avenues debate, public participation and have, to this day, installed military law.  Your condemnation seems to focus on the bad apples who wear red as opposed to any of those who wear green. 

Here you have my condemnation of the army.. its wrong there should be elections.  There are too many restrictions going on.. the likes of Prawit with his watches is a disgrace and he (and others) should be investigated for corruption.  Its totally wrong they still don't allow political debate. 

 

Good ? I have no love anymore for the army... but that does not mean I need to have love for the reds.. I can equally condemn the actions of both. 

[Bob12345]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

[...]

 

You and I have a different idea about the WHY i say its because of their leaders, you will see that their speeches are made so their followers get violence. Just look at them listen to them translated and you see. Why do you think rabble rousers like Jattuporn get so high up in the ranks.. because they are good at turning the mob violent.

Yes, and given their options, which i outlined, they either protest or get violent. As there are no other options the red movement sees that the people who achive their goals are the ones who can whip up a crowd to protest and people who can whip up a small group to get violent.

Just as the people who rise on the yellow side are the ones who control the army, control the judges, control the NACC, control the industries, and control other institutions.

The leaders are normally the people who can do the most for the party given their abilities and the options the party has to achive its goals. 

 

Having less options does not mean that violence is acceptable and if violence were an option it should have been directed at the army or people in power. Not at soft targets like political protesters. That is terrorism.

The problem though is that the army and the people in power are about the same people as the people in power control the army.

So you suggest that the small group of red-shirt terrorist go attack an army base? Maybe they can shoot their rifles at a tank or at a fighter jet? The Thai army may be incompetent, but i doubt they will lose from a bunch of farmers with guns. So its a bit more complicated than that.

 

I don't get it how you can excuse terrorism by saying they have less opportunity.

I am not excusing terrorism, I even explicitly stated the opposite. Quote me where I do... 

 

You only say its a why .. maybe you not excuse it but think that the explanation cuts it.. now it does not in my book.

If you understand the why, you can start working towards a solution. Thats why i am more interested in the why question than the finger pointing.

There has been enough finger pointing going on in Thailand, and it did not solve a thing. It even made it worse up to the level where people blindly identify with a color and support everything the leaders tell them. 

Again, in no way am i excusing terrorism. And in no way do i think the explanation cuts it. But looking a bit further than pointing a finger does give an explanation as to why they are doing it. And i can understand some people get so frustrated with it that they go over to actions. But that does not mean I approve of it.

 

They can protest all they want that is normal, but they should just keep it without violence. 

Agree, but protests easily turn violent.

Hell, even honking your car horn when someone cuts you off can lead to a good beating or even death, let alone when 2 large groups of people get opposite each other. It would help if the police would be able to jump in, or the army, but neither does anything unless it directly benefits them (and otherwise the courts decide that the police is not allowed to do anything).

 

I keep saying the nr 1 reason is their leaders and how they rouse their minions. That turns the reds in terrorists (and yes your a terrorist in my book if you attack innocent protesters with grenades and automatic rifles)

Which makes the yellows also terrorists as they also attack innocent protestors with guns, machetes, and automatic rifles (no grenades though, but i do not think you draw the line there).

 

 

To break this cycle they should give the reds the options to fight a fair fight.

Make the NACC independent, make the judiciary system independent, make the army subservient to an elected government, make the election commission independent, and respect the outcomes of an election. Why would they cheat if they believe they have a fair chance within the rules? 

[baboon]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I am sure it goes on, but like you I am not sure it makes a big difference.. maybe the red and yellow money cancels each other out. I just know its a bad practice. 

I stand corrected. Mrs baboon HAS been offered money for her vote. Took it, too.

'And did you vote for them?'

"No."

She says that although round here seems safe-ish yellow territory, there are a lot of reds in yellow shirts, hence the vote buying.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

I stand corrected. Mrs baboon HAS been offered money for her vote. Took it, too.

'And did you vote for them?'

"No."

She says that although round here seems safe-ish yellow territory, there are a lot of reds in yellow shirts, hence the vote buying.

I wonder how things will go this time now that its no longer based on districts but actual votes. Will be interesting to see and NO i don't pretend to know how it will go. I am just curious if this will make a difference.

 

As for the offering of money.. i wonder why its done if its so ineffectual... i mean they give money to x number of people.. if they see Y number of people have voted for them and its a lot lower as the money given to X then they know its useless.. why do it again... or maybe just in case it does convince a few. 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, yellowboat said:

As bad as these acts of violence were, could they not be attributed to a few bad apples, or do you find fault with all of those who had cast their vote for the Shinawatres ?   The yellows, up until now, have had full military support and both have failed the Thai people miserably. 

 

I agree with you but there seem to be a few more bad apples on the red shirt side than the yellow shirt side.

 

Perhaps the UDD should form a political party of their own and the PDRC/PRDC could do the same.

 

That might help thou with Jatuporn, Nattawut and Thida on one side and Suthep plus Phra Issara on the other side the voters may be denied a choice of real candidates to vote for.

[yellowboat]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I agree with you but there seem to be a few more bad apples on the red shirt side than the yellow shirt side.

 

Perhaps the UDD should form a political party of their own and the PDRC/PRDC could do the same.

 

That might help thou with Jatuporn, Nattawut and Thida on one side and Suthep plus Phra Issara on the other side the voters may be denied a choice of real candidates to vote for.

The yellow shirts enjoyed a more genteel facade, as they were backed by the overwhelming killing force of the military and the inept, inbred elites.  Until now, they reaped the benefits of unfairness.   The less educated on the red side used violence to convey their anger, which was wrong.   If the reds can take the high road, the yellows will be left out in the cold, as their leadership has limp wrists and the army, as it would seem, has little use for their collaboration now.

