Thai Red Shirts Warn Election Commission Of Backlash

[thaiphoon]

1 post containing flame has been removed.

[moe666]

Threats and intimadation the only thing the redshirts understand.

Look in a dictionary next to threat will be the pitcure of a red shirt good defination.

Edited July 14, 2011 by moe666

[phiphidon]

Would the 'angry backlash' be done within or by breaking the law? What I don't understand is why they have to act like an unruly mob, rather than doing things within the law (eg protesting without being violent or commiting crimes). Thailand will remain a wild west if groups like the Red shirts are allowed to continue breaking the law, being violent, restricting peoples free movement, and not tolerating other peoples opinions.

Then a question of ethics: should persons with criminal convictions, not of good character, and having little respect for the law, be allowed to to MPs? In most other countries of the world they would be instantly disqualified. Its not a question of politics; just decent, civil behaviour.

Did we see Ghandi acting like the red shirts?

Gandhi like Mandela, were two Political exceptions, throughout the world and throughout History.

It may be a sad fact, that all modern peaceful democratic societies have got there by opposing the law in order to change it,

The oppressed throughout the world, yes your forefathers and mine never got equality through peaceful demonstration they had to, shall we say struggle for it.

Now we would not expect the uneducated jungle idiots to know anything about that would we? as they are all stupid! But we would expect the superior educated brains of society to be aware that that is how evolution in politics works and to be aware that sooner or later the majority get there way

That might be ok IF the red shirts were the majority.

Will you please stop banging on about "the majority". Of all those eligible to vote and able to vote on July 3rd, more Thai people voted for the PTP than their closest rivals the Democrats or any other party. What part of that sentence do you not understand? Yes we know about your quibbling over the definition of a majority, but the previous sentence stands, the PTP, if the Democrats, EC and the PAD don't get their way again, have the right to form the next parliament. Get over it and give up with your endless whitterings about a "majority" of the Thai populace. And by the way the Red Shirts i.e the UDD were not on the voting list.

[phiphidon]

ignorance on parade. Clearly your problem is that you assume everyone else is as ignorant as yourself. Pick up a newspaper sometime.

but find a real Newspaper not the childish rubbish quoted here by the so called Nation. Try to find a real paper or online news site

Pray, tell us. Any particular paper or site you had in mind?

"Anything other than" would be an appropriate place to start I suggest

[phiphidon]

Threats and intimadation the only thing the redshirts understand.

They have certainly had plenty of exposure to it.

[rubl]

begin (other quotes) removed ...

Will you please stop banging on about "the majority". Of all those eligible to vote and able to vote on July 3rd, more Thai people voted for the PTP than their closest rivals the Democrats or any other party. What part of that sentence do you not understand? Yes we know about your quibbling over the definition of a majority, but the previous sentence stands, the PTP, if the Democrats, EC and the PAD don't get their way again, have the right to form the next parliament. Get over it and give up with your endless whitterings about a "majority" of the Thai populace. And by the way the Red Shirts i.e the UDD were not on the voting list.

Definition and importance of majority ==> understood

Dems, EC, PAD getting their way? Shouldn't that be the EC will get it's way as defined by Election Law and if a case is forwarded, by the Election Court? Dem's and PAD just petition the EC to look into possible irregularities, just like the Pheu Thai did this Thursday.

Lastly, true, just like k. Thaksin was totally uninvolved in the recent elections, neither was the UDD faction of the red-shirts. Funnily enough some UDD leaders happened to be Pheu Thai party list candidates. With many mixing red-shirts and UDD as same, it's understandable that in the topic it says 'Thai red-shirts warn' and a follow up has even "k. Natthawut Saikua, a red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai MP-elect, saying Thursday that he will not organize a red-shirt demonstration to pressure the Election Commission to endorse election victory of red-shirt leaders. "Red-shirt leaders have consulted about this and we agreed that we will not do such a thing."" Seems he momentarily forgot he's UDD leader only. Still he remembered in time that being not only a UDD leader, but also a Pheu Thai MP-in-waiting wouldn't look good trying to pressure the EC.

