Yingluck's Nomination Shows Thaksin At Helm

[WinnieTheKhwai]

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.)

Exactly.

It will be interesting to see if Buchholz will stand by his posts, and state unequivocally that he doubts that Ms. Yingluck completed her masters degree at this university because that's certainly what it looked like. Or if this was not what he found 'interesting' then I can't wait to learn what exactly it was he found 'interesting' about this university's website.

BTW Ms. Yingluck also went to Chiang Mai University, according to her Wikipedia article. Maybe Buchholz doubts that too.

Edited May 17, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[slapout]

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".

This is how the Thai system seems to work, 50+% form the government, 40+% form the opposition, the two entities work against the largest party (Thai general population) makes for a unique way of fleecing a country.

[yoshiwara]

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?

Wrong.

[CNXpuuyaibaan]

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".

This is how the Thai system seems to work, 50+% form the government, 40+% form the opposition, the two entities work against the largest party (Thai general population) makes for a unique way of fleecing a country.

exactly! at last someone get's it

[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?

Wrong.

erm lesson in Math?

party 1 get's 40% for a specific platform

party 2 get's 20% for a different platform and party 3 too

sooooo party 1 get's 40% FOR a published platform - the others only 20% for their platform - so they are 20% minorities - entitled to a voice but 40% have voted FOR something and have a greater moral right - but here - unfortunately the two 20% camps sell their souls for power along with other lesser parties and steal the election from the party with the largest votes

[jdinasia]

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!

I'm sure her husband thinks so.

He's breaking another mold, too, along with her. First Gentleman (has a nice ring to it).

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

You suggest that, as if it wasn't how Thaksin bought smaller parties in the past ... or how he got S'noh etc right now.

"Thaksin thinks ....." the motto of PTP--- of course she's a proxy. That's what she was when running AIS (and we remember how that court case went ---) and then there is her other professional credit ... SC Asset --- oh crud .. another Thaksin company!

[jdinasia]

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?

Wrong.

erm lesson in Math?

party 1 get's 40% for a specific platform

party 2 get's 20% for a different platform and party 3 too

sooooo party 1 get's 40% FOR a published platform - the others only 20% for their platform - so they are 20% minorities - entitled to a voice but 40% have voted FOR something and have a greater moral right - but here - unfortunately the two 20% camps sell their souls for power along with other lesser parties and steal the election from the party with the largest votes

Amazingly filled with fallacious assumptions .... You cannot judge what any of the minority votes mean. There is no "greater moral right" for a minority party. There may have as easily been 60% all voting against the 40% and taking whatever option to vote against that 40% there was locally. Meaning .... exactly nothing.

The reason for a coalition is that it takes a fractured electorate and forms a consensus government.

[Buchholz]

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.

That's good you agree now. Just a while ago you referred to it as doesn't exist, and then you said it "requires passwords", and then you said "it's not common at all" which then digressed into "malicious" and "meaningless". Ever changing criteria that when direct evidence is put directly before you .... only thing you can do is change the criteria once again to...

But it will not provide the kind of comprehensive database we are talking about.

Nobody has said anything about a comprehensive database with grade scores, home telephone numbers, their parent's banking info, etc...

I simply said there's no mention of her when you search their website and thought that curious. It was small observation because I found many other people on previous searches. It could have simply been a social event or even an alumni promotion (as in the girl scout director example) alumni party, or an endowment gift (Yinluck is a billionaire, afterall), or anything but I certainly never implied that I expected to find out what her 3rd semester reading list was. You've turn it yet again into some grand inquisition full of flames.

I've wasted enough time with your nonsense for today.

I'll leave you with your own advice.

Pick a fight with someone else.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

It will be interesting to see if Buchholz will stand by his posts, and state unequivocally that he doubts that Ms. Yingluck completed her masters degree at this university because that's certainly what it looked like. Or if this was not what he found 'interesting' then I can't wait to learn what exactly it was he found 'interesting' about this university's website.

BTW Ms. Yingluck also went to Chiang Mai University, according to her Wikipedia article. Maybe Buchholz doubts that too.

You've not been shamed enough yet, WinnieTheKwai?

Where in the world did you get the notion that my post said anything like what you are changing it to?

I said,

"interesting"

which has somehow morphed deep inside your cerebrum to,

"state unequivocally that he doubts that Ms. Yingluck completed her masters degree at this university"

What's going on with you?

How do you all of that out of a short solitary 4-syllable word? .... and then go on to post, "that's certainly what it looked like".... geez, get glasses if you think they look alike.

