US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters

[pornsasi]

The Democrats boycotted the elections because they were not going to be free or fair.

One of the reasons the 2006 election was invalidated (prior to the coup) was that the (Thaksin appointed) EC had set up the voting booths so that there was no privacy. This allowed people to "verify" that the voters had voted "the correct way" (ie they way they had been paid).

Since when is it a crime NOT to stand in an election?

I said the constitution was tainted. I didn't say it was (completely) wrong. The laws restricting the corruption of elections should be in there. The only reason the reds want them out, is that is the only way they can get into government.

So instead they supported a coup which is free and fair

A month before the Oct 2006 elections . Which they knew they would loose . how convenient , dont you think

No the 2007 constitution is not completely wrong , but the wrong part of it , got Abhisit "elected"

the article 237 is idiotic , unless it makes mandatory a general election and its not practical . what f.e if both democrats and PTP are convinced of corruption .

Both are banned ? Parties keep on changing every good dam_n day ? As if the thai system is not messy enough .

You could had same deterrent by increasing penalties , say 10 years ban on the party executives + cuplrits

They had lost before in several election but ran anyway.... so brain trust, what changed?

Oh yes Thaksin called this election to whitewash his Temasek sale of National assets to a foreign powers investment arm.

The Democratats stated they would not join in this election for that reason. Not to give ANY validation of his actions.

And so if he felt his mandate was so rock solid getting 20% should have been a cakewwalk.

It wasn't and they knew it wouldn't be a cheated big time to win. And got banned.

237 is not idiotic. But we agree it should be even stronger. 10 years bans would be better,

and actual MANDATORY jail time for those that hands on caused the dissoloution would be even better.

Look , I know the reason , i was there , but the dems paid other smaller parties not to join April 2006

elections & that is not proper .

They also it would seem lied about TRT

BANGKOK, 18 November 2009 (NNT) – The Opposition Puea Thai Party will ask the Election Commission (EC) to revise the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party in 2006. Puea Thai said two key witnesses of the case had admitted that they had falsely accused the TRT.

Two key witnesses from the Pattana Chart Thai Party have admitted being bribed by the then Opposition Democrat Party to accuse one of the executives of the TRT. The two said Democrat Party Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban promised to pay them 15 million THB each and give them legal protection.

Some Puea Thai MPs said the party legal team was collecting relevant information to seek a revival of the TRT dissolution case.

The MPs said they would also file lawsuits against Mr Suthep as well as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva for criminal offences. The ruling Democrat Party will face dissolution if Mr Suthep is proven guilty after the investigation.

According to the Opposition party, the two witnesses decided to reveal the truth since Mr Suthep did not keep his words to provide legal protection for them for their electoral fraud charges.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party Spokesperson Buranaj Smutharaks rejected the allegation as groundless, saying that the two witnesses, as well as some former executives of the TRT, were seeking personal gain from the matter.

The dems agreed on October 2006 elections yet they did not say anything against the coup

237 is a destabilising factor thats why its not appropriate IMHO. Moreover that constitution was imposed under martial law

which kind of put a verious serious dent on its legitimacy .

And then of course the entire thai system is rotten by corruption .

Agree with you on the mandatory jail sentence +10 y ban . Normally the state should have also to punish the recipients ,

a fine would go a long way to bring cash to the state and inject some secund thoughts in the mind of voters

until they get better educated . If there is an offer is because there is a demand ...

[pornsasi]

I reckon you need to go and review your idea of "multiple representative rule".

There are 400 directly elected MPs. What you are suggesting is that there can be multiple MPs depending on how people vote, which would lead to more than 400 MPs. 80 MPs are party list MPs, voted for by proportional representation.

Agreed that the "referendum" for the constitution is tainted. But I have yet to see how the changes affected the rights of the people to a fair vote (your example above, not being correct). I have only seen that it reduces corruption in elections, which severly effects the Thaksin parties.

People BELIEVE that the current government is not legitimate because they have been fed the red propaganda, and don't understand the facts. They listen to the emotion and ignore the reason.