[rubl]

ignorance on parade. Clearly your problem is that you assume everyone else is as ignorant as yourself. Pick up a newspaper sometime.

but find a real Newspaper not the childish rubbish quoted here by the so called Nation. Try to find a real paper or online news site

Pray, tell us. Any particular paper or site you had in mind?

"Anything other than" would be an appropriate place to start I suggest

My dear sir, MrChangers expressly said 'real newspaper or online news site'. That suggests he has a few in mind. Being somewhat prejudiced myself, I still like to hear from others what they think are 'real papers'. I'm open enough to try to learn something new, you know.

So, please, my question stands.

PS no need to ask which are mine. TheNation was found not acceptable, and listing some Dutch news sites probably won't help you either

Edited July 14, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

That might be ok IF the red shirts were the majority.

Will you please stop banging on about "the majority". Of all those eligible to vote and able to vote on July 3rd, more Thai people voted for the PTP than their closest rivals the Democrats or any other party. What part of that sentence do you not understand? Yes we know about your quibbling over the definition of a majority, but the previous sentence stands, the PTP, if the Democrats, EC and the PAD don't get their way again, have the right to form the next parliament. Get over it and give up with your endless whitterings about a "majority" of the Thai populace. And by the way the Red Shirts i.e the UDD were not on the voting list.

"And by the way the Red Shirts i.e the UDD were not on the voting list."

I wasn't talking about the election. The conversation was about the red shirts.

[Britannia]

Gandhi like Mandela, were two Political exceptions, throughout the world and throughout History.

It may be a sad fact, that all modern peaceful democratic societies have got there by opposing the law in order to change it,

The oppressed throughout the world, yes your forefathers and mine never got equality through peaceful demonstration they had to, shall we say struggle for it.

Now we would not expect the uneducated jungle idiots to know anything about that would we? as they are all stupid! But we would expect the superior educated brains of society to be aware that that is how evolution in politics works and to be aware that sooner or later the majority get there way

That might be ok IF the red shirts were the majority.

I never said red, its inplanted in your brain, red red red I said the poor uneducated jungle idiot as some honorable folk like to refere to them. They are the majority, the reds are just at the fore at the fore at the fore, I always stutter when trying to explain the color red to a blind person. its impossible you know

True, you didn't say 'red', just 'jungle idiots'. Could be almost anyone then, couldn't it. still lots of jungle in Thailand, assuming we were restricting ourselves to Thailand.

So re-reading we're talking about the oppressed who you choose to call the 'jungle idiots'. I'll be kind and assume you were a bit sarcastic here. The reds are at the forefront you say? Is that 'reds' as in the red-shirt, grass-root poor, or only the UDD faction with it's leaders as possible Pheu Thai MP-elects? Those last can hardly be called uneducated. Some may even sue you for defamation calling them both idiots and uneducated.

Last question if you would be so kind to permit. Do you have less problems explaining colours other than red to the blind ?

Sir you forgot to put a ? after couldn’t it

And you are as about facetious as I am

Also you miss the point on explaining the color red to a blind person sir, it’s impossible.

Jungle idiots uneducated sir was just to make some of the posters on here feel more comfortable, it is not my own personal opinion you know?

[LindsayBKK]

What are they going to do? Set Shopping Centre's on fire? Riot in the street? Have a sit-in at Rajaprasong? Rally on motorbikes?

Oh they've done that, gonna have to come up with something new. How about leaving Thailand in protest? Now that would be good.

We will see what Yingluck does to see who's side she is on. Nothing I am guessing.

This is Dad's Land, if you don't want to live here get out Red Mafia!

Edited July 15, 2011 by LindsayBKK

[tlansford]

As usual, interesting comments here...

...

Among those not endorsed - Yingluck and Abhisit... I find that unusual, but then I'm not familiar with the functioning of the EC... In any case, I'd like to know more details...

As for the rest on TVF who ha..., er, don't like red-shirts, don't you find it unusual that none of their candidates have been endorsed? And if it were you, would you not complain, too?

