Plan is to rally parliament behind the people’s will to elect Pita Limjaroenrat as Prime Minister

[stoner]

27 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Plenty threw more than their knickers in 2010. Central World burned down. Large areas of Siam Square and Victory Monument burned down. Asok junction and Lumpini Park area blocked for weeks. Were you even here in 2010?

im sure so many women were involved with that. i went home in 2009 for 10 years so you right i wasn't here. 

 

[MikeandDow]

7 minutes ago, stoner said:

im sure so many women were involved with that. i went home in 2009 for 10 years so you right i wasn't here. 

 

The 2010 Thai political protests were a series of political protests that were organised by the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) (also known as "Red Shirts" in Bangkok, Thailand from 12 March–19 May 2010 against the Democrat Party-led government. The UDD called for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve parliament and hold elections earlier than the end of term elections scheduled in 2012. The UDD demanded that the government stand down, but negotiations to set an election date failed. The protests escalated into prolonged violent confrontations between the protesters and the military, and attempts to negotiate a ceasefire failed. More than 80 civilians and six soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military violently put down the protest on 19 May.

but I dont know what all this has to do with Today, times have changed, the Thai people have changed  every country in the world has had touble in the past, and that is what it is the PAST,  nobody can pedict the future, so by saying if Pita is not elected the hords will rise Rubbish, we have to wait and see!!!

[vivananahuahin]

Many will now exape to Australia.

[onthedarkside]

Off topic posts on the US elections and bickering that mushroomed off removed, along with replies

[Pink Mist]

Off topic posts bringing Imelda Marcos into the OP have been removed.

 

Please stay on topic and do not hijack the OP

[MrMojoRisin]

7 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Again, and for the last time, I was referring the level of effort the Constitutional Court made by removing Yingluck.

 

That same Court could do the same with Pita, with little effort.

 

 

Yes, I will stipulate that significant effort, by the Powers that Be, was required to get the CC to act.

 

 

If it took very little effort… then why did it take them so long to act? Why the need for street mobs, billons in funding and eventually the (armed) military.
 

Anyone who thinks very little effort was expended by the courts has very little comprehension of what it took to oust Yingluck’s government.

 

What do you believe the courts could do - tell Pita to p!ss off and the rest of the nation would just throw their arms up in the air and say “oh well, I guess that’s that then” and all just quietly go on with the rest of their lives?

 

????‍????????‍????????‍????

 

 

[MrMojoRisin]

7 hours ago, h90 said:

not only corporations...a lot low and medium income people paid a little bit from their meager salary.

Define a lot…., would it be a sufficient number to win an election?

 

[MrMojoRisin]

4 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

they voted for the 2017 constution

The current constitution was adopted in 2017. The 105-page, 279-article proposed constitution[2][3] was approved by 61.4 percent of Thai voters with 59.4 percent of the public participating. It allows the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to appoint an eight to ten person panel who will choose Senators,[4] and includes six seats reserved for the heads of the Royal Thai Army, Navy, Air Force, and Police, plus the military's supreme commander, and defense permanent secretary. The bicameral Parliament could also select a candidate as Prime Minister who is not one of its members or even a politician. Critics suggest it effectively allows the military to control the government whatever the outcome of subsequent elections.

it was amened  constitutional amendment bill passed by parliament on Sept 10 has been issued. It was published in the Royal Gazette on Sunday. The amendments involve Sections 83, 86 and 91 of the 2017 constitution. regaring the election .

 

It was a rigged vote.

 

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

[MikeandDow]

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

[MrJ2U]

48 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

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

Clueless. 

[MikeandDow]

11 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Clueless. 

good job i dont care what you say

[bannork]

1 hour ago, MikeandDow said:

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

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

Edited July 11, 2023 by bannork

[bannork]

17 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Clueless. 

Absolutely.

[MikeandDow]

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

[MikeandDow]

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

[sikishrory]

Give it a rest Constable Savage.

"Writing a book"

"Being heir to a share of a dormant company"

"Possibly knowing about a possible problem possibly prohibiting him from PM"

What next?

"Running for PM with intent to be a PM"

"Smelling of a foreign university"

"Walking around with an offensive smile"

 

[bannork]

52 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

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

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

The junta 

[wombat]

13 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

What irritates me is that the people have clearly stated that they want changes, but that the dinosaurs are doing everything not to accept the choice of the people. 

you can have any sort of democracy you like just so long as its the one the squatocracy want.

[MikeandDow]

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

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

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

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?

[MikeandDow]

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

Edited July 11, 2023 by MikeandDow

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

do your own research  iam  not google

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

[MikeandDow]

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

Edited July 11, 2023 by MikeandDow

[bannork]

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.

[MikeandDow]

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

[bannork]

2 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

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

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.

 

 

[MikeandDow]

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 ???

[bannork]

5 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

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 ???

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

[MikeandDow]

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 )

[MikeandDow]

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

Edited July 11, 2023 by MikeandDow