whybother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people. i know all that, but don't you think the public should have the right to vote as a public, on what party they want in power? In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country. yeah, but in reality, in many countries, who runs that country would be from the party that the public voted in. unless you were referring to invisible hands etc. but that's a whole other ballgame. The people have a right to vote who they want to represent them, which reflects the party that they want in power. If that party doesn't have a majority of MPs to support them to form government, that doesn't give the people who voted for them the right to try to kick out the government that IS formed by the support of the majority of MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weka Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neurofiend: Appreciate your reasoned replies - no offence with the silly analogy ok? I guess we all are just trying to reason with the incredibly poor state of politics, politicians and democracy in this crazy land and all agree that it's pretty fked up whichever way you look at it and from whichever side. Ultimately, I'd like the Red Shirt supporters to see that their paymaster represents (and is) the very same people (person) he is paying them to fight against. I look forward to the day the penny drops...pun intended There needn't be any bloodshed if only the leaders would stop calling for it and encouraging it. Predominantly Thais don't want to fight each other Also I think it's not the Nation Newspaper info that counts, it's what's in the Thai language papers and media that will influence the vast majority of Thais - and the election results and subsequent performance of the elected party. have a good day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts what???????? by saying that a lot of the public ended up voting for the same party as who the red shirts voted for - ptp ........i am believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and i'm believing that all PTP are red shirts. seriously, what the hell?? Edited June 28, 2012 by nurofiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts what???????? by saying that a lot of the public ended up voting for the same party as who the red shirts voted for - ptp ........i am believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and i'm believing that all PTP are red shirts. seriously, what the hell?? How enlightened I now am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people. i know all that, but don't you think the public should have the right to vote as a public, on what party they want in power? In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country. yeah, but in reality, in many countries, who runs that country would be from the party that the public voted in. unless you were referring to invisible hands etc. but that's a whole other ballgame. The people have a right to vote who they want to represent them, which reflects the party that they want in power. If that party doesn't have a majority of MPs to support them to form government, that doesn't give the people who voted for them the right to try to kick out the government that IS formed by the support of the majority of MPs. do you think it would have been fairer for democracy if abhisit was voted in by a public, election or not? do you think it's acceptable for the ruling of a government to be changed, to the opposition party now ruling it, without the say of the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts what???????? by saying that a lot of the public ended up voting for the same party as who the red shirts voted for - ptp ........i am believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and i'm believing that all PTP are red shirts. seriously, what the hell?? How enlightened I now am yeah, you've definitely achieved nirvana mate, your mind is on another level! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Yunla Posted June 28, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) The reason was two-fold. For one, they were very impatient. Elections take time to organise at the best of times, and they were worried about the things that might happen with them no longer at the helm, even if only for six months. For two, they were looking for a way to totally discredit the opposition and in doing so, help vindicate Thaksin and promulgate the story of him being the good guy and the forces against him that kicked him out as being the bad guys. Peaceful elections being organised with the losers standing down and handing over power doesn't really speak evil, does it? What better way to achieve their aims than with a blood bath in the capital city with the international media looking on? We have seen that even with Thaksin's own party back in power for coming up to a year, and his very own sister as PM, the job of restoring Thaksin to anything close to his former position in business and politics, or even being allowed the dignity of living in his own country without having to face up to his legal problems, is proving a hard nut to crack and i'm not sure he is any closer now than he was a year or so ago. Winning elections doesn't always solve all your problems. It certainly hasn't solved all of Thaksin's. Not yet anyway... I agree with you entirely and I sincerely believe that Thaksin made a tragic gamble in 2010, in which he miscalculated dramatically. I believe he did not want elections, early or otherwise, and he hoped for outright revolution with no further elections of any kind in future, and he miscalculated thinking his immense popularity with rural people would somehow be enough to step into direct dictatorship without elections. In my hypothesis, the television and stage speeches leading upto and beyond March 2010 could be seen as testing the water, to see how easily the mass of rural people would buy into the maoist revolution idea of violent uprising resulting in dictatorship by the