As for me, I would.

[rubl]

As usual, interesting comments here...

...

Among those not endorsed - Yingluck and Abhisit... I find that unusual, but then I'm not familiar with the functioning of the EC... In any case, I'd like to know more details...

As for the rest on TVF who ha..., er, don't like red-shirts, don't you find it unusual that none of their candidates have been endorsed? And if it were you, would you not complain, too?

As for me, I would.

Lots of MPs endorsed including Pheu Thai, Dem's, BJT, etc., etc. It's mostly those for whom investigations are still continuing who are not endorsed, like Ms. Yingluck, k. Abhisit, a dozen UDD leaders who may be Pheu Thai MP-elects, etc.

The Thai red-shirts as mentioned in the OP should probably read 'UDD red-shirts', anyway there is no red-shirt party as people here keep saying, just the Pheu Thai with some UDD leaders as party list candidates and maybe now MP-elects.

[rubl]

I never said red, its inplanted in your brain, red red red I said the poor uneducated jungle idiot as some honorable folk like to refere to them. They are the majority, the reds are just at the fore at the fore at the fore, I always stutter when trying to explain the color red to a blind person. its impossible you know

True, you didn't say 'red', just 'jungle idiots'. Could be almost anyone then, couldn't it. still lots of jungle in Thailand, assuming we were restricting ourselves to Thailand.

So re-reading we're talking about the oppressed who you choose to call the 'jungle idiots'. I'll be kind and assume you were a bit sarcastic here. The reds are at the forefront you say? Is that 'reds' as in the red-shirt, grass-root poor, or only the UDD faction with it's leaders as possible Pheu Thai MP-elects? Those last can hardly be called uneducated. Some may even sue you for defamation calling them both idiots and uneducated.

Last question if you would be so kind to permit. Do you have less problems explaining colours other than red to the blind ?

Sir you forgot to put a ? after couldn’t it

And you are as about facetious as I am

Also you miss the point on explaining the color red to a blind person sir, it’s impossible.

Jungle idiots uneducated sir was just to make some of the posters on here feel more comfortable, it is not my own personal opinion you know?

Most of us only put our own opinion forward and not just to make others feel more comfortable. May I conclude from your last remark, that you just write down whatever but not your own opinion?

Makes for interesting discussions for sure, dear sir.

[nurofiend]

does democracy not mean the people's vote being accepted?

is this not a valid argument they have?

The peoples votes are accepted. That doesn't mean all illegal, partially legal, maybe legal, possibly legal machinations of political parties should be ignored. Heaven forbid if one of the political parties misled voters. Like Dem's saying ' we can do better', or Phue Thai 'Thaksin thinks, PT acts'

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

edit: i'm not sure if you were being sarcastic and agreeing with me there or not tbh

Edited July 15, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

does democracy not mean the people's vote being accepted?

is this not a valid argument they have?

That's part of what democracy means. Although if you thought that is all democracy is it would a pretty simplistic and wrong view. Here's a better thought out view of what democracy entails:

http://www.anandp.co...ech/e240608.pdf

yes, i thought that is all democracy is...

please.... don't insult my intelligence

[lannarebirth]

does democracy not mean the people's vote being accepted?

is this not a valid argument they have?

That's part of what democracy means. Although if you thought that is all democracy is it would a pretty simplistic and wrong view. Here's a better thought out view of what democracy entails:

http://www.anandp.co...ech/e240608.pdf

yes, i thought that is all democracy is...

please.... don't insult my intelligence

Then stop posting pap.

[nurofiend]

explain to me where i was wrong in my post, or where the 'PAP' was....whatever the hell that's meant to mean

[whybother]

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

It's simple really. If people break the law during campaigning then it's irrelevant how many people voted for them. They cheated.

[nurofiend]

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

It's simple really. If people break the law during campaigning then it's irrelevant how many people voted for them. They cheated.

what law did they break?

[whybother]

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

It's simple really. If people break the law during campaigning then it's irrelevant how many people voted for them. They cheated.

what law did they break?