You give an example of how the "tainted" constitution affected the ability for a fair vote, but it is clearly incorrect.

You say that the coup "deposed a legally elected Prime Minister". At the time of the coup, Thaksin wasn't elected, but an appointed care-taker, following his own "tainted" election.

If you can not have a legitimate government elected under a tainted constitution, then how is it that the PPP government is legitimate, but the Democrat government isn't?

They are all corrupted , ALL OF THEM . Not only TRT/PPP/PTP , all of em . And the courts decisions follows the same direction as the direction on where the wind blows at any particular moment

[stingray]

Never understud why US always put his nose in other countries affairs. US allways like to control everything. This must have a end! It's not their problem. I'm Swiss and if Swizterland would have a conflict with Italy tommorrow (just for example), than it's not the USA's Problem either.

It helps sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. As an American, I support it when it helps. It remains to be seen whether this will help or not. You're Swiss? Big surprise. BTW, if the Nazis had won the war, would the Swiss still be neutral?

No, i think we would be Germany now. BTW, i'm not against americans and i'm not american hater. I travel almost every year to the states for at least 2 or 3 months. Love the American Muscle and Classic Cars and i always enjoy th stay there and i have many friends there. I just think it is not good if any Nations comes to powerful and try to control everything. This was the thing with Hitler. He had some good ideas in the begin, otherwise the "Bolschewism" would take over Europe after first WW. But he got out of control and crazy, start fight everywhere, he wanted to control the whole world, which was very wrong.

[pornsasi]

I reckon you need to go and review your idea of "multiple representative rule".

There are 400 directly elected MPs. What you are suggesting is that there can be multiple MPs depending on how people vote, which would lead to more than 400 MPs. 80 MPs are party list MPs, voted for by proportional representation.

Agreed that the "referendum" for the constitution is tainted. But I have yet to see how the changes affected the rights of the people to a fair vote (your example above, not being correct). I have only seen that it reduces corruption in elections, which severly effects the Thaksin parties.

People BELIEVE that the current government is not legitimate because they have been fed the red propaganda, and don't understand the facts. They listen to the emotion and ignore the reason.

You give an example of how the "tainted" constitution affected the ability for a fair vote, but it is clearly incorrect.

You say that the coup "deposed a legally elected Prime Minister". At the time of the coup, Thaksin wasn't elected, but an appointed care-taker, following his own "tainted" election.

If you can not have a legitimate government elected under a tainted constitution, then how is it that the PPP government is legitimate, but the Democrat government isn't?

Because the PPP PM Samak was elected by a parliament that had a popular mandate . Freshly minted from general elections .

Not the case of the current PM . If you say a new election would bring 185 new PPP (PTP) , while the last election in 2007 had 223 PPP's MP

thats a huge loss and the PM has to prove the number right as the reduction from 223 to 185 is not due to a popular vote . Only way of doing it

is thru a general election . Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the dems . Has not been prooven but how sure are you its not the case

Again were this to happen say in the UK , the eqv party PPP voters , would bring the PM down and hang him politically speaking at

the next lamp post . But i dont think a UK PM would accept the job anyway .

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[oceano]

Not happy if Thaksin buys the election with money and violent thuggery. That's for sure. And such an election would not bring peace.

Also the PM can, him have in the back all rich people of the country, all togheter their are more rich than Taksin thei can buy what thei want, also one ferrari each every day.

It upsets many posters that a violent mob can force a legitimate government to call elections more than 12 months before they are scheduled.

No, but we can have one more coup, that is legitimate for send away one governament 2 yrs before same the last rights?

Never understud why US always put his nose in other countries affairs. US allways like to control everything. This must have a end! It's not their problem. I'm Swiss and if Swizterland would have a conflict with Italy tommorrow (just for example), than it's not the USA's Problem either.

Also 40 officer from 40 country, most of them european they go in the red camp last month so? Sorry for say, but swizterland is always neutral...only thake money in the bank from everybody.