Party. I do also consider the possibility that as the trigger for the revolution, Thaksin intended to use 'forced martyrdom' of hundreds of unknowing redshirts, to send shockwaves around the country and lead to a mass uprising and total overthrow of the whole system including electoralism and the entrenched elites. Thaksin knew that his PTP members could most likely mobilise enough votes in future elections to form government, using his popularity, his money coupled with the crushing poverty of the rural voters. I contend that he made the obvious connection between that huge rural vote, how they would win an election for him along democratic lines and how those same people would react to seeing the army shooting hundreds of poor farmers. To me this tragic miscalculation by Thaksin, explains ; the 10+ week long protest, unguarded comments by redmob leaders that 'escalation of violence would only aid our cause', the refusal to accept early elections, the very emotive pouring of buckets of blood around on the streets which is symbolic of things other than democratic voting, the 'burn it all' speeches, and the presence of black-clad snipers who according to witnesses shot Army and redmob members alike in what I assume was attempt to escalate the situation. Central to my hypothesis, is just the basic question of what did redmob hope to gain? They had 10+ weeks democratic protest and speeches and music, got the PM to offer them early elections. Why didn't redmob leaders tell the demonstrators to go home much sooner, around week four. It was obvious that even a thousand people in red shirts could not defeat the Army or the police, so why were they told to stay there in the firing line while their leaders upped the stakes. I was there at the time and watched the slow motion nightmare unfolding and the only reason I can think of is that Thaksin wanted those people to become martyrs and for that to trigger a nation-wide revolution. I don't see why else he and his redmob leaders would have acted in the way they did from week four onwards. Edited June 28, 2012 by Yunla 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts what???????? by saying that a lot of the public ended up voting for the same party as who the red shirts voted for - ptp ........i am believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and i'm believing that all PTP are red shirts. seriously, what the hell?? How enlightened I now am oh i see what you've done now you've misinterpreted what i meant by 'agreed with them' let me break it down "i think they were part of the public and then when all the public got to vote, most of that public, compared to any other party (48%, i'm aware), agreed with them" "then when all the public got to vote" "most of that public (compared etc)" "agreed with them" ie voted the same way - Not meaning they automatically agreed with their actions or the protests or they are a member of or support the red shirts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts what???????? by saying that a lot of the public ended up voting for the same party as who the red shirts voted for - ptp ........i am believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and i'm believing that all PTP are red shirts. seriously, what the hell?? How enlightened I now am yeah, you've definitely achieved nirvana mate, your mind is on another level! I have to agree with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way? ok give me a plausible, now please note the importance of the word plausible, alternative for them to get early elections other than a public protest? It is not just "protest", it is "protest that way". Sent from my shoe phone whatever about how it turned out, i was asking what was the alternative to having a protest... it's a fair question. i wasn't interested in getting into a 10 page who shot first argument which is what your reply would lead to. besides, since the first casualty was a UDD protester, it seems pretty clear who shot first. Ooops, not supposed to mention that on the Abhisit fan-forum... er, ooops, especially on the thread about "no order to ... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have to agree with you there. think you better check back on the latest post... so yes, i'm glad you agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Neuronfiend- You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts what???????? by saying that a lot of the public ended up voting for the same party as who the red shirts voted for - ptp ........i am believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and i'm believing that all PTP are red shirts. seriously, what the hell?? How enlightened I now am oh i see what you've done now you've misinterpreted what i meant by 'agreed with them' let me break it down "i think they were part of the public and then when all the public got to vote, most of that public, compared to any other party (48%, i'm aware), agreed with them" "then when all the public got to vote" "most of that public (compared etc)" "agreed with them" ie voted the same way - Not meaning they automatically agreed with their actions or the protests or they are a member of or support the red shirts! Let me help you express this a little better. Not all voters voted. 2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have to agree with you there. think you better check back on the latest post... so yes, i'm glad you agree An agreement in one post is not transferable to another. I appreciate you are a red shirt follower but my "I agree" is not for sale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING). Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way? Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"? Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service? I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter. How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant, It is very relevant. how is it relevant? unless you were on the ground in the thick of the protests, it's not. and even still, i have mates who were in the middle of it when trouble came to the khao san area, i certainly don't give their opinion on the 2010 protests in thailand any more merit than anyone else who is well read up enough about it. i was in cm at the time, do i get some brownie points? or does it just count if you were in bangkok, maybe looking out a window or watching the tv. there's certainly enough footage of it available that you didn't 'have to be there man'. unless you were a journalist or something, out there everyday, interviewing people etc. i don't see the relevance of being in thailand at the time! You make good points. There were people out there every day covering the demonstrations, interviewing people, and reporting the events. They provide a particular perspective. There are the people who were in some way actively involved - protesters, police, army, medics, officials, etc. Then there are a few people who lived within the protest zone - certainly they have a different perspective. Then there are the rest of us - either in BKK, a suburb of BKK, CM, or elsewhere. And all of these people have access today to more or less the same information - such as it is. There is no relevance to being there, even if it were just passing by to look, unless you were personally one of the actors in the drama. As for the demonstrations and the resulting massacre, you could have been in Surat Thani or Udon Thani and still discuss it with a valid, equally well-informed perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Let me help you express this a little better. Not all voters voted. 2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP "Not all voters voted." your point? "2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues" your point? "The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote" your point? "Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP" your point? none of those are any counterpoint whatsoever to what i said!!! and what all that has to do with your claim of......... You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts ......i don't know you can't just admit that you read what i was saying wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament. they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country. The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people. In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country. Doesn't really matter what people "feel" - this is the parliamentary system for this country and thats that. Holding the government and the people of the capital to ransom, burning down buildings and instigating violence (then crying like a 2 year old when they get violence back in return) is not how democracy works... if they claim to be the defenders/saviors/champions of democracy then they should to wait for the next election.... not force out the government with a 'terrorist coup' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have to agree with you there. think you better check back on the latest post... so yes, i'm glad you agree An agreement in one post is not transferable to another. I appreciate you are a red shirt follower but my "I agree" is not for sale and you read it wrong yet again.... i meant i'm glad you agree that your mind is on a different level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Doesn't really matter what people "feel" - this is the parliamentary system for this country and thats that. Holding the government and the people of the capital to ransom, burning down buildings and instigating violence (then crying like a 2 year old when they get violence back in return) is not how democracy works... if they claim to be the defenders/saviors/champions of democracy then they should to wait for the next election.... not force out the government with a 'terrorist coup' Doesn't really matter what people "feel" nice opener this is the parliamentary system for this country and thats that. so do you apply all that to the coup and the airport seizures too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Let me help you express this a little better. Not all voters voted. 2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP "Not all voters voted." your point? "2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues" your point? "The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote" your point? "Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP" your point? none of those are any counterpoint whatsoever to what i said!!! and what all that has to do with your claim of......... You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts ......i don't know you can't just admit that you read what i was saying wrong... I don't think you understand the meaning of what you type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 - deleted due to quote limits - i know all that, but don't you think the public should have the right to vote as a public, on what party they want in power? In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country. yeah, but in reality, in many countries, who runs that country would be from the party that the public voted in. unless you were referring to invisible hands etc. but that's a whole other ballgame. The people have a right to vote who they want to represent them, which reflects the party that they want in power. If that party doesn't have a majority of MPs to support them to form government, that doesn't give the people who voted for them the right to try to kick out the government that IS formed by the support of the majority of MPs. do you think it would have been fairer for democracy if abhisit was voted in by a public, election or not? do you think it's acceptable for the ruling of a government to be changed, to the opposition party now ruling it, without the say of the people? "do you think it's acceptable for the ruling of a government to be changed, to the opposition party now ruling it, without the say of the people?" if it were in their own country, the answer would likely be "no" It is OK however, since it is here and not in England, Oz, USA, etc. Which is the sign that there is no point taking issue with the squirming by posters who wish to justify the judicial coup and the back-room deal rise of the Abhisit gov't, its lack of mandate, and the subsequent, logically resulting protests against it in 2009 and 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Let me help you express this a little better. Not all voters voted. 