Yingluck's Nomination Shows Thaksin At Helm

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

oh yes that's true - hadn't thought of that! but it will never happen of course - they will win most votes for a single party then get shafted by the Dems and their cohorts who will be bought by getting posts and favors in the new government - and so it goes on

Having to get the majority support sucks, doesn't it?

what sucks is the shafting of the Thai people - if they want to support the Dems JOIN them not go on a different ticket then switch after being bought - that's my point - and also what sucks is the party with the majority (i.e. most) votes not being in power - if that was the Dems, by the way, I would say the same thing

[whybother]

oh yes that's true - hadn't thought of that! but it will never happen of course - they will win most votes for a single party then get shafted by the Dems and their cohorts who will be bought by getting posts and favors in the new government - and so it goes on

Having to get the majority support sucks, doesn't it?

what sucks is the shafting of the Thai people - if they want to support the Dems JOIN them not go on a different ticket then switch after being bought - that's my point - and also what sucks is the party with the majority (i.e. most) votes not being in power - if that was the Dems, by the way, I would say the same thing

So a party that gets 30% of the vote should be in power?

The PPP formed a coalition, in the same way that the Democrats did. And most likely, whoever gets into government after this election will be part of a coalition.

If a party can't get the support of the majority of MPs, then they shouldn't be in power. The system simply wouldn't work if the government didn't have the support of the majority of MPs. How would any laws be enacted if the party in government didn't have the support of the majority of MPs?

What happens if the largest party gets 30-40% of the MPs. That means that possibly 60-70% of like minded MPs (but from several different parties) will be in opposition, and will oppose everything that the largest party tries to do.

The only way the system works is if A MAJORITY of MPs work together. If the largest party can't get enough MPs to support them, then they shouldn't be in government.

[yoshiwara]

oh yes that's true - hadn't thought of that! but it will never happen of course - they will win most votes for a single party then get shafted by the Dems and their cohorts who will be bought by getting posts and favors in the new government - and so it goes on

Having to get the majority support sucks, doesn't it?

what sucks is the shafting of the Thai people - if they want to support the Dems JOIN them not go on a different ticket then switch after being bought - that's my point - and also what sucks is the party with the majority (i.e. most) votes not being in power - if that was the Dems, by the way, I would say the same thing

You misunderstand parliamentary democracy. Badly. A government is not formed by the party with most votes, it is formed by those who can command a parliamentary majority which may be composed of one or more party's MPs. Dear! Dear! Its not rocket science. Although for some it appears to be...

Edited May 17, 2011 by yoshiwara

[Buchholz]

Kentucky State University isn't in the UK

Well spotted but so what?

I'm very familiar with Yale (where many decades ago I did some research) and the same applies there.One couldn't trace a graduate from the website and I suspect the same applies to all universities.There is usually a separate alumni site but even this would be subject to password/user name restrictions.In some cases there might be a list of notable alumni but Yingluck hardly belongs to that category (yet).

Thanks for posting the link on Thaksin's alma mater.I see it recognised Thaksin with a prestigious award previously awarded to the likes of Lech Walesa.

http://www.shsu.edu/~pin_www/T@S/2002/ShinAwardRel.html

Grateful for bringing this to our attention.

Sure thing. It highlights just how much they have distanced themselves from him as more of his atrocities came to light after their 2002 award to him.

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

oh yes that's true - hadn't thought of that! but it will never happen of course - they will win most votes for a single party then get shafted by the Dems and their cohorts who will be bought by getting posts and favors in the new government - and so it goes on

Having to get the majority support sucks, doesn't it?

what sucks is the shafting of the Thai people - if they want to support the Dems JOIN them not go on a different ticket then switch after being bought - that's my point - and also what sucks is the party with the majority (i.e. most) votes not being in power - if that was the Dems, by the way, I would say the same thing

You misunderstand parliamentary democracy. Badly. A government is not formed by the party with most votes, it is formed by those who can command a parliamentary majority which may be composed of one or more party's MPs. Dear! Dear! Its not rocket science. Although for some it appears to be...

if you think Thailand IS a democracy then you have misunderstood completely - if more people vote for a party than any other then logically they have the most support (for a single party) - get it now?