[halloween]

20 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

You seem to misunderstand how an analogy works.

There isn't really a soccer match going on with rules.

I believe the word analogy derives from the Latin for "speaking out of your anus" which accurately describes that defense of the red thugs.

[halloween]

18 hours ago, yellowboat said:

As bad as these acts of violence were, could they not be attributed to a few bad apples, or do you find fault with all of those who had cast their vote for the Shinawatres ?   The yellows, up until now, have had full military support and both have failed the Thai people miserably. 

Their sycophants could ascribe it to a "few bad apples", but only if they ignore the intended production of 'bad apples" and their promotion to leadership. They would also have to ignore the common understanding of 'few".

Edited January 14, 2018 by halloween

[halloween]

17 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Violence is wrong, but the army has the ultimate threat of violence, and they do nothing for fairness and go completely unchecked.  They have shut down all avenues debate, public participation and have, to this day, installed military law.  Your condemnation seems to focus on the bad apples who wear red as opposed to any of those who wear green. 

Do you know the difference between actual violence and your perceived threat of violence? The former produces far more injured and dead.

 

The threat of violence was to those who carry it out, and it has worked remarkably well. While you may not approve that, it is clear the majority of Thais do.

[JAG]

I believe the word analogy derives from the Latin for "speaking out of your anus" which accurately describes that defense of the red thugs.

Umh... The Latin noun for "anus" is "culus", which is most certainly not the root of the English word "anology"...

 

Still, well done for.managing to get your beloved "faecal matter" into a post.

[emoji4]

 

Sent from my KENNY using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Do you know the difference between actual violence and your perceived threat of violence? The former produces far more injured and dead.

 

The threat of violence was to those who carry it out, and it has worked remarkably well. While you may not approve that, it is clear the majority of Thais do.

Wrong.  The majority of Thai voted for the Shinawartes, not to be bullied oafs in green uniforms. 

[yellowboat]

5 hours ago, halloween said:

Their sycophants could ascribe it to a "few bad apples", but only if they ignore the intended production of 'bad apples" and their promotion to leadership. They would also have to ignore the common understanding of 'few".

So the east and north of Thailand are full bad apple.  Those bad apples or, as I like to call them humble Thais, are the only ones that have the ability to win a fair election.  Violence from a depraved people does not change that.  A fair election means less now given the number of army appointed MP's. 

[Eric Loh]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

Do you know the difference between actual violence and your perceived threat of violence? The former produces far more injured and dead.

 

The threat of violence was to those who carry it out, and it has worked remarkably well. While you may not approve that, it is clear the majority of Thais do.

Role of the military is defending the country from external threats. You seem to be unclear on that role. 

[AGareth2]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Role of the military is defending the country from external threats. You seem to be unclear on that role. 

obviously the people are 5th columnists

[Ricardo]

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

Wrong.  The majority of Thai voted for the Shinawartes, not to be bullied oafs in green uniforms. 

 

Agree about the military, but it's a long time (2005) since a majority of people voting (let alone all Thais) voted for the Shinawatras, at the last election (2011) it was 48.41% for Yingluck & PTP, which was the largest single party.

 

Other minor parties then joined a post-election coalition to enable PTP to form the government.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

 

It would be interesting to know, but we never will unfortunately, what PTP & Yingluck would have got in 2014, following the protests over the widespread-amnesty & the rice-scheme fiasco, also the failed school-laptop scheme & other broken promises.

 

Personally I think she would have had a reduced share of the vote, but might still have managed another coalition, after all the minor parties don't care who they support, just so long as they get some of the goodies. Indeed, before the 2011 election Bhumjaithai & Chartthaipattana had pledged to support whichever party won, which isn't IMO quite the same as their supporters having voted for the Shins, although that's what they got.

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Wrong.  The majority of Thai voted for the Shinawartes, not to be bullied oafs in green uniforms. 

 

Wrong again.

 

The majority of Thais did not vote for the Shinawatras,. However they did get more than enough votes, about 48.41%  to get the largest amount of party list seats to give them total victory. The other votes were split across the rest of the parties and under the constitution at the time, even if the PTP did not have an overall majority they would have been given the first chance to come up with an alliance of parties.

 

There is an interesting article on Wikipedia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

 

with the usual blurb and at the bottom of the final results. There was a 75.03% turnout and 27,537,677 valid votes were cast and there were 2,039,694 invalid votes

 

PTP got 12,211,604 and the Democrats got 8,907,140, BJT came 3rd with 3,123,567.

 

There was a possibility that if the Dems, BJT and a couple of other parties got a coalition together they may have been able to form a coalition but it would have been a shaky one at the best of times. A bit like herding cats into straight lines.

 

I don't think that the PTP or whateveer the party may be called will win at the next election but a lot depends on how scattered the votes are and who would be chosen as #1 on the PTP party list to become PM if they win.

 

If the Dems field Abhisit again, IMHO they won't stand that much of a chance. If Suthep enters the election the Dems will stand no chance.

 

[halloween]

19 hours ago, yellowboat said:

So the east and north of Thailand are full bad apple.  Those bad apples or, as I like to call them humble Thais, are the only ones that have the ability to win a fair election.  Violence from a depraved people does not change that.  A fair election means less now given the number of army appointed MP's. 

Your claim, as usual, is ridiculous. My claim was that "bad apples" were produced, by so-called 'democracy' schools and by the incitations to violence of the 'leaders' who were actually mercenary propagandists and agitators.

Try to understand the meaning of majority, then apply it to today rather than some distant election. Then try to explain why the level of violence has fallen, and why the Thai people prefer the "implied threat of violence" to the real thing killing their countrymen.