2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP "Not all voters voted." your point? "2 million voters were unable due to voting procedure issues" your point? "The yellow loons opted to cast a 'no' vote" your point? "Of the people who did vote, 52% voted against PTP" your point? none of those are any counterpoint whatsoever to what i said!!! and what all that has to do with your claim of......... You are making another mistake in believing that anyone voted for the red shirts and another in believing that all PTP are red shirts ......i don't know you can't just admit that you read what i was saying wrong... I don't think you understand the meaning of what you type ok then, we'll just forget about it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 besides, since the first casualty was a UDD protester, it seems pretty clear who shot first. Ooops, not supposed to mention that on the Abhisit fan-forum... er, ooops, especially on the thread about "no order to ... " With all the information I've read, I didn't realise the first casualty was a protester. Is that in the HRW report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament. they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country. The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people. In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country. Doesn't really matter what people "feel" - this is the parliamentary system for this country and thats that. Holding the government and the people of the capital to ransom, burning down buildings and instigating violence (then crying like a 2 year old when they get violence back in return) is not how democracy works... if they claim to be the defenders/saviors/champions of democracy then they should to wait for the next election.... not force out the government with a 'terrorist coup' funny how Abhisit didn't wait for the next election... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saltandpepper Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 besides, since the first casualty was a UDD protester, it seems pretty clear who shot first. Ooops, not supposed to mention that on the Abhisit fan-forum... er, ooops, especially on the thread about "no order to ... " With all the information I've read, I didn't realise the first casualty was a protester. Is that in the HRW report? To tlansford Looks like you've lost your way then...You should not be anywhere close to this forum, and even further from this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 so do you apply all that to the coup and the airport seizures too? Certainly do matey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 do you think it would have been fairer for democracy if abhisit was voted in by a public, election or not? do you think it's acceptable for the ruling of a government to be changed, to the opposition party now ruling it, without the say of the people? Abhisit was voted in by the public in an election. He was elected PM when the sitting PM (Somchai) was forced out and elected MPs decided not support the current government. That was much the same as how Somchai became PM himself. The PPP didn't have a majority of MPs after the 2007 election when Samak was elected PM. They didn't have a majority of MPs when Somchai was elected PM. The didn't have the majority of MPs when Abhisit was PM. What they all had when they were elected was majority support of elected MPs. You keep going back to the say or will "of the people". But the people had their say. They elected MPs. Then it was up to the MPs to decide who is PM and who forms government. For many reasons, a majority of MPs decided that they wanted Abhisit to form government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 funny how Abhisit didn't wait for the next election... Abhisit didn't need to wait until the next election. The PPP decided to have a parliamentary election for PM, as they did when Samak was forced to step down and Somchai elected PM. Shouldn't the PPP have called an election to see who the people wanted to be the PM? They decided not to go to the people ... and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby nz Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Indeed Thaksin must take all the responsibility for all the death and destruction as he was the instigator and funder of the whole riots, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. And all for nothing, as has been shown all he had to do was to wait patiently for the next election then make some extreavigeny promises and his mob would be in Government again. How much better off would this country and Thaksin be if he had not do gone the way of violance, death and destruction to try to get his way? There would have been no need to spend all the money countering and cleaning up after his riots, tourism and industry would not have had the put off's it had because of the mob on the streets and Thaksin would still have the money he spent funding it. What the question should be is: Did Thaksin give the direct order for his troops to open fire on the army? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 funny how Abhisit didn't wait for the next election... Abhisit didn't need to wait until the next election. The PPP decided to have a parliamentary election for PM, as they did when Samak was forced to step down and Somchai elected PM. Shouldn't the PPP have called an election to see who the people wanted to be the PM? They decided not to go to the people ... and lost. read post to nurofiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now