Pro-election rallies to intensify against proposed delay to election

[billd766]

46 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Somehow you always like to get into the faces of posters who have different opinion than yours. You have steered so far off course to my post which meant to be a meaningful debate on semantic. It may help you to goggle examples of kleptocracy countries and see if Thailand is quoted. But as a corrupt country, Thailand stand out tall and proud. 

I did a Google search for kleptocracy countries and these 3 links are from over about 141,000 results (0.89 seconds) 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/09/world/most-corrupt-countries-list.html

 

https://integritas360.org/2016/07/10-most-corrupt-world-leaders/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

 

Political corruption

Concepts

Bribery

Cronyism

Kleptocracy

Economics of corruption

Electoral fraud

Legal plunder

Nepotism

Slush fund

Political scandal

 

Corruption by country

Africa

Angola

Botswana

Cameroon

Congo

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Ghana

Guinea-Bissau

Kenya

Liberia

Mauritius

Morocco

Nigeria

Senegal

Somalia

South Africa

South Sudan

Sudan

Tanzania

Tunisia

Uganda

Zambia

Zimbabwe

 

Asia

Afghanistan

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Cambodia

China

Cyprus

Georgia

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Malaysia

Myanmar

North Korea

Pakistan

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Sri Lanka

Tajikistan

Thailand

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Yemen

 

Europe

Albania

Austria

Belgium

Bosnia

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Kosovo

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Moldova

Montenegro

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Serbia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Ukraine

 

North America

Canada

Cuba

Haiti

Mexico

Nicaragua

United States

 

Oceania

Australia

New Zealand

Papua New Guinea

 

South America

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

Chile

Colombia

Ecuador

Paraguay

Peru

Venezuela

 

 

[JCauto]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

The difference between you and me is that I am not rigid in my opinion and can change. I changed, you however don't seem to want to accept that Thailand is a kleptocracy not a democracy.

 

The Thai people indeed should sort this out by electing good people only then can the country move on. If they select non corrupt people who make laws combating corruption the army wont step in as there is no money to be made in goverment and bad people don't want to be in goverment for the same reason. As long as its so easy to be corrupt here there is too much money at stake for the losers to accept it. This a fact and only the Thais can change this.

 

 

No, the difference is that my opinion has been confirmed by the events whereas yours has been proven wrong over and over again, and finally you've come to realize this but only to a small extent. I have stated numerous times that the democratically elected governments have, without exception, been kleptocratic. You could search my entire history on this site and elsewhere and nowhere would you find me asserting anything different. However, I have ALWAYS said that the Kleptocrats are, indeed, democratically elected and that reflects the genuine will and desire of the majority of the Thai population. They have legitimacy, no matter how badly they behave when in office. This, and this alone, is the important point. When your only option is kleptocrats, then you should absolutely support elected kleptocrats over non-elected ones. It is only by accepting democracy for good and bad, and abhorring coup d'etats, whether good or bad, that the situation might develop where your good people start entering politics and trying to change things.

 

Your second paragraph is laughable in its naivety. It's so beyond the possibility of truth that all of your previous views are invalidated as being those of someone living in an alternative reality. Why would the Army, whom you KNOW are as corrupt as any elected government, NOT step in to stop someone who appears set on stopping the corruption that enables the Generals to compile massive fortunes and expensive watch collections? They know perfectly well that the slightest examination of the Defense Budget and their own wealth would send them all to jail in your dreamland scenario. The second a "good" person with the magic to solve Thailand's inherent corruption problem appears, so would bullets to magically solve this issue to the satisfaction of the Army and Oligarchs.

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Somehow you always like to get into the faces of posters who have different opinion than yours. You have steered so far off course to my post which meant to be a meaningful debate on semantic. It may help you to goggle examples of kleptocracy countries and see if Thailand is quoted. But as a corrupt country, Thailand stand out tall and proud. 