Try and reign in that imagination of yours that creates secret meanings are behind what posters are actually writing.

It'll save you from embarrassment.

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

[quote name='Buchholz' timestamp='1305638753' post='4430368'

That's good you agree now. Just a while ago you referred to it as doesn't exist, and then you said it "requires passwords", and then you said "it's not common at all" which then digressed into "malicious" and "meaningless". Ever changing criteria that when direct evidence is put directly before you .... only thing you can do is change the criteria once again to...

I think the necessary points have been made very clearly by myself and other members, and the position (dishonest slurs, sexist abuse etc) will be closely monitored during the election campaign.

[Buchholz]

That's good you agree now. Just a while ago you referred to it as doesn't exist, and then you said it "requires passwords", and then you said "it's not common at all" which then digressed into "malicious" and "meaningless". Ever changing criteria that when direct evidence is put directly before you .... only thing you can do is change the criteria once again to...

I think the necessary points have been made very clearly by myself and other members, and the position (dishonest slurs, sexist abuse etc) will be closely monitored during the election campaign.

and I think your ruse to simply hurl flames over nothing with grand exaggerations (that are specifically disproven) and changing goal posts and dubious conspiracies has been shown. Your bogus claim of "other members" meaning one... and that is someone of the likes of WinnieTheKwai.

Your final point an example, morphing "interesting" into some sort of "dishonest slur". Get a grip.

You whinged in another thread recently about quarrelsome members when you are the worst offender.

Next.

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[lungmi]

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/...inAwardRel.html

Grateful for bringing this to our attention.

Houston Texas, he learnt the extrajudicial killing there? The state where 80% of death penality judgements are against US Law (University of Columbia)?

Edited May 17, 2011 by lungmi

[rubl]

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/...inAwardRel.html

Grateful for bringing this to our attention.

Houston Texas, he learnt the extrajudicial killing there? The state where 80% of death penality judgements are against US Law (University of Columbia)?

Getting a bit off topic. In the 2009 novel 'The Traffickers' by W.E.B. Griffin there's a Texas Ranger who suggests to follow the 'Thailand model', going on along the line 'twenty-two hundred drug runners were summarily shot and another 70,000 arrested by year's end'. Bad examples travel far

Edited May 17, 2011 by rubl

[WinnieTheKhwai]

You've not been shamed enough yet, WinnieTheKwai?

Where in the world did you get the notion that my post said anything like what you are changing it to?

I said,

"interesting"

which has somehow morphed deep inside your cerebrum to,

"state unequivocally that he doubts that Ms. Yingluck completed her masters degree at this university"

What's going on with you?

How do you all of that out of a short solitary 4-syllable word? .... and then go on to post, "that's certainly what it looked like".... geez, get glasses if you think they look alike.

Try and reign in that imagination of yours that creates secret meanings are behind what posters are actually writing.

It'll save you from embarrassment.

This is what you wrote, I include a screen shot below. So that we may all gain an understanding of the point you were making, I'm asking you point blank, "What do you mean by it? Why is this interesting?"

Now you have it as an open question. And please stop your abusive tone, it won't help the discussion.

Edited May 17, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[animatic]

Bottom line for a Thai election:

If no party gets 50 + 1/500th% of the MPs

they do NOT automatically get to form the government

IF the other 251 vote against.

Each party proposes their PM candidate

and ALL MPS vote equally for their choice of PM

If there is a successful coalition of 60% versus a single party of 40%,

the 60% is deemed to be the greater percentage of the population.

So either get a real majority 50%+, or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners, via cabinet seats, ministry assignments, gratuitous ego perks, and most likely bold faced cash to some, etc etc.

Edited May 17, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

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.

It is if that 49% can not attract that 2% more needed for plurality.

The world is filled with minority parliament coalitions.

Two examples.

England for one at the moment and Israel almost never gets a single party leader.

Mandate –noun

1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative:

The president had a clear mandate to end the war.

2.a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.

3.an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

A mandate is created by enough voters designated MP's working together as one unit.

If they believe their voters are amenable to that. For instance 2-3 parties in general agree but realize their disagreements can be win win win, if ALL three are included in a compromise. For instance Sanoh working with Thaksin. Together they prosper, divided they fall, and of course, with them their constituencies.

If two parties together are comparable to 62%,

they definitely have a greater mandate than one of 38%.

Because 62% of the country are in favor of these MPS representing their interests best they can.

