How To Stop The Million Man March Legitimately

[jdinasia]

Yet again the basic fact that the ELECTED MP's have ELECTED the current government (and that the dems got more raw votes than any other party in the last electsions) slips past a balanced "red" thinker.)

Eschew the question of the advisability of an election at this moment, disregard the fact that it seems apparent that Democrats would be prevented by violence from campaigning in some areas by the red "defender of democracy" and totally ignore the FACT that the current government is obliged to run the country while it has the votes to do so .... and focus on some people (not the majority) are unhappy that their (fully proven) corrupt leader can't run the country further into the ground!

"Fair and Balanced"

[tonywebster]

since when do MPs elect MPs?

that is the duty of the voter to vote for candidate placed before them.

You seem to be good at writing but not reading, or you seem to like to try and twist things. I admit that the current government in thailand are there under Thai law, I have not questioned that, they are however only in power because they sneaked in through the back door, they are not there at the will of the people, if they were wanted in government they would have won enough seats at the last election. Is this rocket science?

This is what happens when you choose to try and convince others wrongly, you twist my posts in order to try and score some points, but then as the days go on you start to believe these twists and keep referring to them.

how about you answer what I actually write rather than answer what you wish I had written? You are not the only one that does, all your little mob does this to try and bully posters that have different opinions to you, well i am not one to be bullied, so are we going to have a sensible conversation or are you going to continue with your pathetic tactics of trying to twist posts in the hope that some of the less informed posters read your garbage and buy into it?

It is up to you, carry on as you are or have a sensible conversation, I for one am pretty bored with your bullshit.

[mca]

LOL! Awesome, my sentiments exactly, but if they did name it that they wouldn't have enough road space let alone jail space in Bangkok for the seething throngs of illiterate savages that would come pouring out of the woodwork.

" Illiterate savages "?

[ballpoint]

since when do MPs elect MPs?

that is the duty of the voter to vote for candidate placed before them.

MP's elect the PM. Every MP currently in parliament was legitimately elected by the Thai people. They have elected Abhisit as PM.

You seem to be good at writing but not reading, or you seem to like to try and twist things. I admit that the current government in thailand are there under Thai law, I have not questioned that, they are however only in power because they sneaked in through the back door, they are not there at the will of the people, if they were wanted in government they would have won enough seats at the last election. Is this rocket science?

No party won enough seats in the last election to be able to govern the country alone. The party with marginally the most seats, but not the most votes, was given the chance to form a coalition, which it did. That coalition broke down following the disbandment of the PPP and CTP. MP's from those parties were given 60 days to join another party, which they did. The then biggest party, the Democrats, was able to form a coalition government. In the 2007 elections, more people voted for a party other than Thaksin's proxy PPP than for it. Where was the clamour here when it formed a government against the will of the majority of the people?

This is what happens when you choose to try and convince others wrongly, you twist my posts in order to try and score some points, but then as the days go on you start to believe these twists and keep referring to them.

how about you answer what I actually write rather than answer what you wish I had written? You are not the only one that does, all your little mob does this to try and bully posters that have different opinions to you, well i am not one to be bullied, so are we going to have a sensible conversation or are you going to continue with your pathetic tactics of trying to twist posts in the hope that some of the less informed posters read your garbage and buy into it?

It is up to you, carry on as you are or have a sensible conversation, I for one am pretty bored with your bullshit.

The twisting is coming from the reds side. Making utterly false claims, ignoring facts posted by anyone they disagree with, posting blatant lies and giving opinion with no facts to back it up is the main operating mode of your "little mob". The next stage is when the lies are pointed out and the personal abuse starts. Maybe if someone on your side actually posted some facts with links, or opinion with valid reasons, a sensible conversation could take place.

[jdinasia]

Thanks

I had written a very similar response but managed to kill the post before it went out.

Saying that someone is responsible for an attack with no shred of evidence AND not at least saying "imo" is making a statement of fact.

Here are some statements of Fact.

FACT---Sae Daeng threatened grenade attacks PUBLICLY in the past and they immediately started happening.

FACT---Thaksin spoke PUBLICLY about the "war on drugs" and the extra-judicial killings. Government and police officials spoke PUBLICLY about the lists of people (many of them apparently placed on said lists either to fill a quota or just placed there erroneously and later killed) suspected of being involved in drugs. Thaksin in the same period spoke about Democracy not being his goal and the UN not being his father.

