Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[whybother]

So the next time I ask what Abhisit's election promises were, I should expect a response along the lines of "But he came to power through a judicial / military coup"??? <deleted>?

yes, and rightly so.

I should expect that response??? Again, <deleted>?

What do his election promises have to do with him even coming to power?

exactly

So why bring it up?

[nurofiend]

i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority, so what does that leave...

... That leaves majority and plurality.

"i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority, so what does that leave..."

that was blatantly rhetorical... to make my point.

i mean....unbelievable

[nurofiend]

So why bring it up?

I didn't

[rixalex]

The short answer however is that Abhisit's government was legitimate under a parliamentary system but it was put together in the barracks with money and coercion.

Quite possibly truth in that, but let's not be naive here and pretend that other coalition governments formed in Thailand have been without dubious secret back room deals involving money and power exchanges that included unelected "bodies". Does it make it that much worse that in Abhisit's case, the unelected bodies happened to be those within barracks, rather than within something like business? I'm not sure it does. Perhaps you can tell me why it is that much worse, assuming, as i feel i am safe to, that that is your position.

That's why there was almost universal relief when the current government assumed office with real legitimacy.

Firstly, let's acknowledge that your "universal relief" comment is purely your opinion of what you thought, millions of other people were thinking and feeling. That what you think millions of other people were thinking and feeling happens to coincide with precisely how you felt, is worth noting here.

As for "real legitimacy", i would concur that this government has more than the one prior, but that is not to say that there aren't questions of its legitimacy. Questions raised by its use of a banned politician as its main figurehead, as its absent but ever present leader, and by its use of blatant campaign lies. Yes, all campaigning involves a degree of deceit, but i am of the belief that even with that considered, there is a line and that line was crossed. Perhaps though, none of that troubled you?

[whybother]

So why bring it up?

I didn't

You did.

no, i meant the way they were obviously talking about when he was made PM... and his election promises to the public were irrelevant, as the public didn't vote for him to be PM

[nurofiend]

I should expect that response??? Again, <deleted>?

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

it's not the only response you should expect but you should definitely expect someone to bring it up.... you'd be very naive not to expect it.

[nurofiend]

So why bring it up?

I didn't

You did.

no, i meant the way they were obviously talking about when he was made PM... and his election promises to the public were irrelevant, as the public didn't vote for him to be PM

again with the...pfffft..... i don't even know what to call it at this stage...

i wasn't the one who brought it up in this thread, i thought we were talking about this thread and the discussion in this thread...hence, i wasn't the one who brought up abhisist's election promises in this thread...

[whybother]

I should expect that response??? Again, <deleted>?

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

it's not the only response you should expect but you should definitely expect someone to bring it up.... you'd be very naive not to expect it.

Yes, I suppose you're right. There will be stupid posters that will respond in that way even though it's completely irrelevant to the question.

[rixalex]

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

If he wasn't voted for, how did he become an MP?

[nurofiend]

I should expect that response??? Again, <deleted>?

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

it's not the only response you should expect but you should definitely expect someone to bring it up.... you'd be very naive not to expect it.

Yes, I suppose you're right. There will be stupid posters that will respond in that way even though it's completely irrelevant to the question.

i wouldn't call them stupid, i'd call it stating facts.

it's not completely irrelevant either.... if someone asks "what promises did 'x' make" and someone replies "what difference does it make, the people who he made these promises to, didn't have any say to how 'x' came into power"

that's relevant.

[nurofiend]

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

If he wasn't voted for, how did he become an MP?

i suggest you're either trolling, you need to read back on the thread or you truly don't understand that we're talking about being voted in by general election.... edit - as PM

Edited January 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

double

Edited January 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[rixalex]

i wouldn't call them stupid, i'd call it stating facts.

it's not completely irrelevant either.... if someone asks "what promises did 'x' make" and someone replies "what difference does it make, the people who he made these promises to, didn't have any say to how 'x' came into power"

that's relevant.

The people had the same degree of say with Abhisit becoming PM, as they have when any coalition government is formed.

[rixalex]

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

If he wasn't voted for, how did he become an MP?

i suggest you're either trolling, you need to read back on the thread or you truly don't understand that we're talking about being voted in by general election.... edit - as PM

I think the problem here is you don't understand how people get the PM post. It is never directly through the public. It is always an indirect process.

Please don't call me a troll.