Also The Prime Minister have the same idea:

"If the rally is not called off, protesters will face a very high risk. The terrorists will act again, they will use violence against protesters and their leaders," the prime minister said."

As i said before, stop talk show me the evidence of what you talk about and i will agree whit you, till that time shut up and stop make new account in Thaivisa for nothings.

PS: Dont use "SPQR" that was a Roman history, my history and you dont have respect whit your word also for that.

This is how the true red voice speaks.

Looking forward to the Thaksin style 'free speech'.

Can you explain more please?

As you can read i quote the current prime minister...him talk like taksin???

Sorry i must talk like this for you: kill that terrorist, incenerite them, send them to the hel_l!!! Women? children ? no problem all terrorist! Come on take you gun and go to the war!!!!!!! damned terrorist!!!!!!!

Evidence? about what? they are terrorist which evidence do you want?

Feel better now?

im bored repeat the same things, 90% of them are normal people, why say are all terrist, crimilnal ecc ecc?

Than my friend this is not our country, they can do what they want....remember we only guest, live them free....if you think is wrong your problem not mine.

Edited May 10, 2010 by oceano

[pornsasi]

No, i think we would be Germany now. BTW, i'm not against americans and i'm not american hater. I travel almost every year to the states for at least 2 or 3 months. Love the American Muscle and Classic Cars and i always enjoy th stay there and i have many friends there. I just think it is not good if any Nations comes to powerful and try to control everything. This was the thing with Hitler. He had some good ideas in the begin, otherwise the "Bolschewism" would take over Europe after first WW. But he got out of control and crazy, start fight everywhere, he wanted to control the whole world, which was very wrong.

Yes i can see your point and to certain limited extent agree . In this case the US tries to help an allied nation , nothing much they have to gain from it .

But bear in mind that it is Hitler that brought bolchevism to Eastern Europe , something all revolution and international failed to do between 1919 and 1923 .

Also incidently its also Hitler that declared war on the US not the other way around .

[yoshiwara]

No, i think we would be Germany now. BTW, i'm not against americans and i'm not american hater. I travel almost every year to the states for at least 2 or 3 months. Love the American Muscle and Classic Cars and i always enjoy th stay there and i have many friends there. I just think it is not good if any Nations comes to powerful and try to control everything. This was the thing with Hitler. He had some good ideas in the begin, otherwise the "Bolschewism" would take over Europe after first WW. But he got out of control and crazy, start fight everywhere, he wanted to control the whole world, which was very wrong.

Yes i can see your point and to certain limited extent agree . In this case the US tries to help an allied nation , nothing much they have to gain from it .

But bear in mind that it is Hitler that brought bolchevism to Eastern Europe , something all revolution and international failed to do between 1919 and 1923 .

Also incidently its also Hitler that declared war on the US not the other way around .

Confused drivel.

[brandy]

Be a bit firkin daft NOT to talk to the reds, considering many/most people think that they would win an election right now.

Half the worlds problems are due to the US sticking it's nose into where it doesn't belong, go home and stay out of it

[pornsasi]

Confused drivel.

Maybe to your limited knowledge it is .

[gemini81]

No, i think we would be Germany now. BTW, i'm not against americans and i'm not american hater. I travel almost every year to the states for at least 2 or 3 months. Love the American Muscle and Classic Cars and i always enjoy th stay there and i have many friends there. I just think it is not good if any Nations comes to powerful and try to control everything. This was the thing with Hitler. He had some good ideas in the begin, otherwise the "Bolschewism" would take over Europe after first WW. But he got out of control and crazy, start fight everywhere, he wanted to control the whole world, which was very wrong.

Yes i can see your point and to certain limited extent agree . In this case the US tries to help an allied nation , nothing much they have to gain from it .

But bear in mind that it is Hitler that brought bolchevism to Eastern Europe , something all revolution and international failed to do between 1919 and 1923 .

Also incidently its also Hitler that declared war on the US not the other way around .

