Has Thailand Made Progress? Thaksin Taunts

[animatic]

Well, did you see the "various times in his life", line?

No of course not, or the argument might have made sense to you.

Provided you have more than a cursory knowledge of 'early Hitler'

and not just late Hitler; ie the sweep of his his rise and fall.

These T/H comparisons are from the 30's, not the early 40's.

What Hitler did later is the end lesson of WHY to never let

similar personalities gain total control of a nation.

Hubris and total control with an out of control ego are dangerous,

as Hitler shows so clearly. What direction Thaksin might have gone?...

well fortunately, so far, we won't be subjected to an answer.

But to draw parallels between one who finally went round the twist BEFORE he did,

and one who was prevented from having total control of a nation, while

surrounded by sycophants, and showing mental derangements, is not a useless exercise.

Those who refuse or can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Have a nice life.

Comparing almost any politician to Hitler is just plain stupid.

You can pretend all you want about how he might have turned out, but you don't have a crystal ball.

Thaksin has never done anything remotely as evil as Hitler and all indications are that he never would have.

Why don't you call him Darth Vader’s twin brother as long as you are just making things up?

Then why does this keep coming up? Oh that's right you think any one who does this is STUPID...

well that's great debating etiquette.

Comparing any politician to Hitler of the late 20's or 30's is a viable juxtapostion.

Just because we NOW, in hindsight, know how bad he went,

does not in ANY WAY invalidate making a comparison with him before he did.

Animatic my friend... you might look up 'Godwin's rule' on the internet. For most thinking people (and by common consent among internet-savvy folk), you committed debating hara-kiri when you mentioned Hitler or the Nazis. If it wasn't you who mentioned it, you joined the lemming procession when you climbed on the band-wagon.

The debate was won and lost a while back. Why not let the dead horse lie in peace?

Godwin isn't god.

The rules of internet are only as those willing to accept them as iron clad. They are not.

If because of his heinous end suddenly this guy is off bounds to discuss his earlier years,

then we only lose from the lack of ability to compare history to current affairs.

There are parallels to be seen, if others choose willingly to be blind to them, because of the end game

of 'one reference individual', so be it, it is only they who refuse discussion on hearing the name,

who lose in their lack of observation.

Put on your blinders after that one name and; 'pooft! No problem'. It is an illogical premise.

Nothing is an illegitimate reference in observations of history, including herr Hitler's life.

No one has ever said Thaksin WILL or WOULD become as bad as Hitler or Pol Pot.

No one has said T has finished his years with as bad a historical record.

But absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Thaksin was heading that way in compatible circumstances.

Oh, and I wasn't the one who injected Hitler's name into this, just for the record.

I am only defending the comparison as having legitimate validity,

and Godwin can spin on his pedestal all he likes.

Edited September 23, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Trying to start Universal Health Coverage during the middle of a major financial meltdown could be concidered idiocy and Bush had nothing to do with that.

Idiocy if you are NOT one of the millions uncovered by ANY health care because you can't afford it.

I have lived for 10 years in a country with Universal Health Care. It worked,

and my tax rate was EXACTLY the same there as USA. not even 1/4 point different.

I knew a two of people who have died because they got sick,

couldn't deal with the premiums, got dropped by inssurance,

and died because the medical professionals wouldn't save them..

sorry you are not covered, go die peacefully now.

FoxNews is so deeply full of <deleted> these days it's astounding.

[Plus]

Some reports suggest that Prem is influencing the police chief selection...

...

Which reports? Where?

Did you just made it up to support your fantasies like "make no mistake about it: Thailands powers-that-be are quite able and willing to follow the Burma route"?

And we lived through a Thai military coup, it was nothing like Burma.

Abhisit is not his own man, nor that of the Thai people...

Really?

In last elections he led a party that got 14 million votes on a party list, more than PPP.

.. it is common knowledge that the Thai army inserts itself into business, media, propaganda and politics

And what do you know about that? Army backed parties faired badly in 2007 elections and one of them was eventually dissolved.

Which businesses the army inserted itself in? Which of the business on SET are run by the army?