That's irrelevant. I'm not saying they broke the law. I am saying IF they broke the law.

A lot of people are saying "The people voted for them. Let them govern."

But IF they broke the law in getting those votes (regardless of whether the people would have voted for them anyway) they shouldn't get the chance to govern.

[lannarebirth]

explain to me where i was wrong in my post, or where the 'PAP' was....whatever the hell that's meant to mean

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

Pap

"an idea, talk, book, or the like, lacking substance or real value."

—Synonyms

2. drivel, balderdash, twaddle.

Edited July 15, 2011 by lannarebirth

[nurofiend]

if the votes are accepted, that means who they voted for should be elected....misleading voters is besides the point.....that's what politicians do

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

It's simple really. If people break the law during campaigning then it's irrelevant how many people voted for them. They cheated.

what law did they break?

That's irrelevant. I'm not saying they broke the law. I am saying IF they broke the law.

A lot of people are saying "The people voted for them. Let them govern."

But IF they broke the law in getting those votes (regardless of whether the people would have voted for them anyway) they shouldn't get the chance to govern.

i don't think the details of what law IF it was broken and by exactly whom is irrelevant at all

tbh your post to me looked like you were saying they DID break the law in context of replying to my post

[nurofiend]

explain to me where i was wrong in my post, or where the 'PAP' was....whatever the hell that's meant to mean

Pap

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

"an idea, talk, book, or the like, lacking substance or real value."

—Synonyms

2. drivel, balderdash, twaddle.

yeah man, you're only hilarious

you know i meant in the context of a national election vote

maybe i should have phrased it as 'a 'fair' majority public vote' which you know i clearly meant, then you wouldn't have to nitpick it to have your little condescending dig

[whybother]

That's irrelevant. I'm not saying they broke the law. I am saying IF they broke the law.

A lot of people are saying "The people voted for them. Let them govern."

But IF they broke the law in getting those votes (regardless of whether the people would have voted for them anyway) they shouldn't get the chance to govern.

i don't think the details of what law IF it was broken and by exactly whom is irrelevant at all

tbh your post to me looked like you were saying they DID break the law in context of replying to my post

What does "if the votes are accepted" mean? I took it as meaning that the votes had been counted and accepted as valid votes.

I accept that "Misleading the voters" is different than "they broke law". Politicians all over the world "mislead" the voters every day. But that doesn't mean that they break the law.

In Thailand, there are laws relating to how a candidate can campaign. If a candidate breaks those laws, it's irrelevant how many people vote for them. The candidate gets banned if red carded, or stood down if yellow carded and a by-election is held.

It's irrelevant which laws were broken. If a law was broken by the winning candidate, then it doesn't matter how many people voted for them. A by-election is required.

[nurofiend]

That's irrelevant. I'm not saying they broke the law. I am saying IF they broke the law.

A lot of people are saying "The people voted for them. Let them govern."

But IF they broke the law in getting those votes (regardless of whether the people would have voted for them anyway) they shouldn't get the chance to govern.

i don't think the details of what law IF it was broken and by exactly whom is irrelevant at all

tbh your post to me looked like you were saying they DID break the law in context of replying to my post

What does "if the votes are accepted" mean? I took it as meaning that the votes had been counted and accepted as valid votes.

I accept that "Misleading the voters" is different than "they broke law". Politicians all over the world "mislead" the voters every day. But that doesn't mean that they break the law.

In Thailand, there are laws relating to how a candidate can campaign. If a candidate breaks those laws, it's irrelevant how many people vote for them. The candidate gets banned if red carded, or stood down if yellow carded and a by-election is held.

It's irrelevant which laws were broken. If a law was broken by the winning candidate, then it doesn't matter how many people voted for them. A by-election is required.

yes i did mean that if the votes had been counted and accepted as valid votes, by that i meant valid votes as in there was no messing around with the vote count etc and they were valid votes from the people

i totally agree with you that if a winning candidate himself did in fact break the law in how they went about their campaign, then they should be disqualified

what i meant by the relevance of the laws broken meant basically by whom it was broken, if it could be proven that the candidate himself wasn't aware of it then it's completely relevant

but really i think if they are themselves proven to have broken the law, there should be a re-vote and i'm sure the outcome would be the same

the opposition clutching at straws springs to mind here tbh

[lannarebirth]

explain to me where i was wrong in my post, or where the 'PAP' was....whatever the hell that's meant to mean

Pap

a majority public vote should be validated no matter what

"an idea, talk, book, or the like, lacking substance or real value."