[whybother]

if you think Thailand IS a democracy then you have misunderstood completely - if more people vote for a party than any other then logically they have the most support (for a single party) - get it now?

You are absolutely correct. They do have the most support (for a single party).

That doesn't mean that they should be in government.

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

oh yes that's true - hadn't thought of that! but it will never happen of course - they will win most votes for a single party then get shafted by the Dems and their cohorts who will be bought by getting posts and favors in the new government - and so it goes on

Having to get the majority support sucks, doesn't it?

what sucks is the shafting of the Thai people - if they want to support the Dems JOIN them not go on a different ticket then switch after being bought - that's my point - and also what sucks is the party with the majority (i.e. most) votes not being in power - if that was the Dems, by the way, I would say the same thing

So a party that gets 30% of the vote should be in power?

The PPP formed a coalition, in the same way that the Democrats did. And most likely, whoever gets into government after this election will be part of a coalition.

If a party can't get the support of the majority of MPs, then they shouldn't be in power. The system simply wouldn't work if the government didn't have the support of the majority of MPs. How would any laws be enacted if the party in government didn't have the support of the majority of MPs?

What happens if the largest party gets 30-40% of the MPs. That means that possibly 60-70% of like minded MPs (but from several different parties) will be in opposition, and will oppose everything that the largest party tries to do.

The only way the system works is if A MAJORITY of MPs work together. If the largest party can't get enough MPs to support them, then they shouldn't be in government.

yes i know all that - my point was that the party with the most votes obviously is the party with the most popular support for a single party

[jayboy]

Sure thing. It highlights just how much they have distanced themselves from him as more of his atrocities came to light after their 2002 award to him.

That's interesting.It's not immediately obvious how the University has distanced itself.Has it for example withdrawn the award or have you just assumed a distancing?

Incidentally I'm not quite clear what you mean by atrocities, presumbly the drug war killings.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Funny, can't find her name on the alumni list of Kentucky State U. Nor is she mentioned as a notable alumni...............

Hmmm... she doesn't turn up anywhere on an entire search of their website... interesting

In any university I'm familiar with it would be unlikely to find the name of a graduate through a website search.Try finding someone called Abhisit Vejjajiva on the Oxford University website.

Not just 'unlikely', it 'doesn't happen'. Common privacy guidelines / laws also prevent it. And here is Bucholz typing a name into the general search box on their site. . Don't believe me? Type in any common name in that search box and tell me that you find individual people. Bucholz of course isn't stupid so I can only assume he's deliberately trying to slander a notable politician, implying that she didn't actually complete her master degree there. That's against the Thai law, and against forum rules.

Next.

Edited May 17, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

if you think Thailand IS a democracy then you have misunderstood completely - if more people vote for a party than any other then logically they have the most support (for a single party) - get it now?

You are absolutely correct. They do have the most support (for a single party).

That doesn't mean that they should be in government.

i accept that's the system but wasn't the point I was making before I was regaled at 'not understanding' but it is one of the reasons there is so much unrest 'if' only there could be a national unity government of ALL parties - wouldn't that be something?

[Buchholz]

Sure thing. It highlights just how much they have distanced themselves from him as more of his atrocities came to light after their 2002 award to him.

That's interesting.It's not immediately obvious how the University has distanced itself.Has it for example withdrawn the award or have you just assumed a distancing?

Incidentally I'm not quite clear what you mean by atrocities, presumbly the drug war killings.

What has the university done, in the nearly a decade since their award, to highlight his connection to the school? Or to honor him or to show any sort of association? Speech invitations? Graduation ceremony attendance? etc.

[Skywalker69]

Let's see what she say's rather than just bash her? She's breaking the mold by being the first female for the PM's job - she's cute too!

She will say and do what BIG Brother tells her to do.period....

[Buchholz]

Funny, can't find her name on the alumni list of Kentucky State U. Nor is she mentioned as a notable alumni...............

Hmmm... she doesn't turn up anywhere on an entire search of their website... interesting

In any university I'm familiar with it would be unlikely to find the name of a graduate through a website search.Try finding someone called Abhisit Vejjajiva on the Oxford University website.

Not just 'unlikely', it 'doesn't happen'. Common privacy guidelines / laws also prevent it. And here is Bucholz typing a name into the general search box on their site. . Bucholz isn't stupid so I can only assume he's deliberately trying to slander a notable politician, implying that she didn't actually completed university. That's against the Thai law, and against forum rules.