Fabrication --- Tony's assertion that the Democrat party was involved in grenade attacks in Bangkok.

[jitenshaman]

remember the millions that turned up to get the Berlin wall down, the velvet revolution in Czech. all wanted democracy, no matter how you look at it the guy won 3 elections, they banned his party so they set up PPP who stormed to victory again, then sacked the PM for the henous crime of making a cookery show on TV. why is Taskin a traitor becuse he works for a neighbouring country. if you had no money for hospital treatment, then some guy bring in a scheme that says for 30 baht you get all the treatment you need, saved thousands of lives including my father in law, would you note vote for him. this goverment did not get voted in democratically. if the majority want him as prime Minister then thats it end of story its democracy, Germany took away democracy from the Polish look what happened them. we went to war to give the Iraqies democracy, only after no wmd. taskin is the rightful leader of this country, so say the MAJORITY. if Mark had the most votes i would support him, but he does not simple as. ballaot box over tanks and guns anyday. taskin most farangs had never heard of Taskin until he bought in the 2 am closing then thats it hes the devil. people have the right to protest in my country why should they be stopped of marching in support of their democracy that was taken away with the barrels of tanks.

the people who marched in Berlin didn't get paid 300 baht per person, they marched with their hearts. If I remember correctly, the days after the coup, people were out in mass giving the soldiers flowers and food, I didn't see a single person carrying a placard or screaming that their democracy had been taken away. Most people just seemed pretty relieved that a man who was a thug and criminal (read dictator) had been removed from office.

[jitenshaman]

[quote name='Lizard' date='2010-03-04 16:30:20' post='3386161

Thaksin was a great Prime Minister of Thailand, he wanted to get it out of it's 3rd world quagmire, and get it more like Singapore is, clean living, rode rules observed, etc. etc. etc. etc. Now this Military run country is more like a dictatorship, they can do, say and stop anything they dam_n well please. There is a lot more to it, but I might be chastised by our illustrious Thai Visa Controller, for really saying whats going on here in Thailand. You people better really get your facts right, there is going to big some huge changes made here in Thailand *deleted*

Yes for the march, no for milatary control-

You have it right I am pro RED SHIRT !!!

A great modern prime minister? I am sure the kind citizens of Tak Bai would agree with you, along with the families of the 2000 "suspected" drug dealers shot point blank in the head without trial. Sounds more like a military junta's regime than democracy to me. It's a pity that the Reds have little to stand on as a party advocating "democracy" when they continue to keep as a leader a convicted criminal and man who is about as far from "democracy" as it gets.

[rixalex]

If and when the reds win power, they can decide and determine the date of elections. Now they can't.

The Democrats have that luxury. They will set a date that suits them and suits the country. Suiting the reds i would imagine isn't a major concern.

ah so the reds are not part of the country now? that is yellow thinking if ever I heard it.

Yes they are part of the country but they are the part that is calling for a convicted criminal to return to be whitewashed of charges and appointed PM. To these ends, they, like you, demand elections immediately. That is their only chance. Is it surprising the Dems refuse to give it to them? I think not.

if they were wanted they would have won the last election, they didn't win the last election because they are not fit to govern,

They didn't win the last election that is true, but then nor did Thaksin's party.

If you are saying that only parties which win elections with a majority are fit to govern, i take it you opposed Thaksin's first term in office and you were opposed to Thaksin's party taking office at the last election? Where's the consistency in your logic? There is none.

the public have spoken in the last 3 elections and they never said democrats, as much as that pains you.

If by "they never said democrats" you mean the democrats didn't win a majority, of the last three elections the people "never said" Thaksin twice. Does that pain you?

[anotherpeter]

Sorry, I was just using the magic word invoked by Thaksin and UDD. I just thought "democracy" was what this whole fight was about. We all know there is no such thing as a "perfect" democracy that truly represents the "of the people, for the people, by the people". But it could be said that the reason Thaksin was removed was because he was taking down the safeguards that protected Thailand from becoming a dictatorship- it was well on its way to being a government of Thaksin, for Thaksin and by Thaksin- the interests of the "people" only came into it when he was deposed.

I understand what you're saying, all I have been trying to say is that all of these feelings of injustice and resentment are only going to have any chance (albeit slim) of being put to bed when everybody believes that the government are in place because that is what the majority want.

Regardless of the result of an election held now, the loser would be claiming corruption of some form affected the vote. Then there would be groups out there in their appropriately coloured shirts demonstrating and causing chaos. And then we would all be back here with basically the same arguments (usually having nothing to do with the facts).