Confused drivel.

no doubt that guy is confused! Hitler bringing Bolchevism? <deleted>? Thats like saying the reds bring BKK peace. This dude needs to get some history education. Google: Lenin, Trotsky, Bolchevic revolution. Anyway, thats way off topic. Apple and oranges/

[pornsasi]

Be a bit firkin daft NOT to talk to the reds, considering many/most people think that they would win an election right now.

Indeed

[gemini81]

Be a bit firkin daft NOT to talk to the reds, considering many/most people think that they would win an election right now.

Half the worlds problems are due to the US sticking it's nose into where it doesn't belong, go home and stay out of it

remember that when your country needs help or asks for assistance.

[oceano]

Be a bit firkin daft NOT to talk to the reds, considering many/most people think that they would win an election right now.

Half the worlds problems are due to the US sticking it's nose into where it doesn't belong, go home and stay out of it

remember that when your country needs help or asks for assistance.

This i agree whit you.

[whybother]

I reckon you need to go and review your idea of "multiple representative rule".

There are 400 directly elected MPs. What you are suggesting is that there can be multiple MPs depending on how people vote, which would lead to more than 400 MPs. 80 MPs are party list MPs, voted for by proportional representation.

Agreed that the "referendum" for the constitution is tainted. But I have yet to see how the changes affected the rights of the people to a fair vote (your example above, not being correct). I have only seen that it reduces corruption in elections, which severly effects the Thaksin parties.

People BELIEVE that the current government is not legitimate because they have been fed the red propaganda, and don't understand the facts. They listen to the emotion and ignore the reason.

You give an example of how the "tainted" constitution affected the ability for a fair vote, but it is clearly incorrect.

You say that the coup "deposed a legally elected Prime Minister". At the time of the coup, Thaksin wasn't elected, but an appointed care-taker, following his own "tainted" election.

If you can not have a legitimate government elected under a tainted constitution, then how is it that the PPP government is legitimate, but the Democrat government isn't?

Because the PPP PM Samak was elected by a parliament that had a popular mandate . Freshly minted from general elections .

Not the case of the current PM . If you say a new election would bring 185 new PPP (PTP) , while the last election in 2007 had 223 PPP's MP

thats a huge loss and the PM has to prove the number right as the edsuction from 223 to 185 is not due to a popular vote . Only way of doing it

is thru a general election . Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the dems . Has not been prooven but how sure are you its not the case

Again were this to happen say in the UK , the eqv party PPP voters , would bring the PM down and hang him politically speaking at

the next lamp post . But i dont think a UK PM would accept the job anyway .

"Because the PPP PM Samak was elected by a parliament that had a popular mandate."

Samak was elected by his party and some smaller parties. The thing that gave it a "popular mandate" was that it was a majority of MPs - which is the same way that Abhisit came to power.

"Freshly minted from general elections"

Where does it say ANYWHERE that a government can only be formed directly after an election?

That is just emotive red propaganda.

A government is just the people appointed by the elected PM.

The MPs are voted for by the people. The MPs elect the PM. The PM selects his cabinet and government ministers (through agreements by those who elected him).

There are always reshuffles of ministers by the PM. When a new PM is elected, there is usually a reshuffle of cabinet and minister posts.

"reduction from 223 to 185 is not due to a popular vote"

The reduction was due to MPs being banned, by-elections for the vacant postions, and PPP/PTP MPs not being re-elected. You can only blame the MPs for that.

MPs from several parties were banned immediately after the election (Jan 2008) and the PPP executive were banned in late 2008.

There were by-elections for ALL vacant electorates. So all of the MPs were replaced (except about 5 PPP executive party list MPs that were banned).

Why does there need to be a general election which penalises ALL of the non-banned MPs, including those PPP MPs that weren't banned?

"Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the dems"

Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the PPP too. We don't know. But that doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legitimate for them to change their support.

Edited May 10, 2010 by whybother

[pornsasi]

no doubt that guy is confused! Hitler bringing Bolchevism? <deleted>? Thats like saying the reds bring BKK peace. This dude needs to get some history education. Google: Lenin, Trotsky, Bolchevic revolution. Anyway, thats way off topic. Apple and oranges/

Look i am from Eastern Europe partly and I lived there . Hitler brought the red army to Eastern Europe

because of his failed invasion of the USSR , and that as a result brought bolchevism

Or perhaps you think that ppl there voted bolchevik ? Apart from Yugoslavia .