Edited May 17, 2011 by animatic

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Agreed with the above; this is simply how parliamentary democracy works. It's not a perfect system, with all the back room dealing and horse trading, but that's how it is. And not just in Thailand.

[phiphidon]

Bottom line for a Thai election:

If no party gets 50 + 1/500th% of the MPs

they do NOT automatically get to form the government

IF the other 251 vote against.

Each party proposes their PM candidate

and ALL MPS vote equally for their choice of PM

If there is a successful coalition of 60% versus a single party of 40%,

the 60% is deemed to be the greater percentage of the population.

So either get a real majority 50%+, or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners, via cabinet seats, ministry assignments, gratuitous ego perks, and most likely bold faced cash to some, etc etc.

"or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners" by spending hundreds of billions of baht on various projects that will no doubt attract any parties wishing to join the coalition and "think the same way" as the democrats...........more of the usual then.

[jdinasia]

Bottom line for a Thai election:

If no party gets 50 + 1/500th% of the MPs

they do NOT automatically get to form the government

IF the other 251 vote against.

Each party proposes their PM candidate

and ALL MPS vote equally for their choice of PM

If there is a successful coalition of 60% versus a single party of 40%,

the 60% is deemed to be the greater percentage of the population.

So either get a real majority 50%+, or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners, via cabinet seats, ministry assignments, gratuitous ego perks, and most likely bold faced cash to some, etc etc.

"or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners" by spending hundreds of billions of baht on various projects that will no doubt attract any parties wishing to join the coalition and "think the same way" as the democrats...........more of the usual then.

Again you seem to be describing the TRT/PPP/PTP model.

[Buchholz]

You've not been shamed enough yet, WinnieTheKwai?

Where in the world did you get the notion that my post said anything like what you are changing it to?

I said,

"interesting"

which has somehow morphed deep inside your cerebrum to,

"state unequivocally that he doubts that Ms. Yingluck completed her masters degree at this university"

What's going on with you?

How do you all of that out of a short solitary 4-syllable word? .... and then go on to post, "that's certainly what it looked like".... geez, get glasses if you think they look alike.

Try and reign in that imagination of yours that creates secret meanings are behind what posters are actually writing.

It'll save you from embarrassment.

This is what you wrote, I include a screen shot below. So that we may all gain an understanding of the point you were making, I'm asking you point blank, "What do you mean by it? Why is this interesting?"

Now you have it as an open question. And please stop your abusive tone, it won't help the discussion.

I answered it many hours ago. I simply found it interesting.

It was only mildly interesting, at that, hence the paucity of words in my post.

Having seen some reference to many alumni on a multitude of university websites, it was just curious that there was not a mention of her for any reason. As the typical example that I provided as proof, even relatively minor achievements are noted on the KSU website, (not to take anything away from being promoted head of the local Girl Scouts).

Your dark conspiracies of it somehow translating into a smear or "slander" as you ridiculously called it and for it to somehow morph its meaning into she didn't graduate there are just within your own over-active imagination.

Trying to ascribe treachery to something as simple as a passing comment of "interesting" is really such a stretch.

btw, your own "abusive tone" by leveling the absurd charge of "slander", etc. is what initiated things. Have you still not looked in the mirror after your earlier ridiculousness were disproven following the proof I posted twice which disproved both of your assertions about university website content information? Your own inaccuracies, such as asserting there's no Smith, Jones, or Williams to be found at KSU, were found out easily.

In the end it's simple. Don't read into people's post more than what they write, especially if your fantasizing is going to result in long, drawn out discourse and leveling of absurd charges.

Here's hoping you don't feel the need to ground this even further into the ground than you already have over a single word posted.

Now that is truly "interesting."

Next.

.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[WinnieTheKhwai]

* Let me conclude then that it seems unlikely that you will continue this line of attack on Ms. Yingluck.

* You have been shown wrong because a comprehensive list of alumni is simply not available from the website you showed.

I WILL bring it up again if you continue this line of attack in other topics. Especially as Thailand has very potent defamation laws.

Next, indeed!

Edited May 18, 2011 by WinnieTheKhwai

[jayboy]

I answered it many hours ago. I simply found it interesting.

It was only mildly interesting, at that, hence the paucity of words in my post.

You were caught out making a slur, actually just the latest you have made against Khun Yingluck.

As mentioned earlier your future comments in the election campaign will be carefully monitored.

Nobody is interested in your attempts to extricate yourself from your errors.A simple apology would have sufficed.Please follow forum rules in future.

Thank you

[Buchholz]

* Let me conclude then that it seems unlikely that you will continue this line of attack on Ms. Yingluck.