[nurofiend]

i wouldn't call them stupid, i'd call it stating facts.

it's not completely irrelevant either.... if someone asks "what promises did 'x' make" and someone replies "what difference does it make, the people who he made these promises to, didn't have any say to how 'x' came into power"

that's relevant.

The people had the same degree of say with Abhisit becoming PM, as they have when any coalition government is formed.

the people had no say about abhisit becoming PM

[nurofiend]

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

If he wasn't voted for, how did he become an MP?

i suggest you're either trolling, you need to read back on the thread or you truly don't understand that we're talking about being voted in by general election.... edit - as PM

I think the problem here is you don't understand how people get the PM post. It is never directly through the public. It is always an indirect process.

Please don't call me a troll.

i didn't call you a troll but if you feel that's what i meant and it hurt your feelings, then report me.

i think the problem is that you're trying to be condesending by saying i don't understand, i'm aware of how it works and i'm sure you are too aware enough to realize that the candidates for PM become clear pretty early on.

[rixalex]

i wouldn't call them stupid, i'd call it stating facts.

it's not completely irrelevant either.... if someone asks "what promises did 'x' make" and someone replies "what difference does it make, the people who he made these promises to, didn't have any say to how 'x' came into power"

that's relevant.

The people had the same degree of say with Abhisit becoming PM, as they have when any coalition government is formed.

the people had no say about abhisit becoming PM

Of course the people had a say; indirectly. No different from when say for example, Somchai became PM.

[nurofiend]

i wouldn't call them stupid, i'd call it stating facts.

it's not completely irrelevant either.... if someone asks "what promises did 'x' make" and someone replies "what difference does it make, the people who he made these promises to, didn't have any say to how 'x' came into power"

that's relevant.

The people had the same degree of say with Abhisit becoming PM, as they have when any coalition government is formed.

the people had no say about abhisit becoming PM

Of course the people had a say; indirectly. No different from when say for example, Somchai became PM.

how did they have a say indirectly?

[rixalex]

i didn't call you a troll but if you feel that's what i meant and it hurt your feelings, then report me.

It didn't hurt my feelings, i just thought it was unfair and unnecessary. If you feel otherwise, fine, and as far as i am aware, calling someone a troll is not against forum rules, so i don't know why you think i would wish to report it.

i think the problem is that you're trying to be condesending by saying i don't understand, i'm aware of how it works and i'm sure you are too aware enough to realize that the candidates for PM become clear pretty early on.

The post prior you suggested i might not understand, so please save your indignation if i suggest the same of you.

[rixalex]

how did they have a say indirectly?

The people had a say, indirectly, by voting for the MPs that they did. When you vote for an MP, you are giving that person power to make decisions on your behalf, and that includes the decision about who will be PM.

[nurofiend]

i didn't call you a troll but if you feel that's what i meant and it hurt your feelings, then report me.

It didn't hurt my feelings, i just thought it was unfair and unnecessary. If you feel otherwise, fine, and as far as i am aware, calling someone a troll is not against forum rules, so i don't know why you think i would wish to report it.

i think the problem is that you're trying to be condesending by saying i don't understand, i'm aware of how it works and i'm sure you are too aware enough to realize that the candidates for PM become clear pretty early on.

The post prior you suggested i might not understand, so please save your indignation if i suggest the same of you.

my suggestions were sarcastic, as i knew full well that you knew the context of what was being discussed.

and again i repeat 'context'.... me saying you're "either trolling or" was simply to indicate that you were taking what was said out of context, when the post that you quoted was clearly referring to public general election... if you genuinely and truly didn't grasp that, then i apologize.

[nurofiend]

how did they have a say indirectly?

The people had a say, indirectly, by voting for the MPs that they did. When you vote for an MP, you are giving that person power to make decisions on your behalf, and that includes the decision about who will be PM.

but... the people didn't have a say about abhisit becoming PM.

saying the people had a say 'indirectly' means, the people didn't fully get the chance to have their say.

that's why general elections were invented...

Edited January 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[Moruya]

i wouldn't call them stupid, i'd call it stating facts.

it's not completely irrelevant either.... if someone asks "what promises did 'x' make" and someone replies "what difference does it make, the people who he made these promises to, didn't have any say to how 'x' came into power"

that's relevant.

