Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[nurofiend]

In any case that point has already been explained along with a key consideration that a PM who has not faced the electorate needs to refresh his mandate.Nobody is suggesting that Abhisit wasn't the rightful PM simply that he needed to obtain the endorsement of the Thai people to shore up his political credibility.It's a political rather than a constitutional consideration.

exactly.

maybe now they'll get it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by nurofiend

[rubl]

In any case that point has already been explained along with a key consideration that a PM who has not faced the electorate needs to refresh his mandate.Nobody is suggesting that Abhisit wasn't the rightful PM simply that he needed to obtain the endorsement of the Thai people to shore up his political credibility.It's a political rather than a constitutional consideration.

exactly.

maybe now they'll get it.

A political rather than a constitutional consideration? Politics as usual. So, not illegitimate. Exactly, maybe now they'll (whoever they are) will get it, I have some doubt though

Anyway a Democrats candidate surprised (all) by winning

Edited September 11, 2012 by rubl

[nurofiend]

In any case that point has already been explained along with a key consideration that a PM who has not faced the electorate needs to refresh his mandate.Nobody is suggesting that Abhisit wasn't the rightful PM simply that he needed to obtain the endorsement of the Thai people to shore up his political credibility.It's a political rather than a constitutional consideration.

exactly.

maybe now they'll get it.

A political rather than a constitutional consideration? Politics as usual. So, not illegitimate. Exactly, maybe now they'll (whoever they are) will get it, I have some doubt though

Anyway a Democrats candidate surprised (all) by winning

"In any case that point has already been explained along with a key consideration that a PM who has not faced the electorate needs to refresh his mandate.Nobody is suggesting that Abhisit wasn't the rightful PM simply that he needed to obtain the endorsement of the Thai people to shore up his political credibility.It's a political rather than a constitutional consideration."

exactly.

maybe now they'll get it.

[phiphidon]

My dear learned friend,

Quaint British voting rituals and counting systems have nothing to do with the Thai situation and I must admit to wondering whether it relates to any other country as well. Maybe just not decimal, who knows. LibDems and Monty Python have had problems with it for years, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, even you are invited to the party, "Democrat surprise with victory"

BTW keep faith, remember this:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

"THOUGHTS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS, MORAL AND DIVERTING" Jonathan Swift

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

But who decides who has the right to decide who is who?

You haven't really been paying attention, now have you. If you had you'd know the answer to your question is "the electorate".

Mind you, I was addressing jayboy and will vote for him

Well there's your problem - if the electorate get to choose the genius, no wonder abhisit didn't dare subject himself to that vote..............

[nurofiend]

dems can't rule government through a public vote

...sorry guys

ye're backing a loser.

Edited September 12, 2012 by nurofiend

[rubl]

My dear learned friend,

Quaint British voting rituals and counting systems have nothing to do with the Thai situation and I must admit to wondering whether it relates to any other country as well. Maybe just not decimal, who knows. LibDems and Monty Python have had problems with it for years, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, even you are invited to the party, "Democrat surprise with victory"

BTW keep faith, remember this:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

"THOUGHTS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS, MORAL AND DIVERTING" — Jonathan Swift

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

But who decides who has the right to decide who is who?

You haven't really been paying attention, now have you. If you had you'd know the answer to your question is "the electorate".

Mind you, I was addressing jayboy and will vote for him

Well there's your problem - if the electorate get to choose the genius, no wonder abhisit didn't dare subject himself to that vote..............

I really like your interpretation. May I offer mine? K. Somchai didn't dare to dissolve parliament and k. Abhisit didn't want because he didn't need to and to avoid unrest in the months leading to an election, apart from the THB 4 billion such an unnecessary election would have cost. IMHO of course.

Anyway, party time, Democrat candidate looks good and wins seat in council.

[rubl]

dems can't rule government through a public vote

...sorry guys

ye're backing a loser.

The 2007 election saw no clear winner in the sense that no party won a majority. PPP can't rule government unless they form a coalition, like the Democrats did later.

