Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

[rixalex]

95% of detractors to your case are not intrinsically defending the oleaginous Thaksin, they are merely questioning the binary zeal with which his detractors have become emotionally infatuated. Folk who have spent years on Thaivisa repeating themselves (why? what a waste of effort, as if it matters? None of you have a vote).

And your manic response is

"You love Thaksin, you just love the CONVICT don't you. Take off the blinkers. This is not not not not a matter of opinion, because I am right."

Rixalex, up your game please, the 'oooh, you're defending him", trite responses were done ages ago, even Plus now bases his responses on research and a knowledge of background, not just automatically and rhetorically gainsaying everything with one liners, as you are now doing .

Those that loathe Thaksin conveniently prop themselves behind a motherlode of TV Rules that deflect contradiction and they scurry behind them when the going gets tough. Well, so much for transparency, but so be it. Taking refuge behind rule 15 illustrates the elasticity of the debate at hand

Congratulations on your rectitude though. Perhaps someone will inscribe your holiness on your tombstone. A treasury of wasted time.

The detractors aren't defending him, they're attacking the messianic ' Mummy knows best' stance.

Journalist,

Many thanks for your post appraisal. Only polite i guess for me to return the favour:

Many of your posts have the feeling of a young school boy a little too anxious to impress the English professor. Flowery, overly descriptive - using 100 hundred words to make a point that could have been more clearly made with 10 - throwing in a splattering of long mutliple-syllable words in the hope of having the reader reach for the dictionary.

Less of the "flowers", more of the substance is i guess what i'm asking for.

Don't forget much of your target audience consists of bar-flies who don't possess your linguistic artistry or the ability to comprehend it.

[sbk]

Well, I hate to interrupt your slanging match, but this doesn't seem to be about anything other than scoring points anymore

I can't really see a reason to keep it open. I am welcome to suggestions as to how to discuss something even remotely on topic...

[sriracha john]

Well, I hate to interrupt your slanging match, but this doesn't seem to be about anything other than scoring points anymore

I can't really see a reason to keep it open. I am welcome to suggestions as to how to discuss something even remotely on topic...

As the OP and thread title on:

Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

ended six days ago... well... up to you.

[Crushdepth]

Does anyone seriously believe that Thailand would have remained a democracy under Thaksin?

Amazing how quickly people forget his trespass upon free speech, among other things.

[justanothercybertosser]

Does anyone seriously believe that Thailand would have remained a democracy under Thaksin?

Amazing how quickly people forget his trespass upon free speech, among other things.

Thailand never was a democracy. Under Thaksin it was an emerging democracy, some democratic aspects were strengthened, such as the importance of a popular vote, while others have been seriously curbed, such as the checks and balances system. Now we have the opposite of an emerging democracy, with a government that may have a parliamentary mandate that came to pass under more than murky circumstances, and no popular mandate whatsoever, and extra-parliamentary powers such as military being enabled to interfere in all policy making procedures.

As to "free speech, and other things", i would suggest to read reports of international watchdogs, which are very critical of the present condition in Thailand.

[animatic]

Thaksin and his proto redshirts did their best while he was still in office to

'Submerge that Emerging Democracy you mentioned.

And they are still at it at these S.L. protest sites and in general.

You can overlay some valid arguments on top of a ceaspit of bile

and it's still bile under it all.

Devotion in an almost relgious ferver is not over typical political things,

but over ATYPICAL political personalities. Good ideas debased by grafting onto

cults of personality; which most often spin out of control eventually.

[Plus]

some democratic aspects were strengthened, such as the importance of a popular vote

I don't see how serial vote buying and massive electoral fraud strengthen importance of a popular vote. Importance of getting popular vote by any means necessary, maybe, but what has it got to do with democracy?

a government that may have a parliamentary mandate that came to pass under more than murky circumstances, and no popular mandate whatsoever

All opinion polls show plenty of support for Abhisit, it's only the reds who don't seem to notice that they are in minority now.