 

Kleptocracy (from Greek κλέπτης kléptēs, "thief", κλέπτω kléptō, "I steal", and -κρατία -kratía from κράτος krátos, "power, rule") is a government with corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political powers. Typically, this system involves embezzlement of funds at the expense of the wider population

 

Corrupt politicians.... check 

Using their power (check taking money from infrastructure and other stuff like rice programs) check

for personal wealth check

 

Seems to fit the bill well Eric. I like to get up your face not so much others as you keep denying things that are clear. Seems to me taking cuts from infrastructure, and schemes like the rice program that was by design corrupt and many other schemes for personal wealth exactly as described here. You and I just have a long standing debate where you seem to think its acceptable to be corrupt as long as your voted in and call it a democracy. I call it a Kleptocracy and that annoys you because then you can't use the democracy part to show how good your the Shins because it brings them down to the level of thieves just like the junta and all others here in Thailand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

[robblok]

27 minutes ago, JCauto said:

No, the difference is that my opinion has been confirmed by the events whereas yours has been proven wrong over and over again, and finally you've come to realize this but only to a small extent. I have stated numerous times that the democratically elected governments have, without exception, been kleptocratic. You could search my entire history on this site and elsewhere and nowhere would you find me asserting anything different. However, I have ALWAYS said that the Kleptocrats are, indeed, democratically elected and that reflects the genuine will and desire of the majority of the Thai population. They have legitimacy, no matter how badly they behave when in office. This, and this alone, is the important point. When your only option is kleptocrats, then you should absolutely support elected kleptocrats over non-elected ones. It is only by accepting democracy for good and bad, and abhorring coup d'etats, whether good or bad, that the situation might develop where your good people start entering politics and trying to change things.

 

Your second paragraph is laughable in its naivety. It's so beyond the possibility of truth that all of your previous views are invalidated as being those of someone living in an alternative reality. Why would the Army, whom you KNOW are as corrupt as any elected government, NOT step in to stop someone who appears set on stopping the corruption that enables the Generals to compile massive fortunes and expensive watch collections? They know perfectly well that the slightest examination of the Defense Budget and their own wealth would send them all to jail in your dreamland scenario. The second a "good" person with the magic to solve Thailand's inherent corruption problem appears, so would bullets to magically solve this issue to the satisfaction of the Army and Oligarchs.

 

why should one accept Kleptocrats ? They are bad and should be dealt with by the law. By your own admission you seem to support them whereas I do not. My beef has always been with corruption that does not get prosecuted.  I always attacked corruption no matter who committed it. You can go back in my posting history.

 

The army might.. step in but once the changes have been made its too late and they will be brought under control. Now they can still claim they are doing it for the people to stop corruption. At that moment that is no longer possible and resistance will be high because there is finally a good government unlike before. This wont happen soon as there are no real good options. 

 

We will stay in this cycle because like you think I am laughable i think its laughable that you think the losers will ever accept defeat as long as so much money can be made in government. Its all about the money remove it and we can move forward. That is why I don't support Kleptocrats. (does not mean I want to see a corrupt military step in anymore.) But it does mean I don't see them as legit because they are thieves and nothing more then that.

[JCauto]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

why should one accept Kleptocrats ? They are bad and should be dealt with by the law. By your own admission you seem to support them whereas I do not. My beef has always been with corruption that does not get prosecuted.  I always attacked corruption no matter who committed it. You can go back in my posting history.

 

The army might.. step in but once the changes have been made its too late and they will be brought under control. Now they can still claim they are doing it for the people to stop corruption. At that moment that is no longer possible and resistance will be high because there is finally a good government unlike before. This wont happen soon as there are no real good options. 

 

We will stay in this cycle because like you think I am laughable i think its laughable that you think the losers will ever accept defeat as long as so much money can be made in government. Its all about the money remove it and we can move forward. That is why I don't support Kleptocrats. (does not mean I want to see a corrupt military step in anymore.) But it does mean I don't see them as legit because they are thieves and nothing more then that.

For the same reason one should accept that up is up and down is down. When I observe that every government is corrupt whether elected, appointed or installed as the result of a coup d'etat (with the sole exception of the Anand Panyarachun appointed government that was appointed by the King as the result of a failed coup), I conclude that no matter which way it happens, the government will be kleptocratic for the present time. You choose to observe this, but then conclude that there is some magical way for non-Kleptocrats to come into power despite there being no evidence of this. This does not mean I "support" kleptocracy any more than how anyone who witnesses a crime becomes guilty of being an accomplice to that crime. You, on the other hand, by making a choice to "support" something that doesn't exist and offering no clear path to how it might occur, are guilty of wishful and entirely abstract thinking. I find that as useful analytically as discussing the Thai political situation with a two year-old. 