Now forget about all this off topic nonsense and stick to the nice looking Democrats candidate who in her apprentise time in TRT/PPP learned by example the mistakes to avoid and applying her learned skills wins a council seat for the Democrats

[tlansford]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

[tlansford]

I thought it was interesting that The Nation choose to (needed to?) make a big deal out of a win for a city council seat...

[binjalin]

I don't think some of you have still 'got it' yet - let's keep trying shall we?

1./ Brown was the leader of the party that narrowly lost (due to Libs selling out and joining their arch-enemy the Tories).

2./ Yingluck was head of the party which WON the election.

3./ Abhisit was head of the party which was handed power by the Courts - and head of the party which LOST the election

ergo - he has never won an election by the Thai voting population - got it? I doubt it because it doesn't suit your construct but it's the truth a quality little appreciated in Thailand and, it appears, by some TVF posters alas

[rubl]

I don't think some of you have still 'got it' yet - let's keep trying shall we?

1./ Brown was the leader of the party that narrowly lost (due to Libs selling out and joining their arch-enemy the Tories).

2./ Yingluck was head of the party which WON the election.

3./ Abhisit was head of the party which was handed power by the Courts - and head of the party which LOST the election

ergo - he has never won an election by the Thai voting population - got it? I doubt it because it doesn't suit your construct but it's the truth a quality little appreciated in Thailand and, it appears, by some TVF posters alas

And the topic is a nice looking lady who as candidate of the Democrats party won a council seat. Mind you lots of posters here don't seem to get that

[rubl]

I thought it was interesting that The Nation choose to (needed to?) make a big deal out of a win for a city council seat...

Since you're on topic I hesitate to disagree with you, but I think I have to, sorry

I don't think theNation made much fuss about this particular win, it's much more a handful posters who make a fuss of it with 309 replies already. The voice of the electorate in other years, politics as usual and other things seem to interest much more

[rubl]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

Off topic, but an answer might be useful. 'be it MiB or army' suggests, but only suggests one side and the other. Some posters speculate on MiB being part of government dirty tactics. On the other hand it's know that there were armed red-shirt militants.

So, let's say people who committed unregulated and/or excessive violence are responsible. That includes militant red-shirts, MiB, grenade lobbers and army. Mind you the army had a 'mandate', the others did not.

Now can we finally concentrate on the fine lady who won a seat for the Democrats?

[Buchholz]

I thought it was interesting that The Nation choose to (needed to?) make a big deal out of a win for a city council seat...

How did they make a big deal out of it?

A solitary text article, of no great length, eight days ago and with no follow-up constitutes "a big deal" to you?

Amazing Thaivisa.

.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Buchholz

[tlansford]

I don't think some of you have still 'got it' yet - let's keep trying shall we?

1./ Brown was the leader of the party that narrowly lost (due to Libs selling out and joining their arch-enemy the Tories).

2./ Yingluck was head of the party which WON the election.

3./ Abhisit was head of the party which was handed power by the Courts - and head of the party which LOST the election

ergo - he has never won an election by the Thai voting population - got it? I doubt it because it doesn't suit your construct but it's the truth a quality little appreciated in Thailand and, it appears, by some TVF posters alas

The election results are part of the public record. The backroom deals are not.

It is also not a mystery when after an election that the candidate who was running as the party leader becomes the PM. That is a bit different from a change in the governing party and a new PM being voted in by the parliament without an election.

But that simple fact has been pointed out before ... and ignored

[tlansford]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

Off topic, but an answer might be useful. 'be it MiB or army' suggests, but only suggests one side and the other. Some posters speculate on MiB being part of government dirty tactics. On the other hand it's know that there were armed red-shirt militants.

So, let's say people who committed unregulated and/or excessive violence are responsible. That includes militant red-shirts, MiB, grenade lobbers and army. Mind you the army had a 'mandate', the others did not.

Now can we finally concentrate on the fine lady who won a seat for the Democrats?

"'be it MiB or army' suggests, but only suggests one side and the other."

actually, Rubl, no - it does not suggest that - in English it suggests both.

