15 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Unwilling.

 

Not only is it taking the topic off at a tangent and therefore likely to be deleted, but the reasons for you taking us on this merry tour down memory lane is not out of a genuine and sincere interest, rather part of a game in which you feign ignorance of certain things.... things like million baht defamation suits.

 

Helpful hint 1: No, i don't ascribe underhand tactics being used to undermine political opponents, such as defamation suits, exclusively to one politician. 

 

Helpful hint 2: Rather than getting carried away with what certain carefully chosen academics tell you, try thinking for yourself and remember that at the end of the day, this isn't a scientific field. Nobody, no matter how many post-nominal letters they have after their name, can categorically declare that vote buying either does or doesn't work. It's simply not possible to draw such a binary conclusion.

Unwilling by your admission but I suspect unable also.Comically you fix on the one element, vote buying, that has been completely discredited by all available research as a relevant factor.Interestingly Korn Chatikavanij quite recently also made very clear this hasn't been an important issue in elections for decades.

 

Don't try that "carefully chosen academics" line with the suggestion I've been sifting the evidence to suit my purposes.The evidence is overwhelming.If you disagree just name say two serious sources that differ - but we know in advance you won't/can't.

 

It's always amusing to be told one should think for oneself by someone who has a record of deeply ingrained prejudice and clearly simply hasn't bothered to research the easily accessible background information.

32 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Unwilling by your admission but I suspect unable also.Comically you fix on the one element, vote buying, that has been completely discredited by all available research as a relevant factor.Interestingly Korn Chatikavanij quite recently also made very clear this hasn't been an important issue in elections for decades.

 

Don't try that "carefully chosen academics" line with the suggestion I've been sifting the evidence to suit my purposes.The evidence is overwhelming.If you disagree just name say two serious sources that differ - but we know in advance you won't/can't.

 

It's always amusing to be told one should think for oneself by someone who has a record of deeply ingrained prejudice and clearly simply hasn't bothered to research the easily accessible background information.

I didn't fix on one element, and certainly not the element you mention above. You boast of having studied Thai politics "intensely" for the last 30 years, but i fear it may have been time wasted if your reading skills on display today are anything to go by. Try reading a little more slowly perhaps?

 

The example that i begrudgingly gave, and that you conveniently failed to read, was defamation lawsuits. The reason why i was unwilling to give that example, or indeed any others, besides the fact that they are bleedingly obvious to even the most sluggish of students, is, as i have already said, because it is way off topic. But perhaps that is something else you failed to read.

Actually you did drone on (somewhat tendentiously) about vote buying.... but let that pass.

 

As to defamation (and libel) lawsuits I'm well aware of the history in Thailand on all sides.In many cases (not all as with those directed at the provocateur Sondhi Limthongkul) these were over the top and unnecessary.But I don't think they intimidated the political opposition, specifically the Democratic Party.Abhisit got a few in of his own.

 

Probably best you now retire to lick your wounds and I certainly agree this exchange has veered off topic.

9 minutes ago, jayboy said:

As to defamation (and libel) lawsuits I'm well aware of the history in Thailand on all sides.In many cases (not all as with those directed at the provocateur Sondhi Limthongkul) these were over the top and unnecessary.But I don't think they intimidated the political opposition, specifically the Democratic Party.Abhisit got a few in of his own.

Ah well then, if you don't think it happened, i'm sure it can't have.

47 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Ah well then, if you don't think it happened, i'm sure it can't have.

Has to be what I think because by definition whether intimidation worked or not is a subjective proposition - not a fact.You take a different view, but again it has to be subjective.

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

Has to be what I think because by definition whether intimidation worked or not is a subjective proposition - not a fact.You take a different view, but again it has to be subjective.

Correct, it's subjective.

 

You believe that people waste time on intimidation tactics that don't intimidate, just as you believe people waste money on vote-buying that doesn't buy votes. Yes, i take a different view. One that doesn't see things in such black and white terms.

 

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Correct, it's subjective.

 

You believe that people waste time on intimidation tactics that don't intimidate, just as you believe people waste money on vote-buying that doesn't buy votes. Yes, i take a different view. One that doesn't see things in such black and white terms.

 

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.Leaving aside the nonsense in your last post, if you are suggesting that the electoral dominance of one party (and one individual) is unhealthy I would agree with you.Getting democracy right is hard work, a muddled business - but worth striving for.

31 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.Leaving aside the nonsense in your last post, if you are suggesting that the electoral dominance of one party (and one individual) is unhealthy I would agree with you.Getting democracy right is hard work, a muddled business - but worth striving for.

If you want to talk about embarrassing, try that "leaving aside" side-step of yours above.

 

Suggest you try another 30 years of intense studying and see if that helps.

Comic.  I guess we will see Prayut jailed for the gold mine closure 

As he laughs from his cat box in Dubai.

Silly, silly stuff. Shows how not serious this administration is. This arrest warrant is worth as much as the same one issued for the Red Bull heir. Nothing. Meaningless. Another move in the ongoing charade, of "we really care about the people, and the future of the nation". Nothing could be further from the truth. 

 

The reality is, having Thaksin come back to Thailand to face charges would be the army's worst nightmare. Little P. is scared to death of that outcome. 

On 07/03/2018 at 8:37 AM, Anak Nakal said:

Thaksin is smarter than Prayut. That's all.

That overused adjective again

 

 

51 minutes ago, Mexlark said:

That overused adjective again

 

 

Whilst it possibly, no probably, is an "overused" adjective it's rather difficult if not impossible to make a case for suggest that any of the leading lights of the junta are"smarter" than Thaksin!

On ‎07‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 6:07 AM, tifino said:

at least the political refugee is welcome to stay safe, wherever else in the world he wants!

... because he's welcomed to...

Nothing to do with politic but with corruption and greed

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Whilst it possibly, no probably, is an "overused" adjective it's rather difficult if not impossible to make a case for suggest that any of the leading lights of the junta are"smarter" than Thaksin!

I wouldn't bother to waste my time trying, as I'm inclined to think that both sides are as dumb as a row of rocks.