Slander? Good grief, could you possibly go for a bigger stretch?

My typing "interesting" is the sum total to which you assign your conspiracy theory.

Too bad they closed the Osama thread as you're better off posting your nonsense there.

btw, it's common to find students listed on university websites. Every one of my family members is listed on their respective university website.

btw II, it's Buchholz

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[whybother]

if you think Thailand IS a democracy then you have misunderstood completely - if more people vote for a party than any other then logically they have the most support (for a single party) - get it now?

You are absolutely correct. They do have the most support (for a single party).

That doesn't mean that they should be in government.

i accept that's the system but wasn't the point I was making before I was regaled at 'not understanding' but it is one of the reasons there is so much unrest 'if' only there could be a national unity government of ALL parties - wouldn't that be something?

That would be something. Not a very good something IMO.

How does anything get done in a "national unity government"?

[jayboy]

Sure thing. It highlights just how much they have distanced themselves from him as more of his atrocities came to light after their 2002 award to him.

That's interesting.It's not immediately obvious how the University has distanced itself.Has it for example withdrawn the award or have you just assumed a distancing?

Incidentally I'm not quite clear what you mean by atrocities, presumbly the drug war killings.

What has the university done, in the nearly a decade since their award, to highlight his connection to the school? Or to honor him or to show any sort of association? Speech invitations? Graduation ceremony attendance? etc.

Oh I see.It has done nothing to distance itself.You just made it up and were caught out.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

In any university I'm familiar with it would be unlikely to find the name of a graduate through a website search.Try finding someone called Abhisit Vejjajiva on the Oxford University website.

Not just 'unlikely', it 'doesn't happen'. Common privacy guidelines / laws also prevent it. And here is Bucholz typing a name into the general search box on their site. . Bucholz isn't stupid so I can only assume he's deliberately trying to slander a notable politician, implying that she didn't actually completed university. That's against the Thai law, and against forum rules.

Slander? Good grief, could you possibly go for a bigger stretch?

My typing "interesting" is the sum total to which you assign your conspiracy theory.

I see; so let's have it out there then, what was the point that you were making? Why is it 'interesting' that a site that finds absolutely no other individual people including those named Smith, Jones or Williams, also doesn't find 'Shinawatra' ? I can't wait to hear this.

Too bad they closed the Osama thread as you're better off posting your nonsense there.

I have no interest debating non-Thai topics on a Thailand oriented site. As for nonsense, let's see if you can get out of the above.

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[jayboy]

btw, it's common to find students listed on university websites. Every one of my family members is listed on their respective university website.

It's not common at all, but I'll take your word for it if you can provide an example.

[Buchholz]

Sure thing. It highlights just how much they have distanced themselves from him as more of his atrocities came to light after their 2002 award to him.

That's interesting.It's not immediately obvious how the University has distanced itself.Has it for example withdrawn the award or have you just assumed a distancing?

Incidentally I'm not quite clear what you mean by atrocities, presumbly the drug war killings.

What has the university done, in the nearly a decade since their award, to highlight his connection to the school? Or to honor him or to show any sort of association? Speech invitations? Graduation ceremony attendance? etc.

Oh I see.It has done nothing to distance itself.You just made it up and were caught out.

Caught out? a stretch that rivals WinnieTheKwai.

The reality is the university has done nothing to reflect he was "one of theirs" in many, many years whereas previously he was mentioned quite often and it was obvious they were quite pleased with their association, as exemplified by their award 9 years ago. That distancing is glaringly obvious in the context of its references to him. Did you find any of the examples provided above?

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

In any university I'm familiar with it would be unlikely to find the name of a graduate through a website search.Try finding someone called Abhisit Vejjajiva on the Oxford University website.

Not just 'unlikely', it 'doesn't happen'. Common privacy guidelines / laws also prevent it. And here is Bucholz typing a name into the general search box on their site. . Bucholz isn't stupid so I can only assume he's deliberately trying to slander a notable politician, implying that she didn't actually completed university. That's against the Thai law, and against forum rules.

Slander? Good grief, could you possibly go for a bigger stretch?