I am not one of your mystery posters suggesting that the MIB were part of the government's dirty tactics. I do acknowledge that it is not known (at least publicly) who they were..

[binjalin]

I thought it was interesting that The Nation choose to (needed to?) make a big deal out of a win for a city council seat...

Since you're on topic I hesitate to disagree with you, but I think I have to, sorry

I don't think theNation made much fuss about this particular win, it's much more a handful posters who make a fuss of it with 309 replies already. The voice of the electorate in other years, politics as usual and other things seem to interest much more

if you think The Nation didn't make a 'fuss' (in a completely unbiased way of course) then I can only...

...*sigh*

goodnight

[whybother]

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

MIB (which basically means red shirts) deny that they did anything ... wrong or otherwise.

[whybother]

I don't think some of you have still 'got it' yet - let's keep trying shall we?

1./ Brown was the leader of the party that narrowly lost (due to Libs selling out and joining their arch-enemy the Tories).

2./ Yingluck was head of the party which WON the election.

3./ Abhisit was head of the party which was handed power by the Courts - and head of the party which LOST the election

ergo - he has never won an election by the Thai voting population - got it? I doubt it because it doesn't suit your construct but it's the truth a quality little appreciated in Thailand and, it appears, by some TVF posters alas

Abhisit wasn't handed power by the courts.

After the courts banned the PPP, the remaining MPs moved to the PTP.

The PTP were in government, but they needed to elect a new PM. They could have gone to a general election, but they chose not to. They went to parliament instead.

It was parliament that handed Abhisit power, just as they handed power to Samak and Somchai before them.

[rubl]

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

Off topic, but an answer might be useful. 'be it MiB or army' suggests, but only suggests one side and the other. Some posters speculate on MiB being part of government dirty tactics. On the other hand it's know that there were armed red-shirt militants.

So, let's say people who committed unregulated and/or excessive violence are responsible. That includes militant red-shirts, MiB, grenade lobbers and army. Mind you the army had a 'mandate', the others did not.

Now can we finally concentrate on the fine lady who won a seat for the Democrats?

"'be it MiB or army' suggests, but only suggests one side and the other."

actually, Rubl, no - it does not suggest that - in English it suggests both.

I am not one of your mystery posters suggesting that the MIB were part of the government's dirty tactics. I do acknowledge that it is not known (at least publicly) who they were..

Sorry, I didn't express myself too clearly it seems . What I mean is for some 'MiB and army' suggest 'government only', either implicitly or explicitly excluding all those peaceful red-shirt supporters of the totally peaceful UDD leaders.

No, I'm not condemning you, I just point out what some discussions indicate.

Now back to the jubilant topic of another sweet smiling lady, but this time a seasoned political candidate, this time in the Democrats camp.

[nurofiend]

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

MIB (which basically means red shirts) deny that they did anything ... wrong or otherwise.

"MIB (which basically means red shirts)"

please elaborate.

Are you suggesting the red shirts deny that the MIB did anything?

Edited September 12, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

MIB (which basically means red shirts) deny that they did anything ... wrong or otherwise.

"MIB (which basically means red shirts)"

please elaborate.

OK ... Red shirt militia.

[nurofiend]

why is it so hard to say that the people who committed the violence are responsible? Be it the MIB or the army...

MIB (which basically means red shirts) deny that they did anything ... wrong or otherwise.

"MIB (which basically means red shirts)"

please elaborate.

OK ... Red shirt militia.

And are you saying that no red shirts admit that the MIB did anything?

[whybother]

And are you saying that no red shirts admit that the MIB did anything?

Reading problem?

[nurofiend]

And are you saying that no red shirts admit that the MIB did anything?

Reading problem?

no, have you?

[Thaddeus]

And are you saying that no red shirts admit that the MIB did anything?

Reading problem?

no, have you?

Problem with guilt then?

[yoshiwara]

The pedantry is amazing. ( and childish )

AV and the Dems have not won a recent election.

YS and her party have.

That is the point being made by binjalin.

Simple really.

