Emptyset Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 The PPP lost the election also, but they made a deal with smaller parties that had campaigned that they would not support the PPP. After the PPP were disbanded, ALL the remaining (non-banned) MPs moved to different parties. The "friends of Newin" decided that they didn't want to move to the PTP, and formed their own party. They also decided that they didn't want to continue supporting Thaksin's puppet parties so supported the Democrats instead. Well, remember something about that and Abhisit said it too in his interview with the BBC, I think. Which parties said they wouldn't join a PPP lead coalition? I think PP might have said it, and Matchima of course. What about CT? Anyway, it makes sense they'd say that to get the junta's backing, who were mobilizing massive resources to fight against the PPP at the time. Obviously PP was set up as an explicit opponent of Thaksin and hoped to win a lot of ex-TRT seats. Matchima also had junta support because they had a lot of key Thaksin opponents too, Prachai of Dem donation fame etc, was dead against Thaksin, but in the end they had little choice but to join the coalition because PPP had a near majority. Any Dem coalition would've been practically impossible. Shows you that corruption had little to do with Thaksin's ouster when the military were willing to back the likes of Vatana Asavahame to fight against him. Case of choosing the lesser evil, I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 well... that's true too... but personally I hate it when people vote for MP's thinking they are 'allied' to one side and then the MP's jump ship - they didn't vote for that and it stinks! (although technically legal). Exactly, imagine how frustrating to vote for an MP that declares he will not support the PPP only to have him do that after the election...and I am sure you wrote angry posts and letters when that happened. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one. The elected government wasn't banned. Some MP's from some parties was. And the biggest [at the time] coalition party lost the support for the coalition partners, so when time came to elect a new MP, they supported an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 yes and the people who voted for the 'coalition partners'? what about them? did they get a chance to say 'it's ok to switch'? no... anyway what's done is done - bring on the election and I will support whoever wins (fairly). I think you are confused now...as the coalition-partners wasn't elected on the basis of being coalition-partners in the first place. Some of them even went to election declaring they would NOT partner with PPP...and their voters clearly wasn't represented when they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Your reply doesn't make sense. The 'friends of Newin' didn't/couldn't have decided that they didn't want to move to Phuea Thai party as they were already elected Phuea Thai MPs. -- Who invented the time-machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiFun Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one. The elected government wasn't banned. Some MP's from some parties was. And the biggest [at the time] coalition party lost the support for the coalition partners, so when time came to elect a new MP, they supported an alternative. you mean 'were'? anyway the elected government were booted out by the courts not the electorate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Two years-plus post election and people still want to debate over it in a confused manner... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one. The elected government wasn't banned. Some MP's from some parties was. And the biggest [at the time] coalition party lost the support for the coalition partners, so when time came to elect a new MP, they supported an alternative. you mean 'were'? anyway the elected government were booted out by the courts not the electorate And you are still wrong. A few MP's being banned does not evict an government. The only way for a government to lose power is to lose support from the MP's in parliament and then having one of them launch a Vote of No Confidence etc. Fact is that is the coalition-parties still supported PPP (PTP to be) after a few MP's (not only PPP's) got banned for election fraud etc, they would have remained in power. So tell us again, how did the courts oust the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state lol. Do you have any evidence he wasn't ordered shot by Thaksin or one of the many unelected Red Shirt leaders who needed him out of the way? Without evidence, making a claim that the Army "MURDERED" him could be construed as libellous. on the balance of probability it wasn't Thaksin (who was on the same side) the bullet was Army issue and it wasn't Santa Claus right? use your brain CMF, I would say this argument if fundamentally flawed, although I would agree its not likely that Santa Claus was NOT responsible. You were here around the time (as I recall) and most of the Amo flying around the place was Army issue, however a fair bit of Army issued stuff went missing in the months leading up to this murder. There was grenades, rocket launchers & army issue this and that stolen.....I'm actually surprised that the army had any gear left. Edited January 9, 2011 by neverdie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiFun Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one. The elected government wasn't banned. Some MP's from some parties was. And the biggest [at the time] coalition party lost the support for the coalition partners, so when time came to elect a new MP, they supported an alternative. you mean 'were'? anyway the elected government were booted out by the courts not the electorate And you are still wrong. A few MP's being banned does not evict an government. The only way for a government to lose power is to lose support from the MP's in parliament and then having one of them launch a Vote of No Confidence etc. Fact is that is the coalition-parties still supported PPP (PTP to be) after a few MP's (not only PPP's) got banned for election fraud etc, they would have remained in power. So tell us again, how did the courts oust the government? not MP's they banned the party iiself? correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiFun Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state lol. Do you have any evidence he wasn't