 

"The army might...step in but once the changes have been made its too late and they will be brought under control." Do you even read what you write? How can you not laugh at that? You think the Army requires excuses to take over power and that this is the pre-requisite for a coup? What utter nonsense! 

 

So you support a government that has no budget. Uh, okay. Are you aware of what Government does and how it functions? You know the bureaucrats expect payment for their services, and the infrastructure requires budget, and...why am I arguing with someone who doesn't have logical faculties? I had always found the Dutch to be among the more practical people I've met. I suppose there has to be an exception to every rule. 

 

[Ossy]

35 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is why I don't support Kleptocrats.

Come on, Rob. Adding that to the debate can only imply that other people do support kleptocracy . . . do you know any . . . other than prospective beneficiaries, e.g. contractors, plant and service providers who might well see kleptocrats as their route to a quick buck, too.

 

I believe the debate - that is sadly getting a little heated - is more one of 'why does Thailand always fare badly in the good-to-evil balance?', compared with most other countries, especially democracies, where it is kept at around balancing point by responsible governance that truly tries to eliminate corruption. I suspect that you, Eric and JC would agree my assertion that the incoming NCPO has not only upset the good/evil balance, but has managed to get it to an all-time low, where whatever 'good' there might be, wanting to fight the junta evil, cannot, for fear of King Evil's A44 response.

 

I repeat the question, "Why does Thailand always fare badly in the good-to-evil balance?" . . . Yeh, this sounds more like a fun debate than the ' - - - ocracy' one and equally on topic, too.

[zzaa09]

10 hours ago, neeray said:

This is a 'movement' that will build (I hope). Digital media will speak loud in unison with the people's voices.

Actually, the very strong movement has been steadfast for quite some time now - 

 

Only receiving surface attention within the mainstream establishment media recently. 

[Eligius]

Some posters have said that the breath of fresh political air represented by Thanathorn and his Future Forward Party might not be as bracing as is hoped by many of us. That could well be true. But compared with what Thailand is suffering under now - an unelected military D....Di.....Dinosaurship - there is absolutely  no comparison.

 

Just watch and listen to Thanathorn and see how this young man is in a different stratosphere - intellectually and morally (or so it would seem) - from the scumbags who currently hold the reins of government:

 

[chama]

It sure seems that the Thais have decided to stop this foolishness. How can you lead a country when you can't even get an election conducted? Some fear the protest will give Big P and the Toad all they need to postpone the election indefinitely, which it might, but if this happens the streets could fill with unhappy Thais as discontent continues to build. It may be getting close to time to take cover!

[pornprong]

12 hours ago, robblok said:

why should one accept Kleptocrats ? They are bad and should be dealt with by the law. By your own admission you seem to support them whereas I do not. My beef has always been with corruption that does not get prosecuted.  I always attacked corruption no matter who committed it. You can go back in my posting history.

 

The army might.. step in but once the changes have been made its too late and they will be brought under control. Now they can still claim they are doing it for the people to stop corruption. At that moment that is no longer possible and resistance will be high because there is finally a good government unlike before. This wont happen soon as there are no real good options. 

 

We will stay in this cycle because like you think I am laughable i think its laughable that you think the losers will ever accept defeat as long as so much money can be made in government. Its all about the money remove it and we can move forward. That is why I don't support Kleptocrats. (does not mean I want to see a corrupt military step in anymore.) But it does mean I don't see them as legit because they are thieves and nothing more then that.

Your whole argument is nothing more than cowardly support of the continuation of the Junta's rule.

Every post of yours related to politics is a concoction of logical fallacies all aimed at underhandedly supporting the Junta and denying the Thai people the right to elect their own government of their own choosing.

In nearly every single possible way that the Junta and the previous elected "Thaksin" governments can be compared - the Junta fares worse.

Yet, you only see what you want to see.

It's hysterical.

The things you condemn elected governments for you condone the unelected Junta for.

 

All you arguments are for why Thailand shouldn't return to elected governance.

Repeat.

All your arguments are for why Thailand shouldn't return to elected governance.

 

You are clearly not pro-democracy and are clearly very right leaning in your politics.

So come on already, stop with the nonsense and just embrace it - you are fooling no one.