The rise to power by the Democrat Party and their involvement with the PAD show even less respect for the parliament and the law than Thaksin had.

How so?

Wrestling away factions and parties to form new alliances is any parliamentary democracy staple. In fact Abhisit legitimacy lies strictly within confines of the parliament, he doesn't have a proper electoral mandate.

at no point was Thaksin able to absolutely control his own party

I can't find any leeway to possibly justify this sentence. Maybe it's the definition of absolute control - maybe you mean he couldn't control their bowel movements, for example. In a normal, political sense, he was the undisputed head honcho and the supreme ruler within TRT, the one holding all the strings and intolerable of any dissent.

National Socialism is heavily based on leader oriented extreme nationalist and racist ideology, and i just can't see any of that in TRT.

You don't see TRT as leader oriented? You don't see nationalist streak in Thaksin? You can't see any of that? Or you can't allow yourself to see it?

I do not understand your point of regional political bodies only open for Asians. What has that to do with racism? This is Asia, isn't it?

Australians were told not to apply because they were whites. Their interests and deep involvement with Asia didn't matter.

For public consumption Thaksin villified the West and IMF for 1997 crisis and their response and then expanded his rage to the UN and whoever else got in his way.

I can't find any leeway to possibly justify this sentence. Maybe it's the definition of absolute control - maybe you mean he couldn't control their bowel movements, for example. In a normal, political sense, he was the undisputed head honcho and the supreme ruler within TRT, the one holding all the strings and intolerable of any dissent.

Members of the democrat party have been leading members of the PAD, a PAD member was appointed foreign minister. Even Abhisit personally has intervened on behalf of the PAD during their protests on the streets and in parliament. The involvement of the Democrat Party with the PAD shows absolute disdain of the law. The hug between Abhisit and Newin, the man that mostly symbolizes "godfather politics" - which the democrats up to this point publicly condemned - shows that behind all the talk about democracy is only pure lust for power, including the circumvention of popular elections in times of political divisions.

Populist policies that put upfront the prime minister, and nationalist leadership oriented ideology are two completely different things. I would suggest to familiarize yourself with the history of the NSDAP before setting such adventurous theories into writing. Of course Thaksin was a nationalist. Every political party is in Thailand, as it has to swear allegiance to the very nationalist basic foundation pillars of Thailand. That does not make him a nationalist extremist. There is presently one large group (and many smaller groups) that would suit the definition of extremist nationalist - the PAD. Which, incidentally, includes several founding members that once were part of TRT, and for whom Thaksin was not nationalist enough.

Describing Thaksin as the "head honcho" completely ignores the complex factionalism of TRT. This may make a good headline for the Sun or similar rags, but it hardly explains Thai politics of the Thaksin era. There are more than a few documented examples where he had to compromise with factions within his party. For example with several of Chamlong's rather outrageous demands. Not what a "undisputed supreme ruler" usually is in need of doing.

Hitler simply killed his opponents within the NSDAP. Such as seen in the "Night of long Knifes".

Not just Thaksin vilified the IMF. Very moderate sectors of the west have harshly criticised the way how IMF has handled the Asian crises. If you remember - Mahatir has refused IMF help, was at the time vilified, but was justified soon after.

Australia was not invited because the were "whites" but because of cultural differences. I do neither agree or disagree with the inclusion of Australia. But as a counterexample i would suggest looking at the issue of Turkey's EU membership application. Apart from some that want to play the race card - there are many arguments pro and con in terms of economical and legal compatabilities. Not everything is race.

Edited February 18, 200917 yr by justanothercybertosser