ordered shot by Thaksin or one of the many unelected Red Shirt leaders who needed him out of the way? Without evidence, making a claim that the Army "MURDERED" him could be construed as libellous. on the balance of probability it wasn't Thaksin (who was on the same side) the bullet was Army issue and it wasn't Santa Claus right? use your brain CMF, I would say this argument if fundamentally flawed, although I would agree its not likely that Santa Claus was NOT responsible. You were here around the time (as I recall) and most of the Amo flying around the place was Army issue, however a fair bit of Army issued stuff went missing in the months leading up to this murder. There was grenades, rocket launchers & army issue this and that stolen.....I'm actually surprised that the army had any gear left. yes convenient wasn't it? at least you recognise it was murder - and I had a word with Santa who's says he wears red but it's a coincidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anselpixel Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics. Nor spelling. Nor grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverdie Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 yes convenient wasn't it? at least you recognise it was murder - and I had a word with Santa who's says he wears red but it's a coincidence! Alot of people actually get murdered by people they know, friends and family, associates etc etc. Of course, your chances are greatly increased when you associate with assssholes, if ya know what im saying? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Numbers = not even close to 60k, or even 10k... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Numbers = not even close to 60k, or even 10k... Why should the city be disrupted twice a month for this minority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Numbers = not even close to 60k, or even 10k... Why should the city be disrupted twice a month for this minority? Because we don't live in a totalitarian fascist state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Numbers = not even close to 60k, or even 10k... Why should the city be disrupted twice a month for this minority? Because we don't live in a totalitarian fascist state? You think this would be allowed in London were licences are required to hold such rallies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Numbers = not even close to 60k, or even 10k... Why should the city be disrupted twice a month for this minority? Because we don't live in a totalitarian fascist state? I think they should be allowed to protest. However, if they wish any police to direct traffic and/or protect the protesters, then they better pay for it too. The same with football teams having to foot the bill when their fans run amok back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Numbers = not even close to 60k, or even 10k... Why should the city be disrupted twice a month for this minority? Because we don't live in a totalitarian fascist state? You think this would be allowed in London were licences are required to hold such rallies? OK, just for you, check this out: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/8062403.htm It's about protesting outside Parliament Square in central London. Although it focuses on one man, other issues such as the use of loudspeakers etc is discussed, and we can see from the exchanges that deciding what is and isn't acceptable is a highly subjective issue and shouldn't just be ridden over roughshod by anyone simply because they're 'fed up' with the other side. Doubtless my answer didn't satisfy your original question. But the marches still go on. Good luck finding the answer. Let us know when you find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Jatuporn say Thaksin will phone-in to Happy New Year to reds crowds. via @Jeerawan_nna This is Thaksin, the non-supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 RT @tulsathit: Rajprasong: Big red crowd indeed. Jatuporn says Thaksin'll phone in at 7.30 pm. pic via @LyNGinG: http://plixi.com/p/68860013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 One farang is red shirt http://yfrog.com/h2wweoj via Jin_MUICMango Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 ID of the foreigner wearing a red shirt is welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomTumTiger Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Apparently he isn't aware of what happened to a few other conspicuous farang red shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Jatuporn say Thaksin will phone-in to Happy New Year to reds crowds. via @Jeerawan_nna This is Thaksin, the non-supporter. He's calling in to find out who they are, because "he doesn't know them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanetX Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) ID of the foreigner wearing a red shirt is welcome. There is no need to ID this foreigner - were not in the west yet Edited January 9, 2011 by PlanetX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p_brownstone Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) ID of the foreigner wearing a red shirt is welcome. I just wonder if that smirking plonker knows how crude is the language on his T-shirt. Idiot. Patrick Edited January 9, 2011 by p_brownstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This evening's highlights: Thaksin's phone-in at 7.30, end of red rally (expected) at 8 and 8.30 ManUtd vs Liverpool kick-off /via@veen_NT That's why there are so many red shirts out today. They're on their way out to watch the football and got caught up in the fracas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 ID of the foreigner wearing a red shirt is welcome. He's the latest in a long history of proud Foreigner Red Shirts... (FRS'ers) His martyrdom-worded T-Shirt reflects the grave injustices done to his brethren in arms that went before him. Such notable intellectual stalwarts as Australian Colin Purcell and Briton Jeff Savage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKvampire Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 A bunch of paid henchman/women, These so called poor from the north and east of Thailand ARE PAID to go on theses rallys. The government backed by the military and Police need to make sure they dont close down any places. or Message to the world again. THAILAND IS ON THE EDGE DON"T INVEST THERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now