* You have been shown wrong because a comprehensive list of alumni is simply not available from the website you showed.

I WILL bring it up again if you continue this line of attack in other topics. Especially as Thailand has very potent defamation laws.

Yet another false assertion.

I never "attacked" Yingluck. I simply found it interesting she's not on her university website. There is no "attack" in that. I never said she didn't graduate. As said, that "attack" exists only in your own mind.

Yet another criteria change.

No one said that there is an all inclusive comprehensive list of alumni on any website.

Certainly, as I've proven, there are any number of references to them for a wide variety of reasons on most university websites.

You can bring up your fantasized interpretation of my post anytime you feel free and it will be shown again to be a specious charge.

And speaking of defamation, remember that when you ridiculously allege slander on my part... for writing the solitary word, "interesting."

[Buchholz]

I answered it many hours ago. I simply found it interesting.

It was only mildly interesting, at that, hence the paucity of words in my post.

You were caught out making a slur, actually just the latest you have made against Khun Yingluck.

As mentioned earlier your future comments in the election campaign will be carefully monitored.

Nobody is interested in your attempts to extricate yourself from your errors.A simple apology would have sufficed.Please follow forum rules in future.

Thank you

*sigh* .... so the word "interesting" is now a slur, is it?

The only errors in this ridiculous discourse are your assertions that information is unavailable about alumni on university websites. That was proven to be patently false.

Get a life, instead of your incessant bickering over nothing.

.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

*sigh* .... so the word "interesting" is now a slur, is it?

The only errors in this ridiculous discourse are your assertions that information is unavailable about alumni on university websites. That was proven to be patently false.

Get a life, instead of your incessant bickering over nothing.

Nobody is interested in your excuses.Your future behaviour with regard toslurs on Khun Yingluk will be monitored.Please concentrate on policy issues if you wish to debate on this forum.

[Buchholz]

Attempting to steer the topic back to something of substance, the other paper this morning is reporting on Pheu Thai's plan to issue a general amnesty to all politicians AND political groups if it wins the election.

Chalerm is already drafting a proposed executive decree.

.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Buchholz

[cdnvic]

*sigh* .... so the word "interesting" is now a slur, is it?

The only errors in this ridiculous discourse are your assertions that information is unavailable about alumni on university websites. That was proven to be patently false.

Get a life, instead of your incessant bickering over nothing.

Nobody is interested in your excuses.Your future behaviour with regard toslurs on Khun Yingluk will be monitored.Please concentrate on policy issues if you wish to debate on this forum.

Buchholz, I'll give you a choice. Either apologize for that outburst or you are getting sent off for a bit. Jayboy, you aren't a moderator, so stick to discussing the issues and leave the modding to us.

[Buchholz]

*sigh* .... so the word "interesting" is now a slur, is it?

The only errors in this ridiculous discourse are your assertions that information is unavailable about alumni on university websites. That was proven to be patently false.

Get a life, instead of your incessant bickering over nothing.

Nobody is interested in your excuses.Your future behaviour with regard toslurs on Khun Yingluk will be monitored.Please concentrate on policy issues if you wish to debate on this forum.

Buchholz, I'll give you a choice. Either apologize for that outburst or you are getting sent off for a bit. Jayboy, you aren't a moderator, so stick to discussing the issues and leave the modding to us.

I apologize for telling jayboy to get a life.

[cdnvic]

That's better. Now that we're all friends again, let the discussion continue. :jap:

[phiphidon]

Bottom line for a Thai election:

If no party gets 50 + 1/500th% of the MPs

they do NOT automatically get to form the government

IF the other 251 vote against.

Each party proposes their PM candidate

and ALL MPS vote equally for their choice of PM

If there is a successful coalition of 60% versus a single party of 40%,

the 60% is deemed to be the greater percentage of the population.

So either get a real majority 50%+, or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners, via cabinet seats, ministry assignments, gratuitous ego perks, and most likely bold faced cash to some, etc etc.

"or make damned sure you can afford the remaining percentage in partners" by spending hundreds of billions of baht on various projects that will no doubt attract any parties wishing to join the coalition and "think the same way" as the democrats...........more of the usual then.

Again you seem to be describing the TRT/PPP/PTP model.

No, I am specifically referring to the marathon session of the last cabinet meeting held by Abhisit before the house dissolution to push through over 150 "necessary" items involving hundreds of billions of baht. Vote and coalition partner buying by any other name.

Even The Nation queried this...........