Synonyms

2. drivel, balderdash, twaddle.

yeah man, you're only hilarious

you know i meant in the context of a national election vote

maybe i should have phrased it as 'a 'fair' majority public vote' which you know i clearly meant, then you wouldn't have to nitpick it to have your little condescending dig

No one ever has to guess when i'm being condescending, which i wasn't in this case. My point is that a majority vote might mean nothing if it was garnered illegally. I expect some of the votes were and that the party may be disbanded for legal reasons, but I don't expect that the new party coming to power will change. As I've said before, I have great sympathy for the voters that are installing this new party. Where i disagree is whether installing this new new party is in the best interests of those i sympathize with. I'm not a Thai citizen so I can only wish them well.

Edited July 15, 2011 by lannarebirth

[nurofiend]

just to be clear on this quote i made

"but really i think if they are themselves proven to have broken the law, there should be a re-vote and i'm sure the outcome would be the same"

i mean the outcome would be the same but just with a different candidate replacing them

[whybother]

yes i did mean that if the votes had been counted and accepted as valid votes, by that i meant valid votes as in there was no messing around with the vote count etc and they were valid votes from the people

i totally agree with you that if a winning candidate himself did in fact break the law in how they went about their campaign, then they should be disqualified

what i meant by the relevance of the laws broken meant basically by whom it was broken, if it could be proven that the candidate himself wasn't aware of it then it's completely relevant

but really i think if they are themselves proven to have broken the law, there should be a re-vote and i'm sure the outcome would be the same

the opposition clutching at straws springs to mind here tbh

Valid votes have nothing to do with whether a candidate was legally elected or not. If they broke the law, the votes are irrelevant.

Classic law quote: "Ignorance is no excuse". If the candidate isn't aware of the electoral law then it's their own fault if they happen to break it.

The outcome of any by-election would probably be the same, BUT given the back tracking on some policies announcements by the PTP ... you just never know.

Which "opposition"? The Democrats and the PTP (and lots of others) have lodged complaints. It's up to the EC to decide whether the complaints are valid. We'll find out on Tuesday (from latest reports) whether Yingluck and Abhisit will be endorsed. Given that they weren't asked for more information probably points to them being endorsed.

Ofcourse, that won't stop the PTP from being disbanded for "Thaksin thinks. Pheu Thai acts". But that won't stop Yingluck from being PM or the PTP staying in government in their new guise.

[nurofiend]

No one ever has to guess when i'm being condescending, which i wasn't in this case. My point is that a majority vote might mean nothing if it was garnered illegally. I expect some of the votes were and that the party may be disbanded for legal reasons, but I don't expect that the new party coming to power will change. As I've said before, I have great sympathy for the voters that are installing this new party. Where i disagree is whether installing this new new party is in the best interests of those i sympathize with. I'm not a Thai citizen so I can only wish them well.

you say your point is, ^as quoted above^, yet you made no such point to me....

all you said to me, was firstly to assume that i had a limited and simplistic knowledge of democracy

then just invalidated any point i was trying to make by basically saying i was just talking crap, ie nothing i've been saying has any merit whatsoever, that in my book is condescending

why couldn't you have just replied like you just have now, in a mature fashion and say what your view is....that's all i was getting at

[whybother]

just to be clear on this quote i made

"but really i think if they are themselves proven to have broken the law, there should be a re-vote and i'm sure the outcome would be the same"

i mean the outcome would be the same but just with a different candidate replacing them

If they get a red card, they get banned for 5 years and can't stand in the by-election. If they get a yellow card, they can stand in the by-election.

But, agreed, the same party would most likely get re-elected.