[anotherpeter]

since when do MPs elect MPs?

I think what was actually said was "Yet again the basic fact that the ELECTED MP's have ELECTED the current government".

MPs get voted for by the public. Then groups of MPs form the government.

If MPs get banned by the courts, then they don't have a say in who forms the government.

[tonywebster]

Why would it pain me? I thought I had made it clear when I said "I take no sides in this", you seem to be of the same ilk as jdinasia, you read something then alter it in your head to suit your own purpose. the fact is his party won more seats than the dems, is this correct or is this wrong? they then formed the coalitions, is this right or is this wrong? the fact remains that they won more seats than the dems and this allowed them with a coalition to form the government, as opposed to the dems who still had to buy a coalition after the PPP was disbanded. did the dems have to pay for smaller parties to join them after the PPP was disbanded? yes they did according to the press at the time and it was not denied. very popular party those dems . And now the rat will desert his sinking ship and go to Australia when those filthy stinking nasty poor red people march to make their voices heard.

I will say the same as I said to your buddy, read what I actually write rather than what you would like me to have written, and we can have a conversation. Until then there is no point continuing with someone that chooses to misquote people or their posts for their own benefit, funnily enough just like you do when you are discussing the yellows, twist their acts out of proportion then twist the reds acts out of proportion.

Do you want to be sensible or continue being a .................... (insert your own noun in here)

[tonywebster]

Sorry, I was just using the magic word invoked by Thaksin and UDD. I just thought "democracy" was what this whole fight was about. We all know there is no such thing as a "perfect" democracy that truly represents the "of the people, for the people, by the people". But it could be said that the reason Thaksin was removed was because he was taking down the safeguards that protected Thailand from becoming a dictatorship- it was well on its way to being a government of Thaksin, for Thaksin and by Thaksin- the interests of the "people" only came into it when he was deposed.

I understand what you're saying, all I have been trying to say is that all of these feelings of injustice and resentment are only going to have any chance (albeit slim) of being put to bed when everybody believes that the government are in place because that is what the majority want.

Regardless of the result of an election held now, the loser would be claiming corruption of some form affected the vote. Then there would be groups out there in their appropriately coloured shirts demonstrating and causing chaos. And then we would all be back here with basically the same arguments (usually having nothing to do with the facts).

exactly, but at least the party in power will have been put there by the voters.

[kmj]

One thing not to be taken lightly will be the actions of Bangkok residents. No matter how many marchers the reds get, they will be outnumbered by locals, who will not take kindly to threats against their homes and livelihoods, and may make pre-emptive attacks. Just as 9/11 changed the way all air passengers will now react to hijackers, so did black songkhran change the way Bangkok residents will react to violent protestors.

Bangkok residents are to busy with their own pockets to organize themselves, just like taking Friends off the air changed the way we watch TV, black songkhran change the way Bangkok residents will react to violent protestors. ( A better analogy than 9/11)

[rixalex]

you read something then alter it in your head to suit your own purpose.

Rather than flapping out with these vague unspecified accusations, why don't you quote where people are twisting your words or altering them?

Specifically what have i altered?

[jdinasia]

exactly, but at least the party in power will have been put there by the voters.

You mean like the current party that is in power? They got the largest number of votes in the last election and the MP's voted for Abhisit as Prime minister. ----

once again let me help you out with how the parliamentary system works when no single party gets more than 50% of the seats in parliament.

People vote for the Members of Parliament (MP's)

MP's elect the government (PM)

Parties get together to form a coalition when nobody has enough on their own to do it. Typically the party with the most MP's get the first crack at forming the government but not always. When a government loses power but parliament is not dissolved then the MP's get together form a new coalition and elect a new PM.

In the current situation the people elected the MP's. PPP formed an alliance with parties that lied to their constituencies (nobody's problem but the voters that elected them). Samak was forced out for lying and could have immediately been reelected but Thaksin picked his brother in law instead. Somchai was forced out when PPP was found to have committed gross electoral fraud (making it the SECOND Thaksin party to get caught!). PTP Could have formed the next government but the small parties that had helped them in the past swung over to the Democrats. Somchai could have dissolved parliament the day before the decision to disband PPP was handed down (everyone knew it was going to happen since there was tape of a party official). So since it was apparent after TWO Thaksin parties had been brought down for cheating that they just weren't reliable as political allies and the small parties joined with the Democrats to form the government.