Trying to move the goalposts.

What binjalin said was 'he has never, ever been voted in by the Thai people'

I think 'never, ever' has a different meaning to the word 'recent'

So all you have done is to make things worse.

The accusation of pedantry has backfired.

Better luck next time.

[jayboy]

The pedantry is amazing. ( and childish )

AV and the Dems have not won a recent election.

YS and her party have.

That is the point being made by binjalin.

Simple really.

Trying to move the goalposts.

What binjalin said was 'he has never, ever been voted in by the Thai people'

I think 'never, ever' has a different meaning to the word 'recent'

So all you have done is to make things worse.

The accusation of pedantry has backfired.

Better luck next time.

I assume someone knows what this catfight is all about.I haven't the foggiest.

[rixalex]

I am not one of your mystery posters suggesting that the MIB were part of the government's dirty tactics. I do acknowledge that it is not known (at least publicly) who they were..

The old, not known who they were <dot dot dot, leave the sentence hanging> chestnut.

It's true we don't know the names and addresses of those members of the MIB, but the same goes for many of those people involved in the protest, on all sides, but their role, whether it be an army sniper, or whether it be a molotov-cocktail-lobbing red shirt, is never questioned. We don't need their names and addresses to know what they were up to or what their motives were.

Whilst you might not go as far as flat out suggesting that the MIB were part of the government, you do, by the constant repeating of, who these people were, we don't really know (a question you know full well will probably never now be answered), attempt to throw a question mark over their role. Their role was blindly obvious. They were part of the red shirt movement, and were led and funded by an element of that movement. Attempting to somehow distinguish/separate them from other red shirts who they were freely mingling amongst, simply on the basis that they were wearing different clothes, were more heavily armed and the fact that we don't know what their phone numbers are or what street they live on, is nothing but a lame attempt to shift blame for their actions away from the red movement.

[jayboy]

I am not one of your mystery posters suggesting that the MIB were part of the government's dirty tactics. I do acknowledge that it is not known (at least publicly) who they were..

The old, not known who they were <dot dot dot, leave the sentence hanging> chestnut.

It's true we don't know the names and addresses of those members of the MIB, but the same goes for many of those people involved in the protest, on all sides, but their role, whether it be an army sniper, or whether it be a molotov-cocktail-lobbing red shirt, is never questioned. We don't need their names and addresses to know what they were up to or what their motives were.

Whilst you might not go as far as flat out suggesting that the MIB were part of the government, you do, by the constant repeating of, who these people were, we don't really know (a question you know full well will probably never now be answered), attempt to throw a question mark over their role. Their role was blindly obvious. They were part of the red shirt movement, and were led and funded by an element of that movement. Attempting to somehow distinguish/separate them from other red shirts who they were freely mingling amongst, simply on the basis that they were wearing different clothes, were more heavily armed and the fact that we don't know what their phone numbers are or what street they live on, is nothing but a lame attempt to shift blame for their actions away from the red movement.

Blindingly obvious to you but not to many.That your view is held strongly does not make it true, and you fail to provide any evidence.You also attempt to suggest the entire redshirt was complicit in acts of violence, so silly a comment that it's hardly worth responding to.One can rationally assume I suppose that the MIB were supportive of the redshirt's aims but beyond that it's not yet clear who they were or how they were financed.The previous government unaccountably managed to track down any of the MIB or cast any light on their involvement.

We know that there were divisions in the army with "reliable" units being ordered in and "unreliable" units ordered out, and it's not known whether this is relevant because one assumes the MIB had some military training.If a redshirt sympathiser was to argue that the MIB were only there to deter violence on the part of the security forces you would presumably reject that suggestion as absurd.And yet that is precisely the charge that can be levied against you, flinging around assertions just" known to be true" but without an iota of evidence.

So often in this crisis acts of violence are attributed to the Great Beelzebub from Dubai - planning, financing, executing but in reality the charges have been found out to be untrue (the assasination attempt on Sondhi, the murder of Seh Daeng etc).A sensible person might not want to rush to judgement.