Now why dont you play darts , eat an apple or orange and listen to ppl with some knowledge ?

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[pornsasi]

"Because the PPP PM Samak was elected by a parliament that had a popular mandate."

Samak was elected by his party and some smaller parties. The thing that gave it a "popular mandate" was that it was a majority of MPs - which is the same way that Abhisit came to power.

"Freshly minted from general elections"

Where does it say ANYWHERE that a government can only be formed directly after an election?

That is just emotive red propaganda.

A government is just the people appointed by the elected PM.

The MPs are voted for by the people. The MPs elect the PM. The PM selects his cabinet and government ministers (through agreements by those who elected him).

There are always reshuffles of ministers by the PM. When a new PM is elected, there is usually a reshuffle of cabinet and minister posts.

"reduction from 223 to 185 is not due to a popular vote"

The reduction was due to MPs being banned, by-elections for the vacant postions, and PPP/PTP MPs not being re-elected. You can only blame the MPs for that.

MPs from several parties were banned immediately after the election (Jan 2008) and the PPP executive were banned in late 2008.

There were by-elections for ALL vacant electorates. So all of the MPs were replaced (except about 5 PPP executive party list MPs that were banned).

Why does there need to be a general election which penalises ALL of the non-banned MPs, including those PPP MPs that weren't banned?

"Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the dems"

Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the PPP too. We don't know. But that doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legitimate for them to change their support.

ok ask your UK friends if you have any , they will explain to you how democracy works in a parlementary system .

Am not british myself , though i have a bit studied their history

Yesterday i was talking to a british guy on another thread , and his comment was Abhisit has no popular mandate

whatsoever . Which confirm what i was thinking

Thanks

[pornsasi]

In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.^[1]

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.

Elections, especially ones with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected government or elected official a mandate to implement certain policies. Also, the period during which a government serves between elections is often referred to as a mandate and when the government seeks re-election it is said to be seeking a "new mandate".

In some languages, a 'mandate' can mean a parliamentary seat won in an election.

Here definition of a popular mandate for you ,

The PM obviously dont have any by this definition

What he has instead is beeing elected by a copy and paste parliament that has not been elected itself

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[hardy1943]

"More than 10 Democrats were also invited to attend the breakfast meeting, but none of them went. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn also declined the invitation," a political source said.

What was their excuse? Horse too high? Too dangerous to climb down from the horse?

Maybe if the USA cuts their foreign aid they be running to attent.

Less money for them to stick in their own pocket.

Edited May 10, 2010 by hardy1943

[jcicero]

Is USA backing the red terrorists? Send this guy back home to US immediately. He was not officially invited, and should not go here to meet with the terrorists.

Yes, it seems that way to me too. And it seems as though the Red Shirts PR company has done a great job.

I agree......send him back home.

[pornsasi]

Is USA backing the red terrorists? Send this guy back home to US immediately. He was not officially invited, and should not go here to meet with the terrorists.

Yes, it seems that way to me too. And it seems as though the Red Shirts PR company has done a great job.

I agree......send him back home.

Maybe next time he will meet the yellow terrorists , and am sure you will be there

[pornsasi]

Be a bit firkin daft NOT to talk to the reds, considering many/most people think that they would win an election right now.

Half the worlds problems are due to the US sticking it's nose into where it doesn't belong, go home and stay out of it

remember that when your country needs help or asks for assistance.

agree on this one

[stingray]

no doubt that guy is confused! Hitler bringing Bolchevism? <deleted>? Thats like saying the reds bring BKK peace. This dude needs to get some history education. Google: Lenin, Trotsky, Bolchevic revolution. Anyway, thats way off topic. Apple and oranges/

Look i am from Eastern Europe partly and I lived there . Hitler brought the red army to Eastern Europe

because of his failed invasion of the USSR , and that as a result brought bolchevism

Or perhaps you think that ppl there voted bolchevik ? Apart from Yugoslavia .