[justanothercybertosser]

some democratic aspects were strengthened, such as the importance of a popular vote

I don't see how serial vote buying and massive electoral fraud strengthen importance of a popular vote. Importance of getting popular vote by any means necessary, maybe, but what has it got to do with democracy?

a government that may have a parliamentary mandate that came to pass under more than murky circumstances, and no popular mandate whatsoever

All opinion polls show plenty of support for Abhisit, it's only the reds who don't seem to notice that they are in minority now.

As you ignore academic studies it may be futile to cite researches that the issue and effects of "vote buying" are much more complex than you imply here in this utterly simplistic statement. Nevertheless, for anyone who is interested to go beyond propaganda, i would suggest reading (and before the accusations start, these papers were published in a peer reviewed journal):

'The Rural Constitution And The Everyday Politics Of Elections In Northern Thailand' by Andrew Walker

or

'The Thai Rak Thai Party And Elections In Northeastern Thailand' by Somchai Phatharathananunth

I don't care what polls may show, what counts is what elections show. If the Democrats come out as the strongest party after elections, then they have my support (under one condition - that the banned politicians who have personally not been convicted of any wrong doing are allowed to stand for elections).

[sriracha john]

Does anyone seriously believe that Thailand would have remained a democracy under Thaksin?

Amazing I know... but apparently there are.

[dbrenn]

Thaksin and his proto redshirts did their best while he was still in office to

'Submerge that Emerging Democracy you mentioned.

And they are still at it at these S.L. protest sites and in general.

You can overlay some valid arguments on top of a ceaspit of bile

and it's still bile under it all.

Devotion in an almost relgious ferver is not over typical political things,

but over ATYPICAL political personalities. Good ideas debased by grafting onto

cults of personality; which most often spin out of control eventually.

Well I agree with your likening Thai politics to a cesspit of bile. But that bunch of corrupt and incompetent CDR army generals running the country, filling their pockets while advocating the dilution of the popular vote for the 'uneducated'? What kind of democracy is that?

For all Thaksin's misbehaviour, at least the TRT could have been voted out of office, by the general public, by way of a peaceful popular vote. A bunch of corrupt generals Kicking the TRT/PPP out for alleged corruption, then helping themselves, in a country where corruption is pandemic, is hypocrisy of the highest order. People resent being treated like idiots and they obviously don't like it at all when the party that they chose to govern them is forced out of office and replaced with the Dem oppostion, under whose governance they derived no benefit whatsoever for years on end. They are all corrupt, so describing just one side as a cesspit of bile makes no sense at all.

Look at the mess the generals have made. Was it really worth it?

[Plus]

As you ignore academic studies..

What academic studies? This is the first time you cited any kind of "studies". Are you getting confused by your multiple user ids? I remember this line was given to me one time too many by a poster named Colpyat.

But ok, let's look at your study:

"it is wrong to single out policies or money as a source of TRT's success because the party relied on both strategies to win elections"

It's from Somchai's abstract.

Do I need to read further? He seems to clearly state that vote buying was used and contributed to TRT victories.

How's vote buying strengthen the "importance of popular vote"? Should it be adopted worldwide by all emerging democracies as legitimate?

I don't care what polls may show, what counts is what elections show.

And the elections shown that 64% didn't vote for PPP, representatives of these 64% formed a coalition, this coalition is clearly supported by the majority of the population.

How else are we supposed to read it?

[Koo82]

How's vote buying strengthen the "importance of popular vote"?

TRT/PPP bought votes? Yes.

Their MPs bought votes? Yes.

But when some of these MPs voted for Abhisit on 15th December last year, Democrat Party welcomed all.

[justanothercybertosser]

As you ignore academic studies..

What academic studies? This is the first time you cited any kind of "studies". Are you getting confused by your multiple user ids? I remember this line was given to me one time too many by a poster named Colpyat.

But ok, let's look at your study:

"it is wrong to single out policies or money as a source of TRT's success because the party relied on both strategies to win elections"

It's from Somchai's abstract.

Do I need to read further? He seems to clearly state that vote buying was used and contributed to TRT victories.