There is absolutely nothing that prevents even the smallest party from being the party that the PM is elected from.

So ... YES the current government is the one that was put there by the people. Just like the last 2 were.

[khunjamespittman]

the public have spoken in the last 3 elections and they never said democrats, as much as that pains you.

If by "they never said democrats" you mean the democrats didn't win a majority, of the last three elections the people "never said" Thaksin twice. Does that pain you?

You are obviously not aware that Thailand government body is supposed to be a parlimentary government according to all versions of the Thai Constitution. Please let me educate you. I have read numerous times in this forum that Thaksin and his party won the elections "by a little". Well, for all of you who chastise the poor people for not being knowledgeable, Perhaps with a little introspection you might learn that in the Parlimentary form of government if you win by just one vote you are then allowed to form a coalition of other parties and rule. In the election if your oposition gets even one more vote that you then you have no right to try to form a coalition to form a legitimate government. Now that you understand the Parlimentary government process, since it readily accepted that Thaksin and his parties have been the only ones to receive the most votes and therefore as prescribed in all the Thai Constitutions they are the only ones that are allowed to form a legitimate coalition government.

[jdinasia]

Well, for all of you who chastise the poor people for not being knowledgeable, Perhaps with a little introspection you might learn that in the Parlimentary form of government if you win by just one vote you are then allowed to form a coalition of other parties and rule. In the election if your oposition gets even one more vote that you then you have no right to try to form a coalition to form a legitimate government. Now that you understand the Parlimentary government process, since it readily accepted that Thaksin and his parties have been the only ones to receive the most votes and therefore as prescribed in all the Thai Constitutions they are the only ones that are allowed to form a legitimate coalition government.

Sorry, but this is NOT correct. The largest party TYPICALLY gets first bite at the apple but ANY party can be the one that forms the government. The ONLY time that a party automatically gets to form the government is if they have over 50% of the seats in Parliament.

[rixalex]

In the election if your oposition gets even one more vote that you then you have no right to try to form a coalition to form a legitimate government.

Nonsense. Where do you get that from?

since it readily accepted that Thaksin and his parties have been the only ones to receive the most votes

Accepted by whom? At the last election Thaksin's party didn't receive the most votes. They won the most seats. There's a difference. Are you aware of that?

Why not get your facts straight before lecturing?

[maahuanao]

At the last election Thaksin's party didn't receive the most votes. They won the most seats.

I see, so is there proportional representation in Thailand? If not then the number of votes are irrelevant and the number of seats won the only thing that matters, or are you just using this to try to cloud the issues at hand?

[Ricardo]

Please let me educate you. I have read numerous times in this forum that Thaksin and his party won the elections "by a little".

Sorry Khunjames, but before lecturing everybody about parliamentary-politics, you perhaps need to ponder further and understand what happens when you have a 'hung parliament', as happened at the last elections. Any party can try to form a coalition, and indeed must do so to govern, unless they get more than 50% of the MPs, which PPP did not.

Where Thaksin & TRT did get a majority, in 2005, this was a first for Thailand, and they didn't need to form a coalition to govern.

[jdinasia]

At the last election Thaksin's party didn't receive the most votes. They won the most seats.

I see, so is there proportional representation in Thailand? If not then the number of votes are irrelevant and the number of seats won the only thing that matters, or are you just using this to try to cloud the issues at hand?

Actually there is BOTH in Thailand, but that wasn't the issue here. The issue was incorrectly using the term votes when what was meant was seats. There was no obfuscation since it was answered directly and clearly. Many people assume that getting the most votes is what counts. Not True. Many people also assume that getting the most seats means you got the most votes. Not True. Many people think that winning the most seats means that you are the "popular choice" or have more of a "majority" of voters. Obviously not true.

When having a discussion it is pretty important to use clear and honest language and that was not being done. Many people on this forum do not come from places with parliamentary governments. hel_l, many of my fellow countrymen don't even understand that votes by the voters is NOT what elects the government in the USA.

[rixalex]

At the last election Thaksin's party didn't receive the most votes. They won the most seats.

I see, so is there proportional representation in Thailand? If not then the number of votes are irrelevant and the number of seats won the only thing that matters, or are you just using this to try to cloud the issues at hand?