My typing "interesting" is the sum total to which you assign your conspiracy theory.

I see; so let's have it out there then, what was the point that you were making? Why is it 'interesting' that a site that finds absolutely no other individual people including those named Smith, Jones or Williams, also doesn't find 'Shinawatra' ? I can't wait to hear this.

Sorry to burst your Twin Towers-esque conspiracy, but I just simply found it interesting. What is also interesting is that such a small tidbit generated such vociferous replies including cries of slander. Also interesting that you missed the 139 Smith's, the 120 Jones's, and the 65 Williams's when according to you there were none.

Have we ground this far enough into the ground yet?

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

Have we ground this far enough into the ground yet?

Almost, but see below.

You have yet to come up with an example of any university where one can access student or alumnus details through the university website.Your original post was therefore not only rather malicious but rather meaningless.

I think that covers everything.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Have we ground this far enough into the ground yet?

Almost, but see below.

Not almost: not at all. He's clearly wrong and has been shown wrong but fails to admit it.

The challenge was to find an individual record of ANYONE who graduated. I have shown that these are not on the site.

--> The Kentucky State University does NOT allow finding ANY personal record of past graduates.

For Mr. Buchholz to post a remark and screen shot that he could not find Ms. Shinawatra on the site is simply a misleading and potentially slanderous message. And he has shown little class in not admitting that he was wrong. If he just admits it then that just makes it 'a silly mistake', not slander. It would have been a gentlemanly way out, but he chose not to take it. That's disappointing, but perhaps not unexpected.

Edited May 17, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Buchholz]

Have we ground this far enough into the ground yet?

Almost, but see below.

You have yet to come up with an example of any university where one can access student or alumnus details through the university website.Your original post was therefore not only rather malicious but rather meaningless.

I think that covers everything.

slander? caught out? malicious? hahahaha... the tribulations continue to pour in...

Let's use WinnieTheKwai's Smith purely as an example at Yingluck's alma mater, KSU.

When you search for smith on their website, one of the hits is an announcement in the Class Notes section of the website.

Whoa... low and behold, we we find Deborah A. Hearn Smith, Class of 1970, of Indianapolis, has been appointed executive director of the local Girl Scouts.

http://www.kysu.edu/about/divisions/externalrelations/alumnirelations/classnotes/

Are you really that unaware of how the Internet works?

"malicious" ..... phhhfffttt

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Have we ground this far enough into the ground yet?

Almost, but see below.

Not almost: not at all. He's clearly wrong and has been shown wrong but fails to admit it.

The challenge was to find an individual record of ANYONE who graduated. I have shown that these are not on the site.

--> The Kentucky State University does NOT allow finding ANY personal record of past graduates.

For Mr. Buchholz to post a remark and screen shot that he could not find Ms. Shinawatra on the site is simply a misleading and potentially slanderous message. And he has shown little class in not admitting that he was wrong. If he just admits it then that just makes it 'a silly mistake', not slander. It would have been a gentlemanly way out, but he chose not to take it. That's disappointing, but perhaps not unexpected.

If indeed KSU does say what you say (no link), then kindly inform KSU of the example I just provided.

"he's clearly wrong".... phhhfffft

look in the mirror

[phiphidon]

Today's front page article of the "Bangkok Post" reported that Thaksin claimed his baby sister was NOT his "nominee" nor his "proxy". Instead, he said she were his "CLONE".

If that is true, then all I can say is: Good luck, Thailand!

On September 15, 2007, the Philippines announced its development of Southeast Asia's first cloned water buffalo. The Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), under the Department of Science and Technology in Los Baños, Laguna approved this project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

Now of all the animals that have been cloned you use................the water buffalo. Now what on earth could have made you think of that animal? Oh, it's that Bangkok HiSo joke thing, I see, classy, very classy. I notice that you have finally realised that Yingluck is married, with a child, so your previous post questioning her sexuality were just childish sniggerings after all. http://www.thaivisa....-back-mingkwan/ Post 73

I can see the level you operate at.

[jayboy]

Are you really that unaware of how the Internet works?

It's not a question of how the internet works.It's a question of what information universities provide to outsiders.Of course a google customised search of a university site may pick up anecdotally details of prominent students and alumni.But it will not provide the kind of comprehensive database we are talking about.Therefore your original post was I am afraid not only malicious but rather ignorant of procedures.