How's vote buying strengthen the "importance of popular vote"? Should it be adopted worldwide by all emerging democracies as legitimate?

I don't care what polls may show, what counts is what elections show.

And the elections shown that 64% didn't vote for PPP, representatives of these 64% formed a coalition, this coalition is clearly supported by the majority of the population.

How else are we supposed to read it?

I refer to the insulting comments from you yesterday regarding academic studies.

And yes, you need to read further. I have never said that vote buying did not contribute to the election success, but i refuse the simplification you propose here, supported by the studies cited, that vote buying was the sole or overwhelming reason. And you accusation of vote buying and paternalistic electioneering networks are equally existing for the Democrat party in the southern strongholds, yet completely ignored by you.

As i said, the issue of vote buying is far too complex to simplify it the way you do. 64% may not have voted for PPP, nevertheless, PPP was the strongest party. Several other parties were off shots of TRT as well, and not opponents of TRT, as you try to imply here. Clarity will be only brought by new elections, under the conditions i outlined.

[Plus]

Did they go to the red meetings to do the polls?

Red meetings are hard to come by these days, so probably not.

[TAWP]

All opinion polls show plenty of support for Abhisit, it's only the reds who don't seem to notice that they are in minority now.

Did they go to the red meetings to do the polls?

I think you have misunderstood how polling is done...

How's vote buying strengthen the "importance of popular vote"?

TRT/PPP bought votes? Yes.

Their MPs bought votes? Yes.

But when some of these MPs voted for Abhisit on 15th December last year, Democrat Party welcomed all.

Are you complaining that not more TRT/PPP MPs got banned?

If they did, they couldn't have voted for any democrats...but as they wasn't, they are still legit in the eyes of the law.

You better make up your mind as to what you want.

[justanothercybertosser]

How's vote buying strengthen the "importance of popular vote"?

TRT/PPP bought votes? Yes.

Their MPs bought votes? Yes.

But when some of these MPs voted for Abhisit on 15th December last year, Democrat Party welcomed all.

Yes, indeed. A point that by government supporters here on this forum and elsewhere is conveniently forgotten.

[Koo82]

And your english is much better than Thaksins english

You have the choice:

A man who speaks good English but does not know how to win elections. Once having power with army's help, he cannot make money but make loans and gives free money to not the poorest Thais. Strangely when he speaks, many Thais don't listen or they kick and scream.

A man who speaks bad English but came to power after his people brought guns and tanks in Bangkok, did not prove he could make money so asked Thais to have sufficiency economy.

And a man who speaks super bad English but people cry when they listen to him. The man who won elections twice with no help from army, made money well before he came Prime Minister and brought Thailand ahead as a strong country.

[Plus]

Koo, there are millions of people who have exactly opposite reactions to all three choices. You do realise they exist?

[rixalex]

How's vote buying strengthen the "importance of popular vote"?

TRT/PPP bought votes? Yes.

Their MPs bought votes? Yes.

But when some of these MPs voted for Abhisit on 15th December last year, Democrat Party welcomed all.

Yes, indeed. A point that by government supporters here on this forum and elsewhere is conveniently forgotten.

What is your point exactly? The Democrats are as bad as the TRT/PPP? So condemn them both then.

Don't support either. Nobody forces you to choose a side.

[Koo82]

I think you have misunderstood how polling is done...

One time I listened to Nuttawut. I know you will say he is Pro-Red. So I just listened and did not comment.

Nuttawut said one of the polls was done among 450 people and majority said they support Abhisit.

Another poll can be with Bangkok Post. I never read BP. Once I clicked the link provided in this forum and read the comment, that a person said polls in BP can be voted many times by one same person. They don't count IP addresses. I voted and they let me vote as many times as I wanted.

Now I don't know because I don't read BP.

What polls did you talk about?

[Koo82]

Koo, there are millions of people who have exactly opposite reactions to all three choices. You do realise they exist?

I only know that majority of Thais love the 3rd man. This explained why he and his parties won elections.

[Koo82]

Are you complaining that not more TRT/PPP MPs got banned?