The people had the same degree of say with Abhisit becoming PM, as they have when any coalition government is formed.

the people had no say about abhisit becoming PM

The "people" have no say about any PM being appointed

[rixalex]

but... the people didn't have a say about abhisit becoming PM.

saying the people had a say 'indirectly' means, the people didn't fully get the chance to have their say.

that's why general elections were invented...

I've already explained how and why the people did have a say, indirectly, so at this point, i'll leave you to it. No point going round in circles.

[JAG]

A cynic might say that the people who had the say in this case were wearing green uniforms with lots of military bling attached!

[tlansford]

i'm not saying his election promises were null and void... i'm saying it's irrelevant to the public to how he was made prime minister.

as the public didn't vote him or his party into power...

The discussion isn't about how he came to power. The discussion is "what were his promises?" He did come to power, and the people that did vote for him (a similar number to those that voted for PPP) would have expected him to fulfill his promises.

The PPP didn't get an absolute majority no... but they did get the majority of votes in comparision to any other party..

it goes back to the same PTP DIDNT GET A MAJORITY cry that you often hear, when people clearly mean they got the most votes out of any party.

that particular argument makes me chuckle, it boils down to wordplay because people obviously understand what is meant when people say they got the majority... as in majority of votes, not the majority of the public voted for them.

The "PTP didn't get a majority" is only relevant when posters say "The Thai people voted for PTP". They got a majority of seats and were able to form government without a coalition.

The "PPP didn't get a majority" is relevant because they couldn't form government without the help of a coalition, which means, theoretically, that the Democrats could have formed government if they were able to get the support of the other parties. It doesn't matter who gets the most votes (or specifically, the most seats) if it's not more than 50% (ie a majority). The most votes or most seats doesn't get you into government. A majority does.

The PPP didn't get a majority. They did get the most votes and the most seats. They were able to form government, but only with a coalition.

(read my signature for definitions of 'majority')

As you well know, your "signature" correct, but it is selective, too. Plurality and majority are also synonyms.

Nurofiend is chuckling for a reason

[tlansford]

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

If he wasn't voted for, how did he become an MP?

i suggest you're either trolling, you need to read back on the thread or you truly don't understand that we're talking about being voted in by general election.... edit - as PM

Nurofiend, that sucking noise coming from your computer is the sound of another TVF, Black-Hole, Denial-of-the-Obvious thread trying to suck the life-energy from you. Jump ship now !

Where is Phiphidon ? He has a great explanation of the phenomena ...

[Moruya]

you should expect that response, yes, obviously people are going to bring up the fact that his election promises didn't make much difference to the public because of the fact that he wasn't voted for in a GE by the public.

If he wasn't voted for, how did he become an MP?

i suggest you're either trolling, you need to read back on the thread or you truly don't understand that we're talking about being voted in by general election.... edit - as PM

Nurofiend, that sucking noise coming from your computer is the sound of another TVF, Black-Hole, Denial-of-the-Obvious thread trying to suck the life-energy from you. Jump ship now !

Where is Phiphidon ? He has a great explanation of the phenomena ...

You make quite a pair.

One who doesn't understand how voting works and one who fails to grasp the meaning of the word "majority".

I can see how you would side with the reds.

[whybother]

As you well know, your "signature" correct, but it is selective, too. Plurality and majority are also synonyms.

Nurofiend is chuckling for a reason

plurality [ploo-ral-i-tee]  

Main Entry:

plurality  [ploo-ral-i-tee] Show IPA

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: large part of a group

Synonyms: advantage, bulk, greater part, lead, majority, mass, most, multiplicity, nearly all, numerousness, preponderance, profusion, variety

Notes: a majority is more than half the votes, while a plurality is simply getting more votes than the other person(s)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/plurality

[Moruya]

As you well know, your "signature" correct, but it is selective, too. Plurality and majority are also synonyms.

Nurofiend is chuckling for a reason

plurality [ploo-ral-i-tee]  

Main Entry:

plurality  [ploo-ral-i-tee] Show IPA

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: large part of a group

Synonyms: advantage, bulk, greater part, lead, majority, mass, most, multiplicity, nearly all, numerousness, preponderance, profusion, variety

Notes: a majority is more than half the votes, while a plurality is simply getting more votes than the other person(s)

http://thesaurus.com/browse/plurality

Note that the term "Plurality" is US term. In counties where "aluminium" wasn't deemed too dificult to pronounce, plurality just means "more than one"