I am not interested in rubbing your nose in it.I have a more general concern that in the election campaign Yingluck is judged on what she says not by slurs about her education, or more significantly by sexist abuse.I am very pleased mods have taken action on the latter already.Robust debate is a strength of the forum but slurs, abuse and lies shouldn't be tolerated.Surely there is enough policy content to argue about without resorting to dishonest slurs (or dare I say it, inappropriate or "funny" pictures.)

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

if you think Thailand IS a democracy then you have misunderstood completely - if more people vote for a party than any other then logically they have the most support (for a single party) - get it now?

You are absolutely correct. They do have the most support (for a single party).

That doesn't mean that they should be in government.

i accept that's the system but wasn't the point I was making before I was regaled at 'not understanding' but it is one of the reasons there is so much unrest 'if' only there could be a national unity government of ALL parties - wouldn't that be something?

That would be something. Not a very good something IMO.

How does anything get done in a "national unity government"?

same as a coalition - not much UNLESS you get them all to agree - never have peace here at the present time whilst the party with most votes is unrepresented (and yes I know the system).

[whybother]

same as a coalition - not much UNLESS you get them all to agree - never have peace here at the present time whilst the party with most votes is unrepresented (and yes I know the system).

The difference between a coalition and a "unity government" is that a coalition HAS agreed to work together. The PTP is mainly just a group of regional factions bought together during the time of the TRT, so although the may end up being the party with the most votes, they're not that different than a group of other smaller parties.

Just because a party doesn't get into government, doesn't necessarily mean that the voters that voted for them are unrepresented. If an MP gets elected, the voters are represented.

What needs to happen is for the PTP supporters to understand that if they don't get a majority and can't form a coalition, that the MPs that they have elected have to actually do some work in opposition to keep the pressure on the government.

Who ever gets into government, it usually means that there is a large proportion of the electorate that are unhappy with the result. What's the difference between a party that gets 40% of the vote and doesn't get into government, and two parties that get 20% each and don't get into government? It's the same number of people that are "unrepresented".

It's pointless talking about the "largest party" when what they need to be is either the "majority party" or part of a coalition making up a majority.

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

same as a coalition - not much UNLESS you get them all to agree - never have peace here at the present time whilst the party with most votes is unrepresented (and yes I know the system).

The difference between a coalition and a "unity government" is that a coalition HAS agreed to work together. The PTP is mainly just a group of regional factions bought together during the time of the TRT, so although the may end up being the party with the most votes, they're not that different than a group of other smaller parties.

Just because a party doesn't get into government, doesn't necessarily mean that the voters that voted for them are unrepresented. If an MP gets elected, the voters are represented.

What needs to happen is for the PTP supporters to understand that if they don't get a majority and can't form a coalition, that the MPs that they have elected have to actually do some work in opposition to keep the pressure on the government.

Who ever gets into government, it usually means that there is a large proportion of the electorate that are unhappy with the result. What's the difference between a party that gets 40% of the vote and doesn't get into government, and two parties that get 20% each and don't get into government? It's the same number of people that are "unrepresented".

It's pointless talking about the "largest party" when what they need to be is either the "majority party" or part of a coalition making up a majority.

I understand that - but have to disagree that it doesn't matter if two get's 20% and one get's 40%

The two who get 20% have differing platforms and differing priorities otherwise they would errr be ONE! so the one who get's 40% has a much larger 'mandate' right?

[whybother]

I understand that - but have to disagree that it doesn't matter if two get's 20% and one get's 40%

The two who get 20% have differing platforms and differing priorities otherwise they would errr be ONE! so the one who get's 40% has a much larger 'mandate' right?

If more than 50% can agree to work together against the largest party didn't get enough of a "mandate".

[ib1b4]

I understand that - but have to disagree that it doesn't matter if two get's 20% and one get's 40%

The two who get 20% have differing platforms and differing priorities otherwise they would errr be ONE! so the one who get's 40% has a much larger 'mandate' right?

If more than 50% can agree to work together against the largest party didn't get enough of a "mandate".

Just because a four party pact can of lets say 51% ofthe vote, does not mean that they have a mandate superior to 49 % single party.