If they did, they couldn't have voted for any democrats...but as they wasn't, they are still legit in the eyes of the law.

So those who voted for Abhisit are legit because they didn't buy votes?

Many banned TRT/PPP did not buy votes. But they were banned. Are they not legit in your word?

[TAWP]

I think you have misunderstood how polling is done...

One time I listened to Nuttawut. I know you will say he is Pro-Red. So I just listened and did not comment.

Nuttawut said one of the polls was done among 450 people and majority said they support Abhisit.

Another poll can be with Bangkok Post. I never read BP. Once I clicked the link provided in this forum and read the comment, that a person said polls in BP can be voted many times by one same person. They don't count IP addresses. I voted and they let me vote as many times as I wanted.

Now I don't know because I don't read BP.

What polls did you talk about?

Real polls, not online-click-polls. Try reading the news or this forum more than just post propaganda.

I only know that majority of Thais love the 3rd man. This explained why he and his parties won elections.

No, the majority of Thais don't love the 3rd man.

But you are welcome to try to prove it.

You said it, now back it up.

So those who voted for Abhisit are legit because they didn't buy votes?

Many banned TRT/PPP did not buy votes. But they were banned. Are they not legit in your word?

Are the non-banned MPs from former PPP legit MPs or not in your oppinion? If they are you cannot complain about some of them siding with another party or forming a coalition. It is within their mandate to do, as voted forward by the voters.

You only seem to like democracy if you can dictate who benefits from it. Kinda like Thaksin and his non-like for it... (or you will claim democracy is his ultimate goal? Since his own words would prove that lie wrong.)

[sriracha john]

And a man who speaks super bad English but people cry when they listen to him.

having supposedly obtained a PhD with a doctoral thesis he allegedly produced himself... in English...

even though his biggest fan freely concedes that he is...

"A man who speaks super bad English"

[Koo82]

Real polls, not online-click-polls. Try reading the news or this forum more than just post propaganda.

Could you be kind enough to post a link? I post here almost everyday but I don't see any.

[Koo82]

Are the non-banned MPs from former PPP legit MPs or not in your oppinion? If they are you cannot complain about some of them siding with another party or forming a coalition. It is within their mandate to do, as voted forward by the voters.

You only seem to like democracy if you can dictate who benefits from it. Kinda like Thaksin and his non-like for it... (or you will claim democracy is his ultimate goal? Since his own words would prove that lie wrong.)

The non-banned MPs possibly bought votes but they did not commit. No evidence or evidence is not enough. They are in every party. Don't tell me that Demos didn't buy votes.

The difference is when these MPs, legit or not legit, voted for Khun Samak and Khun Somchai, no army instructed them to do so. Before the voting for Khun Somchai, MPs still wanted to vote for Khun Somchai because Abhisit's party did not have enough members to win. Only after 37 members of PPP were banned, these MPs switched their votes to Abhisit.

Everyone knows that Abhisit came to power with the help from the army. Is it democracy?

[Koo82]

^ What are all those red dots, Koo?

They are the reds filling Bangkok streets, Insight.

[Koo82]

even though his biggest fan freely concedes that he is...

I'm not his biggest fan. I did not have his photo on my body when I protested and I did not have the red cloth saying "Missing Khun Thaksin".

[Koo82]

You mean real people, Koo?

Yes, Insight. I was there personally on the 8th for about 6 hours and did not have space to stand. I moved between 2 main stages, Baan Si Sao and GH, and could hardly walk.

[h90]

You have the choice:

A man who speaks good English but does not know how to win elections. Once having power with army's help, he cannot make money but make loans and gives free money to not the poorest Thais. Strangely when he speaks, many Thais don't listen or they kick and scream.

A man who speaks bad English but came to power after his people brought guns and tanks in Bangkok, did not prove he could make money so asked Thais to have sufficiency economy.

And a man who speaks super bad English but people cry when they listen to him. The man who won elections twice with no help from army, made money well before he came Prime Minister and brought Thailand ahead as a strong country.

last election the popular vote brought approx. the same amount of votes for Democrats and PPP