1 hour ago, Ossy said:

Attaboy, robblok . . . you tell 'im. Your 'analogy' works just fine.

Perhaps robblok has an "ology"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEfKEzX9QLE

 

 

Ah the asslickers ! What promises have been given!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

10 hours ago, boonrawdcnx said:

So they where ousted in a coup because they where corrupt - and now that same bunch of corrupt politicians joins the other bunch of corrupt scoundrels who stole the country from the people by force?

And they all do it to work tirelessly for the country and the Thai people and not to fill their own deep pockets of course.

I see a really bright future ahead for Thailand.

Unless the Thai people finally wake up and stage a Malaysian style protest vote against the thieves who rob their country and vote for the only real choice for change - Future Forward.
If not - they should and will just get what they deserve!





Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Positive intent, yet resistant protest and rebellions have little effect unless the traditional systems and interests are purged and cleansed. Otherwise, any such movements are less than moot.

 

Always cycles back. 

Most don't get it. 

7 hours ago, thaiguzzi said:

Scum.

"Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason."

José Maria de Eca de Quieroz

1 hour ago, seahorse said:

"Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason."

José Maria de Eca de Quieroz

Though, never enacted anywhere.

Same as it ever was - the world over.

Perhaps robblok has an "ology"
 

 
 

No Robblok knows that dropping in a ranking not automatically means that things got worse. It could mean that it did but without absolute scores of Thailand year on year we can't prove it either way.

I have given a few examples to demonstrate that fact how one can drop in a ranking and still have improved the actual score.

I am not claiming anything just saying that a drop in a ranking does not automatically mean a worse score.

So Eric his so called proof means nothing.

I really tried to dumb it down not to be condescending but because i understand that not everyone can interpret data equally well.

Again im not claiming it got better or it got worse all i claim ist that a drop in ranking on its own does not mean a thing. Absolute year on year figures from a country do.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Attempting to dumb down here wouldn't be too much of a strain.....

On 11/16/2018 at 9:06 AM, JAG said:

For the very large numbers who voted for it, and it's predecessors, consistently?

 

Personally, my take is that as a party it was the best bet out of a poor field, but that is just my personal opinion. The point is though, it was consistently and decisively the choice of the Thai people - a choice which the military ( or more accurately those the military answer to) have found it necessary to foil twice (three?) times in the last twenty years. The electorate may have regarded it as a good choice, or merely as the best of a bad bunch, but it looks very likely that an attempt will be made to remove that choice, once again, at the critical point, prior to the election, which will prevent any effective replacement being established. That is, maybe, why these venal creatures are jumping ship?

But unfortunately the owner of PTP was following his own agenda, to create a family political dynasty, in which his family could never be removed from office, would run the country as the own personal economic fiefdom and put themselves above and beyond all laws. Rather like his eternal friend is doing more successfully in Cambodia.

 

The ironic thing is they were using democracy to get in and would then have made sure they couldn't be got out democratically. (See how they reacted when losing some by-elections, governor elections etc).

They even admitted democracy wasn't their goal.

 

 

On 11/16/2018 at 11:54 AM, billd766 said:

quote from the OP. "Thawee  Suraban who had been a Democrat Party MP before defecting to Pheu Thai many years ago, said yesterday that he believed Palang Pracharat would “win substantially” in the South, which has long been a stronghold for the Democrats."

 

And he truly believes that Thai people will vote for even though he deserted from the Democrats to PTP to keep his snout in the trough, and has now deserted the PTP for another party to keep his snout in the trough once again.

 

He seems to have as his personal motto, "pull up the ladder Jack, I'm OK"

 

 

 

You don't seriously think people here vote for the political party whose manifesto and ideology broadly matches their own views, do you? Really.....?

On 11/16/2018 at 5:44 AM, robblok said:

Good point eric NOW with the new election system i agree with you because now its easier for small parties to grow. In the old system it was almost impossible as votes were lost if someone lost a constituency. Now they all count and smaller parties can emerge.

Before it would be almost impossible and the PTP would keep ruling.

So this is a good thing the junta did its a much more democratic system and will give rise to new parties (i know that was not their intention).



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Not really Rob. With the new system, PT would still gain 248 seats if they woud receive the same number of votes. In fact, if they wanted a truly democratic system, they should get rid of the constituenty completely. Because as it stands now, a party that is successful in the constituenty is getting punished for this in the party list votes system. Not democratic at all of course. Why should a vote to party X suddenly count double or triple the vote to another party who happens to be very popular in the constituency. 