Here's SET100 for you, should be a good start in your research:

http://marketdata.set.or.th/mkt/sectorquot...&country=US

[Scott]

It doesn't appear that anyone has crossed the line yet, but be aware there are laws which protect judicial decisions from criticism. So lets be very careful in the words we chose when referring to this branch of government.

[mca]

And if that law doesn't speak volumes I don't know what does.

[Siripon]

For background information, read Paul Handley's book, published by Yale University. Also read PPT (Political prisoners in Thailand - internet blog) for information on Prem's recent power plays in the matter of the police chief, then find out who owns and operates the TV stations in Thailand to see how many are influenced by the army.

And please. Abhisit was not elected by the people of Thailand, he rose to power because of a deal brokered (again by the Army, why didn't you know that?), which meant that the quisling Newin Chidchob came by significant personal an political benefit, and his 5 year ban on political activity would be overlooked if he sold out his former political colleagues. Which he did, and without him doing so, Abhisit would never have been in the position he is in now because he does not have and did not have electoral support from the people of Thailand - he is there because the army, at the behest of its sponsors, rorted the Thai people - again. Pure and simple. The recent 'not gullty' verdict in the saplings case is widely seen as a part of that pay-off, so corrupt is the judicial pillar of Thai society (read the Wall Street Journal which recently asserted that the Thai judiciary is 'notoriously corrupt').

There really is no excuse whatever for not knowing this stuff and yet still diving in the big pool you know...

I thought the main accusation in the rubber saplings was collusion by the 3 bidders.

Regarding the police chief, Apisit supports General Pateep whilst his own Secretary general and Private Secretarypreferred General Jumpon, a man who owed his rise to Thaksin.

Why would Nipon and Suthep prefer Jumpon, a man associated with their enemy, Thaksin? Suthep is married to Nipon's sister so he might just be following Nipon here. But to know why Nipon would back Jumpon we may have to look at someone else, not General Prem; but that goes beyond the limits of this forum.

[animatic]

Love that line "Sold Out His Political colleagues."

And which colleagues got sold out when he JOINED Team Thaksin?

When TRT got formed MANY different groups got left.

Thaksin rarely DIDN'T sell out people for his own advantage.

Newin was at dinner with Chalerm, Thaksin. Mrs T when the divorce was announced.

If I had seen Chalerm get anointed and Mrs. T. bail on the high boss, I too would have

been more than happy to re-market my constituency to a better deal offering group;

in the best Thai tradition of course, and best interests of Buriram too.

I am sure Newin took one look at a hypothetical Chalerm lead PTP and realized, as we can see now,

it would be a totally inept group in opposition let alone at the levers of power.

It was a totally logical political decision, and I am sure there was little love lost between

Newin and those about to helm Thaksin Puppet Party II.

The Army, Cp, Dems et al, would have been stupid NOT to have taken that bull by the horns.

And doing so in full knowledge that would would not be a cakewalk, but more real politic Thai style.

[Siripon]

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.Every other party would join the government at a moment's notice as to be in Opposition is to suffer from a dry throat, to quote Banharn- look at his interference in the TAT now by the way.

They are all for sale as witnessed by Thaksin's wholesale buy up of New Aspiration Party, Chart Pattana, Pinit's faction, etc.

The only party prepared to remain in opposition is the Democrats.

If Peua Thai win the next election, Pumjaitai, etc will join at the drop of a hat and Newin's 'betrayal' will be forgotten.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

It doesn't appear that anyone has crossed the line yet, but be aware there are laws which protect judicial decisions from criticism. So lets be very careful in the words we chose when referring to this branch of government.

Cheers for the timely reminder Scott, yes, I was being careful...

[Plus]

...read PPT (Political prisoners in Thailand - internet blog) for information on Prem's recent power plays in the matter of the police chief

Ha ha, that esteemed and trustworthy source, a anonymous blog, says exactly the same thing without any references: "Reports suggest that Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda (b. 1920) is at work."

Then it hints that Jumpol is Prem's choice.

And now your little theory breaks down completely, because Abhisit, your alleged military puppet, pushes for Prateep instead.

That's where theory comes to a dead end.

What about military controlling business? Nothing? Military looking to turn Thailand into Burma? Nothing?

TV stations - the army owned channel 5 them since the beginning, and it faithfully serves whatever govt is in power, it's probably least politicized TV channel anyway.