JD has already made this point, but just to clarify:

Yes i'm aware that proportional representation is not the system used in Thailand, and i therefore agree that raw numbers in terms of votes received doesn't mean much - of course it is telling and something worth considering when talking about the so called will of the people - but, at the end of the day, it's the number of seats that counts. I wasn't disputing any of that. What i was disputing was the claim made that Thaksin received the most votes at the last election. He did not.

If people come on here and lecture about educating us on the facts, they should at the very least be aware of the facts themselves, don't you think?

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

It might be important to know and not to ignore that Thaksin's TRT won only ONE election by democratic means - i.e. one free vote per person. The following elections (TRT 2nd, PPP) were rigged - 200 Baht per vote, paid in cash and in advance. No hearsay, observed by myself with my own eyes. And since i don't drink you can't even blame it on me being drunk and having seen something different.

Next - i fully support peaceful protests/demonstrations for a just cause. However the reds don't march for the country or for democracy, heck they don't even march for their own interest. All they march for is to re-unite Thaksin (a convicted criminal and fugitive!) with the money that he "acquired through a number of very shady deals", to use gentle words. Why they march for that cause? Because they indeed can't think further than a week into the future. Sure Thaksin "helped" the poor by granting them loans - that they need to re-pay those loans, getting Thaksin a nice profit from the interest, THAT they don't see.

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler - he, too, was good at brainwashing the population except for the well educated....... and getting their support by showing some initial incentives (Hitler created jobs and got the economy going, Thaksin gave loans and introduced almost-free health care). No doubts - with Thaksin's plans for the military he would have become Thailand's dictator (probably, as always with dictators, rather named "President") as soon as the unmentionable yet unpreventable would happen.

Best regards.....

Thanh (yes, yellow, but against violence in any way, shape or form, regardless by what colour)

[Ulysses G.]

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler

Using this silly comparison pretty much negates the whole post. Hitler murdered millions of people for their religion, ethnic background and sexual orientation. Thaksin is a knight on a white horse in comparison.

[rixalex]

Thaksin is a knight on a white horse in comparison.

Don't forget the shining armour

[mca]

The twisting is coming from the reds side. Making utterly false claims, ignoring facts posted by anyone they disagree with, posting blatant lies and giving opinion with no facts to back it up is the main operating mode of your "little mob"

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to accept that all sides are guilty of this.

[jdinasia]

The best person to compare Thaksin with would be Hitler

Using this silly comparison pretty much negates the whole post. Hitler murdered millions of people for their religion, ethnic background and sexual orientation. Thaksin is a knight on a white horse in comparison.

See .. yet again we can agree UG

Thaksin's style could be better compared with Peron. Peron, however WAS far worse! Just the style is similar.

Any comparison with the 20th century bad guys is specious when it comes to numbers and I would think even comments like mine that remark about his style repeat the word style and style only ... repeatedly!

[ballpoint]

The twisting is coming from the reds side. Making utterly false claims, ignoring facts posted by anyone they disagree with, posting blatant lies and giving opinion with no facts to back it up is the main operating mode of your "little mob"

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to accept that all sides are guilty of this.

Let's see, just off the top of my head, in the past two days we've had mythbuster trying to tell us that Thailand has slipped below Zimbabwe in the HRW rankings, Clod make repeated statements as to the ability of HRW to charge and convict governments, numerous posters telling us the recent court decision was ordered by the government, numerous posters telling us that the court's decision was made using laws that were introduced by the military installed Surayad government, and on this page alone, khunjamespitman said "Now that you understand the Parlimentary government process, since it readily accepted that Thaksin and his parties have been the only ones to receive the most votes and therefore as prescribed in all the Thai Constitutions they are the only ones that are allowed to form a legitimate coalition government". which is a pile of manure sourced from a male bovine creature. Not to mention tonywebster's, (whose posts are redder than a scarlet fever infected masochistic baboons bum), repeated claims to be neutral. The only reasonable question to ask is are they really this ignorant as to believe what they are posting, or are they posting lies in an attempt to stir things up?

[mca]

Err..... Seem to recall that the wolves were out for the Reds on the Aphisit shit throwing thread as people jostled with each other to be the first put their foot in their mouths.

To be frank (and not aimed at you but in general) the attitude that " The people who agree with my stance on things wouldn't possibly do that but it's par for the course that the people who disagree with me would " seems stunningly immature.

Edited March 5, 2010 by mca

[Ulysses G.]

See .. yet again we can agree UG

We agree on many things other than Thai Politics.