 

No wonder a large percentage of the Thai electorate does not understand the new system, it is needlessly convoluted and confusing. The real reason of course is not democracy, but trying to curtail popular political parties, it is without a doubt not democratic at all. 

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

But unfortunately the owner of PTP was following his own agenda, to create a family political dynasty, in which his family could never be removed from office, would run the country as the own personal economic fiefdom and put themselves above and beyond all laws. Rather like his eternal friend is doing more successfully in Cambodia.

 

The ironic thing is they were using democracy to get in and would then have made sure they couldn't be got out democratically. (See how they reacted when losing some by-elections, governor elections etc).

They even admitted democracy wasn't their goal.

 

 

absolutely nothing that you say is supported by relevant facts. What you accuse Thaksin of trying to achieve, was never a reality. It is now, is all that needs to be said. But alas your hatred for Thaksin is seriously clouding your judgement. Not a smart thing to do. 

 

As to the addmitance that "democracy wasn't their goal", this is absolute <deleted>. Use the full quote or nothing at all, this is simply trying to stear the discussion to your end with full out lies. Thaksin never just said democracy isnt my goal. His quote was much more specific. Use that, or refrain from using the quote at all. 

 

What remains is, the facts, he is vastly more democratic than the Junta or people like Suthep, and he has been consistently been the choice of the Thai electorate. Everything else is just trying to hide that simple fact. He has been the consistent choice, and he should have been allowed to complete his terms, without coups or hijacking using banned politicians. No wonder many members of the Thai electorate are angry. 

Edited November 17, 20187 yr by sjaak327

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You don't seriously think people here vote for the political party whose manifesto and ideology broadly matches their own views, do you? Really.....?

Of course they do, don't be silly...

 

You probably know precious few Thai people.

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

As to the addmitance that "democracy wasn't their goal", this is absolute <deleted>. Use the full quote or nothing at all, this is simply trying to stear the discussion to your end with full out lies. Thaksin never just said democracy isnt my goal. His quote was much more specific. Use that, or refrain from using the quote at all. 

I've tried to get people to use the full quote several times, Sjaak. They won't. The meme is so firmly lodged that brain surgery would be the only thing that could remove it.

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You don't seriously think people here vote for the political party whose manifesto and ideology broadly matches their own views, do you? Really.....?

When they are allowed to vote they most certainly do.

On 11/16/2018 at 3:23 PM, AJBangkok said:

Trojan horse strategy maybe 

I was thinking this and trying to make a witty joke about it, not really thinking it would be true. Maybe you're on to to something though. it would be good if true.  A masterstroke. PT trojan horses destroying their hosts from within. Why not? PT have put together their escape hatch parties. What you suggest could be just a prong of the same strategy.

 

Wishful thinking on my part no doubt but hope springs eternal...

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

But unfortunately the owner of PTP was following his own agenda, to create a family political dynasty, in which his family could never be removed from office, would run the country as the own personal economic fiefdom and put themselves above and beyond all laws. Rather like his eternal friend is doing more successfully in Cambodia.

 

The ironic thing is they were using democracy to get in and would then have made sure they couldn't be got out democratically. (See how they reacted when losing some by-elections, governor elections etc).

They even admitted democracy wasn't their goal.

 

 

Solid statement, Boxer, that should be universally recognized - yet, it isn't. 

Even more unrecognizable might be the steadfast familial political and economic dynasty that has gone subliminally unnoticed for quite some time. This same lineage has never advocated the base ideals of a democratic state nor encouraged any deep associations to pursue soft lofty existences - 

 

....and all has little to do with surface political party presence or outsider involvement, yet perpetuates the long scheming theatre to create an appearance that benefits the population - underhanded falsehoods. 

 

The game is played quite well by all participants of interest.

Even intelligent observers are fooled.

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You don't seriously think people here vote for the political party whose manifesto and ideology broadly matches their own views, do you? Really.....?

Don't you, and if not, why not?

 

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

But unfortunately the owner of PTP was following his own agenda, to create a family political dynasty, in which his family could never be removed from office, would run the country as the own personal economic fiefdom and put themselves above and beyond all laws. Rather like his eternal friend is doing more successfully in Cambodia.

 

The ironic thing is they were using democracy to get in and would then have made sure they couldn't be got out democratically. (See how they reacted when losing some by-elections, governor elections etc).

They even admitted democracy wasn't their goal.

 

 

 

Just like the current lot then.

 

But at least Thaksin tried to do it legally and not take power at the point of a gun.

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

Of course they do, don't be silly...

 

You probably know precious few Thai people.

More than likely commonplace among TVF members......

 

????