And please. Abhisit was not elected by the people of Thailand

He was elected in parliamentary vote, it was on TV and I was watching it. It doesn't matter who brokered the deal (it was Suthep who persuaded Newin to switch camps, btw).

[KevinBloodyWilson]

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.

Yes, as odious and abhorrent as the ideology is, you are right.

Every other party would join the government at a moment's notice as to be in Opposition is to suffer from a dry throat, to quote Banharn- look at his interference in the TAT now by the way.

They are all for sale as witnessed by Thaksin's wholesale buy up of New Aspiration Party, Chart Pattana, Pinit's faction, etc.

The only party prepared to remain in opposition is the Democrats.

If Peua Thai win the next election, Pumjaitai, etc will join at the drop of a hat and Newin's 'betrayal' will be forgotten.

I agree they are all for sale and they are all corrupt, this is the nature of the Thai psyche, it is the house that Jack has built. But I very much doubt if Newin will ever be accepted back by an incoming Thaksin. More likely, those who joined Newin would jump ship and get to be cannon fodder in a Thaksin government. Among other things, Thaksin is a vindictive sonofabitch and he would kick Newin into touch very quick imo. Rightly.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

And please. Abhisit was not elected by the people of Thailand

He was elected in parliamentary vote, it was on TV and I was watching it. It doesn't matter who brokered the deal (it was Suthep who persuaded Newin to switch camps, btw).

As I said - he was not elected by the electorate, and in despite your wishing it were not true, it does remain true.

I have snipped out most of your rubbishing because frankly, it is clear that if you do not agree with something you will not discuss it, but prefer to simply rubbish it. Your strategy seems to be to selectively rubbish parts of a post, hoping that it will cast doubt on the rest. It's a transparent and pretty unsophisticated ploy but I am sure you won't see why that is true either.

It's OK of course, I am either right or I am wrong, and you are either right or you are wrong, but I honestly only hav the time to engage in sensible adult discussion, or amusing discussion and you make yours neither one, therefore a discussion with you is somewhat less than satisfying and a lot less than instructional. Perhaps we are both at the wrong level for it to be otherwise.

On that note, I will wish you well and allow you to have the last word. be my guest...

[TAWP]

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.

Yes, as odious and abhorrent as the ideology is, you are right.

Uh, what?

What exactly is it you think their ideology is?

[TAWP]

And please. Abhisit was not elected by the people of Thailand

He was elected in parliamentary vote, it was on TV and I was watching it. It doesn't matter who brokered the deal (it was Suthep who persuaded Newin to switch camps, btw).

As I said - he was not elected by the electorate, and in despite your wishing it were not true, it does remain true.

He was elected as much as Samak or even Thaksin was for that matter...one day you will understand that. Hopefully.

[hammered]

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.Every other party would join the government at a moment's notice as to be in Opposition is to suffer from a dry throat, to quote Banharn- look at his interference in the TAT now by the way.

They are all for sale as witnessed by Thaksin's wholesale buy up of New Aspiration Party, Chart Pattana, Pinit's faction, etc.

The only party prepared to remain in opposition is the Democrats.

If Peua Thai win the next election, Pumjaitai, etc will join at the drop of a hat and Newin's 'betrayal' will be forgotten.

If anyone doubts that they only need to look at dino-snoh who joined TRT and became some kind of chief adviser and when he lost his clout left and wrote a book outlining exactly how TRT creamed off their portion but who now finds himslef as as the paramour of Thaksin again.

Or look back to the then NAP Chalerm and the things he said of Thaksin before the 2001 election.

What says it all is the Asia Foundations finding that the only 33% of Thai people thought their MPs represented them. A far lower rating than even a government in the midst of an economic crisis and poltical upheavel can garner.

The irony is whatever the outcome of the current little power dispute we can guarantee that the parlaimentary poltical culture will remain the same with an even bigger irony being that the red shirt supporting PTP which is stuffed full of feufdal robber barons will cement it in stone even more than the Dems.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

The coup was welcomed with flowers for the soldiers and people posing with their children on the tanks.

The poll 2 weeks ago showed an overwhelming percentage wanted the present government to carry on.

Thaksin was removed because of his authoritarian rule, the army would not have dared intervene otherwise.

Well, that is a viewpoint. Certainly the coup was supported by the vast majority of those whi came out with flowers and ribbons, but I didn't see anything like enough of those to support the assertion that 'the coup was welcomed' by the than a very small minority.

Every Thai government since Adam was a lad has either been authoritarian or incompetent and too frightened to do anything. Most objective political observers say that deposing Thaksin was not because he was authoritarian, or even corrupt, but that he was becoming more popular among Thais than was acceptable to certain parts of the Thai ruling echelons. He was a threat to established interests (the same ones that fed out of his doggie bowl for so long) and he had to go. So the army got its orders. Pure and simple.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

And please. Abhisit was not elected by the people of Thailand

He was elected in parliamentary vote, it was on TV and I was watching it. It doesn't matter who brokered the deal (it was Suthep who persuaded Newin to switch camps, btw).

As I said - he was not elected by the electorate, and in despite your wishing it were not true, it does remain true.

He was elected as much as Samak or even Thaksin was for that matter...one day you will understand that. Hopefully.

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

[samran]

He might win. He might not. But never by a landslide. That is because he has lost major face with millions of Thais and he is a corrupt COWARD. REAL strong heroic national leaders earn their moral authority by their deeds. Skipping out on charges, evacuating your family while launching a violent revolution, don't cut it.

Might be the way you see it JT, might even be the way you think most Thais should see it, but be assured it is not the way every rural Thai I have spoken to sees it. They see him as a victim of the same corrupt power cabal that threw out their democratically elected leader.

And they do not like it much.

He wasn't a democratically elected anything at the time of the coup. He was a caretaker PM, probably the longest caretaker PM in the history of the world.

[Moonrakers]

He might win. He might not. But never by a landslide. That is because he has lost major face with millions of Thais and he is a corrupt COWARD. REAL strong heroic national leaders earn their moral authority by their deeds. Skipping out on charges, evacuating your family while launching a violent revolution, don't cut it.

Might be the way you see it JT, might even be the way you think most Thais should see it, but be assured it is not the way every rural Thai I have spoken to sees it. They see him as a victim of the same corrupt power cabal that threw out their democratically elected leader.

And they do not like it much.

He wasn't a democratically elected anything at the time of the coup. He was a caretaker PM, probably the longest caretaker PM in the history of the world.

Facts have no place on this part of the forum samran, I thought that you would have known that by now.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Moonrakers

[KevinBloodyWilson]

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.

Yes, as odious and abhorrent as the ideology is, you are right.

Uh, what?

What exactly is it you think their ideology is?

1. Maintain the status quo

2. Maintain the sakdina

3. Keep the elites elite

4. Keep the troughs full and your snouts and two front trotters in them (same as any Thai government)

5. Clampdown. Clampdown, Clampdown. The nal that stands out must be hammered down

6. Conformity at all costs

7. Give the armed forces whatever they want

8. <deleted> the poor over at every opportunity

9. Maintain the illusion of integrity for the stupid foreigners who donlt understand thailand (same as every Thai government).

10. If it moves, swindle it. if it doesn't move, swindle it.

Just off the top of my head... My their actions shall you know them.

[Plus]

... Your strategy seems to be to selectively rubbish parts of a post, hoping that it will cast doubt on the rest.

I went for the possible factual basis in your posts. Whatever rhetorics you built on those, so far non-existing facts, is of no interest to me and I'm not going to argue those heaps of what I consider garbage.

I WILL change my attitude if you can show that there's some substance in your allegations.

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

"People voted for Thaksin" - do you mean on proportional list ballots that had party names on them?

By that standard in 2007 elections more people voted for Abhsit than for Samak.

What other numbers you want us to look at?

[Samuian]

Thaksin has been trying to overthrow Thai state during all this time, and now he asks why there's not much progress - he's the main reason why.

It is all about money and controlling the Thailand Wealth and power. And Thaksin probably knows he has lost them and just too stupid to accept it

He is certainly not stupid, but a very shrewd character,

he will not stop at anything soon, if he loses his "life savings",

he will turn a mad dog and try to derail anything and everything...

just look at the latest delivery of completely made up statements regarding his

questionable "unusual wealth", it's a fairytale made up to arouse emotions,

"look this girl, with little help (370 Mill.) form her mother, did build an huge telecom empire,

she helped her father out of his boredom, buying ManC for him so he had something to care for...

Alone this story is insane...daring... will he get it his way...?

alas!...he won't stop... till he get's it his way, and don't forget, it's not him alone,

there is a whole clan united against the countrie's "evil doers", his enemies...

the clan won't stop short to declare how much they love "their country"

and it's people and some of the most admired people there in!

and this way of action can be taken certainly for granted, so what would the audience do?

Look at Marco's Philippines, Suharto's Indonesia, Peron's Argentinia, Chavez.... just look at it!

The last time a tyrant made his comeback it was very black times for Thailand and it's people -

his name started with T. too!

[samran]

He might win. He might not. But never by a landslide. That is because he has lost major face with millions of Thais and he is a corrupt COWARD. REAL strong heroic national leaders earn their moral authority by their deeds. Skipping out on charges, evacuating your family while launching a violent revolution, don't cut it.

Might be the way you see it JT, might even be the way you think most Thais should see it, but be assured it is not the way every rural Thai I have spoken to sees it. They see him as a victim of the same corrupt power cabal that threw out their democratically elected leader.

And they do not like it much.

He wasn't a democratically elected anything at the time of the coup. He was a caretaker PM, probably the longest caretaker PM in the history of the world.

Facts have no place on this part of the forum samran, I thought that you would have known that by now.

I do know....but the silence in reply to simple facts like this, is as they say, deafening.

[Scott]

One post deleted, more to come. Keep it civil and don't bait, flame or blame posters for what they decide not to respond to.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

I went for the possible factual basis in your posts. Whatever rhetorics you built on those, so far non-existing facts, is of no interest to me and I'm not going to argue those heaps of what I consider garbage.

No, you took the loser option, Question some things and seek to extend them across the whole post. it's a common strategy but not a very credible one.

I WILL change my attitude if you can show that there's some substance in your allegations.

Which 'allegation' shall we start with? The fact that Thaksin was elected and re-elected, then served as caretaker PM after the result was anulled because the democratic democrat party decided it couldn't win so took their ball and went home?

Or the allegation that the descendant part of TRT then went on to win another election?

Or the allegation that Abhisit has no electoral mandate under the Thai voting system which is why he had to wait until the elites kicked another democratically elected PM out before he could get a shot at the top job?

Or that he only did that because the quisling Newin did a deal to profit by shafting his old boss?

Which one shall we deal with first? Which one will you present credible argument against first? You have the floor my friend.

"People voted for Thaksin" - do you mean on proportional list ballots that had party names on them? What other numbers you want us to look at?

I mean Thaksin's PPP party was elected. Here's a clue for you... BEING ELECTED MEANS THEY WON THE ELECTION

As for numbers my friend, well any numbers at all would be nice but so far we haven't had any from you. If you are going to refute something then refute it. So far you haven't, though you have had lots of opportunity. Patience is all very well, but...

By that standard in 2007 elections more people voted for Abhsit than for Samak.

I see. Well if he got more votes than PPP, why did he not get elected then? (this ought to be good). You seem to have some difficulty understanding the democratic principle that they who get the votes get elected, whereas they who don't don't. You seem to be saying (and I assume with a straight face) that Abhisit got more votes and yet didn't get elected...

or perhaps you mean he got more votes on some other country's voting system? In which case, here's another clue: THE VOTING SYSTEM IN THAILAND IS THE ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS IN THAILAND.

Not shouting btw, emphasising. Trying to put things in terms simple enough to be understood. Being helpful.

Edited September 23, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[ballpoint]

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

Why not try looking at, and understanding, the electoral numbers, or is sub-rocket science not your forte? Thaksin was a list MP for the TRT, so nobody actually voted for him. Most people voted for the same politicians, or their family members / nominees, as they always have. The politicians were either pre bought by Thaksin, skipping their old party to join the TRT, or joined his coalition because they don't have the moral integrity of the Democrats, and knew that they could get a bigger share of the trough if they were in the ruling coalition. A fact well illustrated by the 1996 election results, where the Thaksin led PDP party received only one seat in parliament. It wasn't until he spent big, forming TRT in 1998 by buying up MP's and doing deals with smaller parties, that he was able to be a serious contender. As an example, the New Aspiration Party, which had the most seats in 1996, with 125, dropped to only 36 in 2001. Not surprisingly, mainy of its former MP's were now in the TRT party, taking their guaranteed votes with them. This number dropped to no seats in 2005, again very few of its old MPs were out of a job, they were swilling out in the TRT trough. If you want my prediction for the next election, the list of MP's will be very similar to todays, only their parties and coalitions may have changed. This is with or without Thaksin, who has far less of a role than many here would have us believe. Something he very much realises, hence his increasing agitations from his rathole.

Finally, please name me one MP who voted for Abhisit as PM who was not elected in a democratic election? (I use the democratic term very loosely, as, in my opinion, there has never been a truely democratic election in Thailand, but if an election is good enough for all you red huggers, as the 2007 one is claimed to be, then I suppose it's good enough for this purpose).

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Uppercase postings are not welcome on TV. They are considered yelling! We should avoid it.

upper case post trashed and poster told about internet manners by PM.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

Why not try looking at, and understanding, the electoral numbers, or is sub-rocket science not your forte? Thaksin was a list MP for the TRT, so nobody actually voted for him. Most people voted for the same politicians, or their family members / nominees, as they always have. The politicians were either pre bought by Thaksin, skipping their old party to join the TRT, or joined his coalition because they don't have the moral integrity of the Democrats, and knew that they could get a bigger share of the trough if they were in the ruling coalition. A fact well illustrated by the 1996 election results, where the Thaksin led PDP party received only one seat in parliament. It wasn't until he spent big, forming TRT in 1998 by buying up MP's and doing deals with smaller parties, that he was able to be a serious contender. As an example, the New Aspiration Party, which had the most seats in 1996, with 125, dropped to only 36 in 2001. Not surprisingly, mainy of its former MP's were now in the TRT party, taking their guaranteed votes with them. This number dropped to no seats in 2005, again very few of its old MPs were out of a job, they were swilling out in the TRT trough. If you want my prediction for the next election, the list of MP's will be very similar to todays, only their parties and coalitions may have changed. This is with or without Thaksin, who has far less of a role than many here would have us believe. Something he very much realises, hence his increasing agitations from his rathole.

Finally, please name me one MP who voted for Abhisit as PM who was not elected in a democratic election? (I use the democratic term very loosely, as, in my opinion, there has never been a truely democratic election in Thailand, but if an election is good enough for all you red huggers, as the 2007 one is claimed to be, then I suppose it's good enough for this purpose).

Excellent post.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

Why not try looking at, and understanding, the electoral numbers, or is sub-rocket science not your forte? Thaksin was a list MP for the TRT, so nobody actually voted for him. <snipola>

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

This is called dissembling and if you cant do better than this then frankly I am not going to bother with you.

The facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

Thailand went to the polls in 2006. The Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get a world-class kicking and were unelectable, boycotted the election, which was later declared unconstitutional For shame. before the re-run election, the powers behind the Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get another world-class kicking and were unelectable, engineered a coup.

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Now all of this is really easy to understand, like I said, it isn't rocket science.

So what you can do for me before I completely give up on you is this. How was it that the Democrats (according to you) won the election in the Thai voting system but were not elected? Please explain because this appears to be seriously out of the ball park thinking.

TRT/PPP/Thaksin have been elected by the electorate 3 times. No matter how much you twist, writhe, gyrate and dissemble, The Democrats/Abhisit have never been elected by the electorate, and in fact (I am not certain about this) I don't think the Democrat party has *ever* been elected by the Thai electorate, they have been appointed a few times and like the Surayud government were a complete joke.. I may be wrong about this I don't have time to check the sources but I think it is the case.

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101, it really doesn't get any more basic than this, and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

Edited September 23, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[dr_Pat_Pong]

It doesn't appear that anyone has crossed the line yet, but be aware there are laws which protect judicial decisions from criticism. So lets be very careful in the words we chose when referring to this branch of government.

Cheers for the timely reminder Scott, yes, I was being careful...