Now why dont you play darts , eat an apple or orange and listen to ppl with some knowledge ?

So far as i know it was the Bolchevism came first, they try to get into Germany politicly, after the WW1 and Hitler came into power, was against the Bolchevism (if i spell it right). As some poster mentioned above. Hitler declared war to US. Not ony to US, he declared war to ewveryone, Rassia, etc, as i said he was out of control, crazy a..ole. He had already most parts of Europe, but greed lead him to declare war to everyone. He want a united Europe (similar sheme as the European is now), but he liked to have the whole world and of corse he want to be the one who controls everything.

It's a little bid similar with Mister "T". He have enought money to enjoy his family and his life (or for the rest of it). But he want to regain power again (not lose face), spend a lot of money to create troubles, hopes to go in power again, because he want more and more, for what? Does he thnk he gonna living forever?

If peaple getting greedy and want more and more power and more money, one day they gonna have a downfall and they'll end up with nothing. This is what happen with Hitler as well.

[thaibeachlovers]

What a hypocrite! I can't believe the guy would even talk to these red terrorists.

Hmm ...3 anonymous forum posts claiming the red shirts are terrorists. US Assistant Secretary of State seems to think otherwise. Hmm, who should I believe. Who's more credible ...hmmm, such a tough question!

You actually believe anything that comes out of a politician's mouth? LOL.

[whybother]

ok ask your UK friends if you have any , they will explain to you how democracy works in a parlementary system .

Am not british myself , though i have a bit studied their history

Yesterday i was talking to a british guy on another thread , and his comment was Abhisit has no popular mandate

whatsoever . Which confirm what i was thinking

Thanks

I'm from Australia, which has the same system as here and the UK, not only nationally (PM), but in the states (6) and territories (2) as well (Premier). So I am well versed in the parliamentary system, but not an expert.

The problem with saying "That wouldn't happen in (whereever)" is that it probably wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

The UK is an interesting example at the moment, where a party is deciding which major party to support. The third party didn't campaign that they would or wouldn't support either of the major parties. Does that make which ever party gets up as illegitimate?

A lot of people THINK that Abhisit doesn't have a popular mandate, but given the has the support of the majority of MPs, I don't think it matters.

[thaibeachlovers]

no doubt that guy is confused! Hitler bringing Bolchevism? <deleted>? Thats like saying the reds bring BKK peace. This dude needs to get some history education. Google: Lenin, Trotsky, Bolchevic revolution. Anyway, thats way off topic. Apple and oranges/

Look i am from Eastern Europe partly and I lived there . Hitler brought the red army to Eastern Europe

because of his failed invasion of the USSR , and that as a result brought bolchevism

Or perhaps you think that ppl there voted bolchevik ? Apart from Yugoslavia .

Now why dont you play darts , eat an apple or orange and listen to ppl with some knowledge ?

So far as i know it was the Bolchevism came first, they try to get into Germany politicly, after the WW1 and Hitler came into power, was against the Bolchevism (if i spell it right). As some poster mentioned above. Hitler declared war to US. Not ony to US, he declared war to ewveryone, Rassia, etc, as i said he was out of control, crazy a..ole. He had already most parts of Europe, but greed lead him to declare war to everyone. He want a united Europe (similar sheme as the European is now), but he liked to have the whole world and of corse he want to be the one who controls everything.

It's a little bid similar with Mister "T". He have enought money to enjoy his family and his life (or for the rest of it). But he want to regain power again (not lose face), spend a lot of money to create troubles, hopes to go in power again, because he want more and more, for what? Does he thnk he gonna living forever?

If peaple getting greedy and want more and more power and more money, one day they gonna have a downfall and they'll end up with nothing. This is what happen with Hitler as well.

You are correct. Hitler's Brownshirts battled the Bolsheviks on the streets, and he probably came to power because the establishment believed he could be "used" against stalinism, but of course once he had power.......