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

But unfortunately the owner of PTP was following his own agenda, to create a family political dynasty, in which his family could never be removed from office, would run the country as the own personal economic fiefdom and put themselves above and beyond all laws. Rather like his eternal friend is doing more successfully in Cambodia.

 

The ironic thing is they were using democracy to get in and would then have made sure they couldn't be got out democratically. (See how they reacted when losing some by-elections, governor elections etc).

They even admitted democracy wasn't their goal.

 

 

Of course, he was following his own agenda - everyone does, in politics or in any other field of life. As for the dynasty, he nominated Yingluck as his successor and clone. It was universally decried at the time as a silly move but it worked. Thaksin thinks, Pheua Thai acts. It's quite common to have dynasties in electoral politics, particularly in Asia, but also in other countries - Bushes, Clintons, Kennedies for example. But what evidence do you propose that he was planning stuff that meant he could "never" be removed? I think that all politicians react negatively to losing by-elections (there is only one election for governor - Bangkok - so I'm not sure what you mean here. This should be changed by the way and the Democrats have suggested decentralization and votes for governorship everywhere - a good thing in my opinion). So he criticized his opponents - did he shoot or imprison them or in some other way prevent them from taking up their positions? I know he said at one stage that Thai Rak Thai would be in power for 20 years. But he never said that would be because they would not hold elections. All politicians want power. If you  can get it by legitimate means, good luck to you

 

The important thing your post points out is that he did lose by-elections. While there were elections, a dissatisfied populace could always get rid of him. Even if he thought he was indispensable and creating a dynasty.

 

As for "Democracy is not my goal" please look up the original quote as Sjaak suggests on this thread. I have supplied it on another thread as well. It is not difficult to find. If you continue to use this meme without any concession to the original, it implies ignorance or wilful distortion. Unless you can honestly argue that the original quote means simply "Democracy is not my goal". I find that to be a perverse interpretation but maybe you can convince me.

 

None of this is meant to imply that Thaksin was animated by a profoundly democratic spirit - he wasn't -or that he was not motivated by authoritarian yearnings - he was. Or that he was not corrupt - he was that too. But he played electoral politics more or less within the rules - because he kept winning. We will never find out what might have happened if he had lost because he didn't. Sadly, I think. The best antidote to Thaksinism and the best way to progress would have been a legitimate electoral defeat to a party that had though about what had made him successful and what pitch they could make to the Thai electorate that would recognize that success and outbid him on it.

 

 

The great tragedy of Thai politics is that this was never allowed to happen. 

Edited November 17, 20187 yr by tomta

Not really Rob. With the new system, PT would still gain 248 seats if they woud receive the same number of votes. In fact, if they wanted a truly democratic system, they should get rid of the constituenty completely. Because as it stands now, a party that is successful in the constituenty is getting punished for this in the party list votes system. Not democratic at all of course. Why should a vote to party X suddenly count double or triple the vote to another party who happens to be very popular in the constituency. 
 
No wonder a large percentage of the Thai electorate does not understand the new system, it is needlessly convoluted and confusing. The real reason of course is not democracy, but trying to curtail popular political parties, it is without a doubt not democratic at all. 

Yes they would still gain quite a few seats BUT now votes are not lost if someone loses a constituency. Before those votes were lost a system that favoured big parties.

Now all small parties can combine votes from several lost constituencies and still get seats.

That is a big difference and can help a lot. I know it was not their intention i said that already.

New parties are the way forward the old parties junta included have shown they are only in it for themselves. With fresh parties things might change.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

45 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Even more unrecognizable might be the steadfast familial political and economic dynasty that has gone subliminally unnoticed for quite some time. This same lineage has never advocated the base ideals of a democratic state nor encouraged any deep associations to pursue soft lofty existences - 

It has not gone unnoticed. It  has  just gone uncommented on - for the most part. The reasons are obvious.

 

Although I do notice that a woodenly acted, clunky US network political soapie has chosen to use it as a plot device. Interesting to see what comes of this.

Yes they would still gain quite a few seats BUT now votes are not lost if someone loses a constituency. Before those votes were lost a system that favoured big parties.

Now all small parties can combine votes from several lost constituencies and still get seats.

That is a big difference and can help a lot. I know it was not their intention i said that already.

New parties are the way forward the old parties junta included have shown they are only in it for themselves. With fresh parties things might change.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

It is up to the electorate to decide what the way forward is. New parties does not suddenly mean other politicians. Votes are being thrown away or count less, in fact this system is worse then the old system. Smaller parties are not helped with this, they still need to attain a certain amount of votes to make it into parliament.

The system is designed to help the biggest opposition party to get more seats.

Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk