Thaksin, Red Shirts Cast Shadow Over Yingluck Govt

[SICHONSTEVE]

It amuses me to see how quickly some members are already sounding the death knell for PT, on the basis of a shoddy piece of reporting. Some members are even patting themselves on their backs, claiming that their predictions have come true :D

It would be really funny, were it not for some openly "Thanking God" that the newly elected Govt would collapse, thus taking Thailand into further turmoil.

I asked this once before but it got deleted. Did you live here during the first Thaksin administration, or even subsequent administrations? I have the distinct impression that most, but not all Thaksin supporters here never did. Maybe i'm wrong.

Why couldn't you address me directly???

I'm not basing it on this report, I'm basing it on what I can see materialising before my eyes. When you get the economists, business leaders, tourist industry analysts and education authorities all panning PT's populus policies without praise for any of them (apart from investment into transport systems (primarily trains)) of which about half of these were initiated and started by Abhisits government then there has got to be something seeriously wrong!!!!!

The infighting between Pheu Thai, the other parties in the coalition and even within the red shirt leadership is tantamount to total internal disintegration.

No party or factions within parties are going to be satisfied with the allocation of ministerial posts and Yingluck cannot bring Thaksin back to Thailand by offering an amnesty (it won't even be legal as there is no provision for granting CONVICTED criminals amnesty (only a royal pardon would suffice) which won't happen, clearly!! If a general amnesty is granted then it trivialises the reds efforts and sacrifices (including those tragic lost lives) as everyone will be off the hook (other than Thaksin) and they won't except that outcome as they are determined to get what they see as (false) IMHO justice for their exploited comrades by getting convictions on those army personnel they claim were responsible for the deaths.

Please tell me how this provides political stability it's not a case of whether, but when everything implodes and my hopes rely on the people realising that Thaksin is not the answer, and parachuting Yingluck in to help her brother was a VERY BAD idea as this "airhead" is indeed an airhead!!! Her Pheu Thai MP's are a complete bunch of rabble that couldn't run a raffle so why are you deluding yourself by implying that everything is 'hunky dory' in the PT camp when everything is unravelling before your very eyes with turmoil the end result..

There IS only one sensible outcome and that is to plead with Abhisit to come back and run the country properly!!!

[pisico]

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />Something interesting to ponder.<br /><br />The international image of Thailand may be the result of what Mr Pithaya, (former ambassador) wrote in his article &quot;Constructive Re-engagement&amp;amp&quot;; posted on the Pheu Thai Party's website yesterday.<br /><br />&quot;Outgoing Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya had caused an unprecedented aberration in Thai foreign policy as characterised, on the one hand, by their undisguised obsession with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and, on the other, by the propensity to subject Thailand's relations with its neighbours to the vagaries and demands of its domestic politics.&quot;<br /><br />&quot;The juxtaposition of such behaviour was done at the expense of Thailand's respectable international image and amicable relations with its neighbours, particularly with Cambodia, the relations with whom were apparently hijacked by the People's Alliance for Democracy and its splinter groups with their blind nationalistic zeal.&quot;<br /><br />Added to that is the fact that the Democrats underestimated the power of the so called &quot;uneducated masses&amp;amp&quot; thinking that Bangkok was Thailand.   <br />The Nation, indeed, needs to either retrain its staff and/or get real journalists that can articulate valid points without making them appear to be &quot;sour grapes&quot; predictors of events to come. The article seems to be written to please the cheering choir minority. <br /><br />Hopefully the &quot;usual suspects&quot; (those who feel own the truth) will refrain, for the good of this forum, from bullying, name calling or condescending statements addressing this quote. That will only lower the level of what should be a dialogue, not a brawl.<br />

<br /><br />You state that you prefer a dialogue rather than brawl - how would you describe the red-shirt rally in BKK last year? Is it unfair for others to use similar, if very much milder tactics? Do you think it is possible for your keyboard opposition to set fire to your home?<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Parsing my words and changing the meaning and intent of my posting is not a true sequitur. My last line was an appeal for civility in this forum: <br /><br />"the usual suspects will refrain, for the good of this forum, from bullying, name calling or condescending statements addressing this quote. That will only lower the level of what should be a dialogue, not a brawl." <br /><br />From experience I know that the fastest way to lose a friend is to argue about politics or religion. Imagine what strangers would not do to each other in such a context!<br /><br />If only one side in this situation is the "culprit" that would be an oversimplification of the events that have taken place in Thailand over the last 3 years. The Reds erred big time when Abhisit offered early elections and the Reds rejected the offer. That is but one example of what turned a tense situation into a tragedy for all sides. The establishment's obsession during the Abhisit years, after the Coup D'etat and conviction of Thaksin, was what lead the Democrats and the Yellows to be defeated by those who resented the coup d'etat and, right or wrong, did so as a way of validating the convicted, deposed Prime Minister.<br />Lastly, do not assume that if I am not an Abhisit cheerleader it means that I am a Thaksin supporter.<br />

<br /><br />My dear Pisico, if you wish civility on this forum, you may need to be a LITTLE more explicit with your quotes and their souce. This one for example "Mr Pithaya, <b>who has emerged as a candidate for foreign minister</b>, has  strongly criticised the Democrat-led government's foreign policy............" Somehow you managed to delete the bit that indicates that the former ambassador to Chile (one of Thailand's most important delegations, no doubt) may be just a TAD biased in his opinion.<br />So much for impartiality; does civility include lies by omission?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

SOURCE: In case you were busy thinking about the reply and you overlooked it: "posted on the Pheu Thai Party's website yesterday."

Anybody wanting to know more about him should do their own research.

You assume too much. Remember the old joke...

Your words: "does civility include lies by omission?" Good carpenters measure twice and cut once. Try to do that before rushing to judgement of others.

[rubl]

But than again the shadow cannot be as big as the Yellow Shirts that were hanging over Abhisit's government, or the ICC procedures that will eventually put Anupong, Prayuth and Suthep behind bars.

The ICC has been a tad busy the last months, with real cases. Mostly Africa, very recently Lybia. The 'request to investigate a possible blabla blablabla...' filed 30th of January is probably gathering dust, or 'under consideration' as bureaucrats call it.

"What's the difference between "under consideration" and "under active consideration"?" I asked.

'"Under consideration" means we've lost the file. "Under active consideration" means we're trying to find it!"

THE COMPLETE YES MINISTER

by

the Right Hon. James Hacker MP

Copyright © Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay

[binjalin]

the Thais have spoken through the ballot box - end of

[Siripon]

Abhisit and Suthep said they didn't want an amnesty as they believe they will be vindicated in court.

The PAD don't want an amnesty, they too said they wanted their day in court.

The red shirts say they don't want an amnesty as Tida says they did nothing wrong.

So the only ones wanting an amnesty are Thaksin and the politicians banned unti 2013.

[Bkkorupcountry]

It amuses me to see how quickly some members are already sounding the death knell for PT, on the basis of a shoddy piece of reporting. Some members are even patting themselves on their backs, claiming that their predictions have come true :D

It would be really funny, were it not for some openly "Thanking God" that the newly elected Govt would collapse, thus taking Thailand into further turmoil.

I asked this once before but it got deleted. Did you live here during the first Thaksin administration, or even subsequent administrations? I have the distinct impression that most, but not all Thaksin supporters here never did. Maybe i'm wrong.

I don't think it matters, whether or not, one was living here during the Thaksin administration. Many of us would not have been living in Singapore during the time of Lee Kuan Yew's administration. Nor were many of us living in Malaysia during the time of Mahathir's administration. Or in UK during Thatcher, or in America during Abe Lincoln's time. Leaders are firstly judged by the people in the form of an election and subsequently by history.

During Thaksin's administration, Thailand was no more or less politically stable - such are the issues faced by a country with huge income inequality, egomaniacs, greedy people and a strong military. However, economically speaking, the country was doing well and people were generally happy (just my personal opinion from talking to a non random, non representative cross section of people).

Now the people have voted in a party that is indirectly controlled by him. They have expressed their wish for him and his allies to govern them. More voted for him than for the other parties. They have the right to do so, on the basis of one man/woman, one vote. It does not matter whether the voters are naive, ignorant, stupid or uneducated. In fact, it is probably precisely for this reason, that the so called hi-so's and elites consider them naive, ignorant, stupid and uneducated that they decided to exercise their birth right to vote. One up for people power.

Thaksin is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be doing more for them than other politicians. They accept that politicians will enrich themselves, they accept that this is just human nature. What is important for them is that Thaksin has given them a sense of self belief and dignity. I know many hi so people in Bkk who looks down on the rural folk and would much prefer that these rural people stay poor as it serves their needs well, in terms of cheap labour and so forth. However, though I am as far from being a socialist as one can be, I also believe that the poor should be given every possible opportunity to improve their own lives and I believe that Thaksin will deliver, whether for honourable reasons or for his own personal gain.

At the end of the day, as long as he can improve the welfare, particularly of the poor people, then he has done right in my book.

[lannarebirth]

It amuses me to see how quickly some members are already sounding the death knell for PT, on the basis of a shoddy piece of reporting. Some members are even patting themselves on their backs, claiming that their predictions have come true :D

It would be really funny, were it not for some openly "Thanking God" that the newly elected Govt would collapse, thus taking Thailand into further turmoil.

I asked this once before but it got deleted. Did you live here during the first Thaksin administration, or even subsequent administrations? I have the distinct impression that most, but not all Thaksin supporters here never did. Maybe i'm wrong.

I don't think it matters, whether or not, one was living here during the Thaksin administration. Many of us would not have been living in Singapore during the time of Lee Kuan Yew's administration. Nor were many of us living in Malaysia during the time of Mahathir's administration. Or in UK during Thatcher, or in America during Abe Lincoln's time. Leaders are firstly judged by the people in the form of an election and subsequently by history.

During Thaksin's administration, Thailand was no more or less politically stable - such are the issues faced by a country with huge income inequality, egomaniacs, greedy people and a strong military. However, economically speaking, the country was doing well and people were generally happy (just my personal opinion from talking to a non random, non representative cross section of people).

Now the people have voted in a party that is indirectly controlled by him. They have expressed their wish for him and his allies to govern them. More voted for him than for the other parties. They have the right to do so, on the basis of one man/woman, one vote. It does not matter whether the voters are naive, ignorant, stupid or uneducated. In fact, it is probably precisely for this reason, that the so called hi-so's and elites consider them naive, ignorant, stupid and uneducated that they decided to exercise their birth right to vote. One up for people power.

Thaksin is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be doing more for them than other politicians. They accept that politicians will enrich themselves, they accept that this is just human nature. What is important for them is that Thaksin has given them a sense of self belief and dignity. I know many hi so people in Bkk who looks down on the rural folk and would much prefer that these rural people stay poor as it serves their needs well, in terms of cheap labour and so forth. However, though I am as far from being a socialist as one can be, I also believe that the poor should be given every possible opportunity to improve their own lives and I believe that Thaksin will deliver, whether for honourable reasons or for his own personal gain.

At the end of the day, as long as he can improve the welfare, particularly of the poor people, then he has done right in my book.

It is a mistaken belief by many Thaksin supporters that those that are anti-Thaksin are not pro-poor. I think I speak for most everyone in saying this is not the case at all.

If you had lived here during Thaksin's administration you'd hyave seen how he manipulated these people and how he sadlled them with increased personal debt. The reason they want him back is that they believe he will create a program that will forgive that personal debt through government bailouts. More policy corruption. Then more debt schemes. That's not empowerment.

As to the question your username asks, I think if you ever take the time to learn anything about provincial politics your answer will come easy.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

At the end of the day, as long as he can improve the welfare, particularly of the poor people, then he has done right in my book.

At the end of the day some will just turn a blind eye on k. Thaksin's corruption and other misdeeds.

'if he can improve, he has done right' probably means 'if he can't improve, he might be wrong'

[wackysleet]

From my experience on here that if you complain or voice an opinion that differs from the usual regular pro democracy posters views then you must be a Thaksin supporter, they simply cannot accept that no party has the monopoly on honesty or that there may be another way to lead the country forward, you will be shouted down and probably ridiculed.

Perhaps we are all pro-democracy posters, but some us have a deeper understanding of what that means. I don't claim to be impartial, but I can see through some who peddle the Thaksin line while claiming to be. I also try to refrain from name calling as I find it puerile, but don't usually resort to pointing it out to moderation.

Perhaps you only think your views on democracy give you a greater understanding than others but that has never been the point I was making, most if not all can never admit that the democrats have ever done wrong, supporters cannot accept that some people think that all parties are corrupt but few of the democrat supporters can tolerate an different view on the problem.

I do not see any particular party as being really democratic here, and again you make the assumption that anyone that dare points out some of the better policies of the past must be a Thaksin supporter which is not necessarily true or that if they point out that the democrats are not whiter than white does not mean they do not support the democrats.

You are of course entitled to your view but you readily condemn others that think differently and yet you profess to have a deeper understanding of the word democracy. All i'm asking for is that instead of finding a party guilty of something purely on the assumption that in the past they have committed wrong then discussing things is what reconcilliation is about, it's called, moving forward.

Edited July 12, 2011 by sbk
flame removed

[gbswales]

yesterday is always yesterday - it is over, done and past. Jailing people simply satisfies a few that "justice has been done" but if the action causes more problems is it really worth it. The meaning of justice can change like the wind and what one day are crimes are heroic actions the next - my point is that anything that cannot be undone is pointless to even think about - put your efforts into planning today and tomorrow and forget yesterday!

[whybother]

yesterday is always yesterday - it is over, done and past. Jailing people simply satisfies a few that "justice has been done" but if the action causes more problems is it really worth it. The meaning of justice can change like the wind and what one day are crimes are heroic actions the next - my point is that anything that cannot be undone is pointless to even think about - put your efforts into planning today and tomorrow and forget yesterday!

Allowing people to get away with the sins of yesterday will ensure that they commit them again tomorrow.

Who decides if an "action causes more problems" than it's worth? Is this giving in to mob rule? "We can't find him guilty, even though he is, because all his supporters will come out in protest."

[sbk]

Posts have been deleted.

Drop the name calling, the flaming and the usual BS you people seem to get up to in these threads. Keep it civil, keep it polite and try to have an intelligent reasonable discussion without being rude.

[SICHONSTEVE]

yesterday is always yesterday - it is over, done and past. Jailing people simply satisfies a few that "justice has been done" but if the action causes more problems is it really worth it. The meaning of justice can change like the wind and what one day are crimes are heroic actions the next - my point is that anything that cannot be undone is pointless to even think about - put your efforts into planning today and tomorrow and forget yesterday!

OK!!! so basically forget what happened before - right????

So if I went outside and shot someone on the street and hid for the rest of the day then when the police came to arrest me I could simply tell them forget it, it happened yesterday!!!!

Nobody would have enemies then because either you would be dead or they would be dead if commiting crimes and claiming that yesterday doesn't count would allow you to get away with murder (literally)!!!

It would free up the courts and prisons though so could be worth implementing. Why don't you apply to join Yingluck's government as an advisor as I'm sure she would take you on board - your suggestion is PURE GENIOUS my friend!!!!!

[Britannia]

yesterday is always yesterday - it is over, done and past. Jailing people simply satisfies a few that "justice has been done" but if the action causes more problems is it really worth it. The meaning of justice can change like the wind and what one day are crimes are heroic actions the next - my point is that anything that cannot be undone is pointless to even think about - put your efforts into planning today and tomorrow and forget yesterday!

Allowing people to get away with the sins of yesterday will ensure that they commit them again tomorrow.

Who decides if an "action causes more problems" than it's worth? Is this giving in to mob rule? "We can't find him guilty, even though he is, because all his supporters will come out in protest."

The truth is: I am not going to change the cause of History and neither is any one sitting on their keyboard on this forum, so in reality we are all very insignificant, just a load of mixed up whining opinions,

That is exactly what academics are, lots of talk lots of opinion no action

However those out acting, not talking, are in fact having an effect on the cause of History, it may be good it may be bad but it is an action, actions have effects.

All the intellect and opinion in the world can not in itself make any changes without action Do you feel left out?

So therefore if you all feel so strong on your views, put down your keyboards and go out and act. If you want to change something, then act!! Talking, is idle and yes that makes me idle as well

But naturally if you went out and acted incorrectly, like killing all those you proclaim should be killed, (then that according to all you academics) would make me a terrorist, by enticing you to act

[rubl]

yesterday is always yesterday - it is over, done and past. Jailing people simply satisfies a few that "justice has been done" but if the action causes more problems is it really worth it. The meaning of justice can change like the wind and what one day are crimes are heroic actions the next - my point is that anything that cannot be undone is pointless to even think about - put your efforts into planning today and tomorrow and forget yesterday!

Allowing people to get away with the sins of yesterday will ensure that they commit them again tomorrow.

Who decides if an "action causes more problems" than it's worth? Is this giving in to mob rule? "We can't find him guilty, even though he is, because all his supporters will come out in protest."

The truth is: I am not going to change the cause of History and neither is any one sitting on their keyboard on this forum, so in reality we are all very insignificant, just a load of mixed up whining opinions,

That is exactly what academics are, lots of talk lots of opinion no action

However those out acting, not talking, are in fact having an effect on the cause of History, it may be good it may be bad but it is an action, actions have effects.

All the intellect and opinion in the world can not in itself make any changes without action Do you feel left out?

So therefore if you all feel so strong on your views, put down your keyboards and go out and act. If you want to change something, then act!! Talking, is idle and yes that makes me idle as well

But naturally if you went out and acted incorrectly, like killing all those you proclaim should be killed, (then that according to all you academics) would make me a terrorist, by enticing you to act

No offence, but maybe you'd like to change your member name to 'Lenin', or aren't you an academic ? Mind you, comrade Lenin was mostly talk, not action. For action he had his people

Edited July 12, 2011 by rubl

[SICHONSTEVE]

yesterday is always yesterday - it is over, done and past. Jailing people simply satisfies a few that "justice has been done" but if the action causes more problems is it really worth it. The meaning of justice can change like the wind and what one day are crimes are heroic actions the next - my point is that anything that cannot be undone is pointless to even think about - put your efforts into planning today and tomorrow and forget yesterday!

Allowing people to get away with the sins of yesterday will ensure that they commit them again tomorrow.

Who decides if an "action causes more problems" than it's worth? Is this giving in to mob rule? "We can't find him guilty, even though he is, because all his supporters will come out in protest."

The truth is: I am not going to change the cause of History and neither is any one sitting on their keyboard on this forum, so in reality we are all very insignificant, just a load of mixed up whining opinions,

That is exactly what academics are, lots of talk lots of opinion no action

However those out acting, not talking, are in fact having an effect on the cause of History, it may be good it may be bad but it is an action, actions have effects.

All the intellect and opinion in the world can not in itself make any changes without action Do you feel left out?

So therefore if you all feel so strong on your views, put down your keyboards and go out and act. If you want to change something, then act!! Talking, is idle and yes that makes me idle as well

But naturally if you went out and acted incorrectly, like killing all those you proclaim should be killed, (then that according to all you academics) would make me a terrorist, by enticing you to act

No offence, but maybe you'd like to change your member name to 'Lenin', or aren't you an academic ? Mind you, comrade Lenin was mostly talk, not action. For action he had his people

Are you describing Lenin or Thaksin and his "red shirt's" here???????

[tlansford]

wow, more useless drivel from Pananda

[Ricardo]

More voted for him than for the other parties. They have the right to do so, on the basis of one man/woman, one vote.

The latest proportional-vote result I saw, which was Wikipedia a few days ago, said that PTP got 48.91% of the (75% turnout) vote. So I'm afraid that your statement "more voted for him" is possibly incorrect ?

It is a mistaken belief by many Thaksin supporters that those that are anti-Thaksin are not pro-poor. I think I speak for most everyone in saying this is not the case at all.

<snip for brevity>

+ 1

Part of the Thaksin-spin, over the past few years, has been to try to claim that only he cares about the poor, and only his governments can do anything to help them, he has attempted to hijack the issue and link it to his own personal-cause.

Many of us care about the poor, they are often even part of our families, we just don't think Thaksin is as essential to their interests, as he would have the country or international-media believe.

[rubl]

wow, more useless drivel from Pananda

I guess you mean the writer of the OP, Avudh Panananda ? Would you care to enlighten other posters here as to why you qualify the piece as 'drivel' and more specific 'the usual drivel'?

Edited July 12, 2011 by rubl

[hammered]

More voted for him than for the other parties. They have the right to do so, on the basis of one man/woman, one vote.

The latest proportional-vote result I saw, which was Wikipedia a few days ago, said that PTP got 48.91% of the (75% turnout) vote. So I'm afraid that your statement "more voted for him" is possibly incorrect ?

It is a mistaken belief by many Thaksin supporters that those that are anti-Thaksin are not pro-poor. I think I speak for most everyone in saying this is not the case at all.

<snip for brevity>

+ 1

Part of the Thaksin-spin, over the past few years, has been to try to claim that only he cares about the poor, and only his governments can do anything to help them, he has attempted to hijack the issue and link it to his own personal-cause.

Many of us care about the poor, they are often even part of our families, we just don't think Thaksin is as essential to their interests, as he would have the country or international-media believe.

In fairness I doubt many would disagree that the poor do believe Thaksin has helped them and is their best hope for a better future. Now whether true or not, it is politics. It is up to Thaksin's opponents to show they care too, and in here lies the interesting point because they showered the poor with probably more than Thaksin did and yet still the poor prefer him. Maybe he is perceived to have different or better motivations to helping them as it certainly doesnt seem it is just about who gives the most. In here lies the problem for Thaksin's opponents. He has totally hijacked the issue in a very very succesful way to the extent that his opponents cant even compete with bigger handouts

In virtually no democracy does any party ever get over 50% of the electorate to vote for them. A good argument can be made to change systems based on this but until the people agree to change the system there is the existing system which like in any other country relies on plurality. Just under 49% of the popular vote is a huge plurality in a multi-party constituency system and would be seen as giving a monster mandate to any party receiving this

[paully]

Thaksin was upbeat that he could convince the red shirts to go along with the Pheu Thai-sponsored reconciliation.

Of course he was 'upbeat'. I wonder why

[Samuian]

Thaksin was upbeat that he could convince the red shirts to go along with the Pheu Thai-sponsored reconciliation.

Of course he was 'upbeat'. I wonder why

money does convince everyone, especially in this country where tea money is the holy grail everyone worshippes!

Edited July 12, 2011 by Samuian

[Jirapa]

What a load of crap. All hear say with no foundation. They probably are working in cahoots with Taksin the first and so what, at least they're from the same family and she's not in bed with the media like the UK government

[lannarebirth]

It amuses me to see how quickly some members are already sounding the death knell for PT, on the basis of a shoddy piece of reporting. Some members are even patting themselves on their backs, claiming that their predictions have come true :D

Well my predictions are coming true, sadly.

Thaksin, the thin end of the globalist wedge. By agreement he'll move aside and become a "commerce facilitator", as ASEAN breaks down the Thai borders. Death to Thailand from within and without.

http://www.cfr.org/thailand/thaksins-dreams-can-end-thai-democracy/p25423?cid=rss-democracyandhumanrights-thaksin%26%238217%3Bs_dreams_can_end_thai_-070511

[dude007]

clones are only good for spare parts. The rest is waste and has to be disposed off...

[Jirapa]

clones are only good for spare parts. The rest is waste and has to be disposed off...

Do you actually believe what comes out of your keyboard? She's a democratically elected leader accepted not only by the Thais but the EU, the USA, all of Asia and the UN so who are you?

[whybother]

clones are only good for spare parts. The rest is waste and has to be disposed off...

Do you actually believe what comes out of your keyboard? She's a democratically elected leader accepted not only by the Thais but the EU, the USA, all of Asia and the UN so who are you?

Thaksin says she's his clone, and who doesn't believe what Thaksin says?

[lannarebirth]

clones are only good for spare parts. The rest is waste and has to be disposed off...

Do you actually believe what comes out of your keyboard? She's a democratically elected leader accepted not only by the Thais but the EU, the USA, all of Asia and the UN so who are you?

Even though she will most likely be found to have come to power whilst breaking the national election laws. All the globalists approvers you cite won't care about that I'm sure, but they ought to. On the contrary, when the inevitable ruling comes in they will scream that democracy has been usurped, when in fact only the rule of law has been applied. They barely disguise their contempt for the citizens of developing nations with their double standards. No one raised an eyebrow either in the US or outside when both parties there used whatever means the law provided to contest the 2000 presidential election . Not all agreed with the outcome, but everyone accepted the process.

Edited July 12, 2011 by lannarebirth

[Jirapa]

clones are only good for spare parts. The rest is waste and has to be disposed off...

Do you actually believe what comes out of your keyboard? She's a democratically elected leader accepted not only by the Thais but the EU, the USA, all of Asia and the UN so who are you?

Even though she will most likely be found to have come to power whilst breaking the national election laws. All the globalists approvers you cite won't care about that I'm sure, but they ought to. On the contrary, when the inevitable ruling comes in they will scream that democracy has been usurped, when in fact only the rule of law has been applied. They barely disguise their contempt for the citizens of developing nations with their double standards. No one raised an eyebrow either in the US or outside when both parties there used whatever means the law provided to contest the 2000 presidential election . Not all agreed with the outcome, but everyone accepted the process.

And so what? The democrats stood down! There's no comparison she won outright!

[lannarebirth]

clones are only good for spare parts. The rest is waste and has to be disposed off...

Do you actually believe what comes out of your keyboard? She's a democratically elected leader accepted not only by the Thais but the EU, the USA, all of Asia and the UN so who are you?

Even though she will most likely be found to have come to power whilst breaking the national election laws. All the globalists approvers you cite won't care about that I'm sure, but they ought to. On the contrary, when the inevitable ruling comes in they will scream that democracy has been usurped, when in fact only the rule of law has been applied. They barely disguise their contempt for the citizens of developing nations with their double standards. No one raised an eyebrow either in the US or outside when both parties there used whatever means the law provided to contest the 2000 presidential election . Not all agreed with the outcome, but everyone accepted the process.

And so what? The democrats stood down! There's no comparison she won outright!

She will in all liklihood me Thailand's next PM but all aspects of the process have not played out.