( There's probably a similarity there with a certain Thai politician in recent history- not the bit about stalinism of course ).

[thaibeachlovers]

"Because the PPP PM Samak was elected by a parliament that had a popular mandate."

Samak was elected by his party and some smaller parties. The thing that gave it a "popular mandate" was that it was a majority of MPs - which is the same way that Abhisit came to power.

"Freshly minted from general elections"

Where does it say ANYWHERE that a government can only be formed directly after an election?

That is just emotive red propaganda.

A government is just the people appointed by the elected PM.

The MPs are voted for by the people. The MPs elect the PM. The PM selects his cabinet and government ministers (through agreements by those who elected him).

There are always reshuffles of ministers by the PM. When a new PM is elected, there is usually a reshuffle of cabinet and minister posts.

"reduction from 223 to 185 is not due to a popular vote"

The reduction was due to MPs being banned, by-elections for the vacant postions, and PPP/PTP MPs not being re-elected. You can only blame the MPs for that.

MPs from several parties were banned immediately after the election (Jan 2008) and the PPP executive were banned in late 2008.

There were by-elections for ALL vacant electorates. So all of the MPs were replaced (except about 5 PPP executive party list MPs that were banned).

Why does there need to be a general election which penalises ALL of the non-banned MPs, including those PPP MPs that weren't banned?

"Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the dems"

Maybe the friends of Newin were paid to join the PPP too. We don't know. But that doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly legitimate for them to change their support.

ok ask your UK friends if you have any , they will explain to you how democracy works in a parlementary system .

Am not british myself , though i have a bit studied their history

Yesterday i was talking to a british guy on another thread , and his comment was Abhisit has no popular mandate

whatsoever . Which confirm what i was thinking

Thanks

Well I do know how a parliamentary "democracy" works, and there have been few governments with a voter majority since WW2. Hence no "popular mandate" regardless of number of seats won.

All sorts of skullduggery goes on in a first past the post system like the UK where districts are "gerrymandered" ( I'm not saying that goes on in the UK, of course, LOL ) to elect a poly from a particular party.

In a PR system, so much is compromised to form a government, that they become prey to unscrupulous polies like helen clark of New Zealand.

[punisher]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

because the reds are not terrorists,and abisi is not elected from the people

[thaibeachlovers]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Absolutely agree

They should not contact those Terrorists and legitimize them besides when the US involve themselves things usually go really wrong see Afghanistan see Iraq see Israel and before Vietnam - Korea -

IMO you are way off including Korea, or do you think the entire Korean population should be under the maniac?

However, Korea was probably the last "good" war the US was involved with.

[pornsasi]

ok ask your UK friends if you have any , they will explain to you how democracy works in a parlementary system .

Am not british myself , though i have a bit studied their history

Yesterday i was talking to a british guy on another thread , and his comment was Abhisit has no popular mandate

whatsoever . Which confirm what i was thinking

Thanks

I'm from Australia, which has the same system as here and the UK, not only nationally (PM), but in the states (6) and territories (2) as well (Premier). So I am well versed in the parliamentary system, but not an expert.

The problem with saying "That wouldn't happen in (whereever)" is that it probably wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

The UK is an interesting example at the moment, where a party is deciding which major party to support. The third party didn't campaign that they would or wouldn't support either of the major parties. Does that make which ever party gets up as illegitimate?

A lot of people THINK that Abhisit doesn't have a popular mandate, but given the has the support of the majority of MPs, I don't think it matters.

From where i come from , France , we have half parlementary half presidential system

is not like Thailand .

I suppose that if in the UK one or the other party dont win a majority in parliament the

Lib Dem will have to choose a coalition partner at the end .

Yes that could happen in OZ or UK but am very sure talking bout UK , OZ probably the same

that it would end with someone with a popular mandate

And also dont forget in UK or OZ there is no dissolution of entire parties by a court .

[thaibeachlovers]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

because the reds are not terrorists,and abisi is not elected from the people

Neither was Gordon Brown, but he's still PM.