Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[rixalex]

In the case of Abhisit and Brown there is a further similarity:both are highly intelligent men but almost completely devoid of political charisma.

Whilst you won't get any argument from me on Brown, I think the lack of political charisma thing concerning Abhisit is a misnomer and a falsehood that the red side like to repeat, because his character, his ability to express himself - to be articulate in both Thai and English - his calm demeanour, his professionalism in front of the camera - all things that are part of what makes up political charisma - are where his greatest strengths lie.

In politics strengths in your opponents are what you most want to attack, what you most wish to undermine. Nobody within PTP ranks can compete on personality with Abhisit, so they continually throw out there the "talks well but no charisma" retort. Pretty laughable when you look at all of the most recent leaders and their complete lack of charisma, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck. No charm or charisma whatsoever with the first three. Yingluck rates a bit higher by the way she presents herself and her feminine attributes such as appearing gentle and caring, but of course the image somewhat falls apart the moment she opens her mouth and speaks and you realise how terribly unstatesmanly (should that be unstateswomanly?) she is.

Thaksin is i think living proof that you need not have charisma to win the hearts of voters. It's simply about getting them to believe that you can change their lives, make things better. Thaksin managed to sell this belief successfully, not because of things he said or how he presented, but because people judged him by what he had done. In the first instance in 2001, that concerned his business savvy. People saw his business empire and thought how could he not be good at running the country, along with that other prevailing thought of the time, someone as rich and successful as him will have no need for corruption. That was his initial platform for electoral success, and then after that, he helped further cement the belief, again, not by charisma, but by 1) having the good fortune to come to power at the time of world economic boom 2) being smart in introducing populist policies.

So before you jump on my back and ask why hasn't Abhisit been more successful if he is so charismatic, remember that there are many factors involved in getting people to vote for you, and it is quite possible to be unlike-able as a person and completely lacking in charisma, but still be the person people think would do a good job of running the country, and the person that could make their lives better.

Thaksin has been successful not because of, but in spite of his charisma - what there is of it - in spite of his character and in spite of the way he comes across in public. I guess for that he gets a lot of credit. He is indeed a phenomenon (hope addressing him as such cuts me some slack from the usual suspects who would otherwise be rushing along right now with their "how dare you say Thaksin has no charisma" comments).

My message to Abhisit for the next election would be, ignore those like jayboy who say you have no charisma, charisma is not your problem. What you need to do is take a look at those posters PTP put up before the last election, the things they promised. This is where you lost so much ground. Your goodies list was frankly pretty crap. Think of yourself a bit like a new car. People buy new cars from dealers who offer most extras. Wait until PTP announce what they will offer the electorate, and then double it. Don't go around the country giving talks, go around the country having glitzy road shows. Oh, and ditch all the Dem deadwood idiots like Suthep.

[rixalex]

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.

Amazing to observe how certain aspects and incidents in what has occurred here in recent years and are known as "facts", even if technically speaking may be based more on hearsay and may lack hard evidence and have certainly never been proven in a court of law, are generally accepted as being true (take for example the military's role in the forming of the Democrat led coalition), but other aspects and incidents, despite also being backed up by a thousand big neon pointy signs and flashcards that spell it all out pretty clearly even to an illiterate man, are suddenly met with heeding words of great caution about "not rushing to judgement".

The only people i have ever met who have not judged the MIB as being part of the red movement that they so obviously were, are supporters of that movement like you.

[jayboy]

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.

Amazing to observe how certain aspects and incidents in what has occurred here in recent years and are known as "facts", even if technically speaking may be based more on hearsay and may lack hard evidence and have certainly never been proven in a court of law, are generally accepted as being true (take for example the military's role in the forming of the Democrat led coalition), but other aspects and incidents, despite also being backed up by a thousand big neon pointy signs and flashcards that spell it all out pretty clearly even to an illiterate man, are suddenly met with heeding words of great caution about "not rushing to judgement".

The only people i have ever met who have not judged the MIB as being part of the red movement that they so obviously were, are supporters of that movement like you.

No need to be so defensive.I thought I made it clear in my earlier post that the MIB were likely to be associated with the redshirt movement.But why do we hae so little facts available, particularly since the last government had everything to gain from uncovering the truth? I am afraid for rational people rather more is needed than a thousand big neon pointy signs.

[phiphidon]

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.

Amazing to observe how certain aspects and incidents in what has occurred here in recent years and are known as "facts", even if technically speaking may be based more on hearsay and may lack hard evidence and have certainly never been proven in a court of law, are generally accepted as being true (take for example the military's role in the forming of the Democrat led coalition), but other aspects and incidents, despite also being backed up by a thousand big neon pointy signs and flashcards that spell it all out pretty clearly even to an illiterate man, are suddenly met with heeding words of great caution about "not rushing to judgement".

The only people i have ever met who have not judged the MIB as being part of the red movement that they so obviously were, are supporters of that movement like you.

"The only people i have ever met who have not judged the MIB as being part of the red movement that they so obviously were, are supporters of that movement like you."

Would you accept, rivalex, that as to you it so blindingly obvious to you that the MIB are part of the red movement that you would not accept any other proposition and further that you are basing that "obvious truth" on, what? But then you go on to say:

"Amazing to observe how certain aspects and incidents in what has occurred here in recent years and are known as "facts", even if technically speaking may be based more on hearsay and may lack hard evidence and have certainly never been proven in a court of law, are generally accepted as being true (take for example the military's role in the forming of the Democrat led coalition)"

As far as I'm concerned, and a great deal many more open minded people are convinced of, is the veracity of the militarys role in backroom deals with the democrat party in the forming of the democrat led coalition.

Even The Nation seems to know about this "hearsay event" as you put it.

BETWEEN THE LINES

Democrat govt a shotgun wedding?

By [email protected]

Published on December 10, 2008

The shadow of the military hovers over moves to form a new government, which will see the Democrats team up with minor parties who agreed to swap sides "for the sake of the nation."

A key leader of one of the former coalition parties said most parties had moved to the Democrat camp due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted.

Besides, he said, all parties knew that if the Pheu Thai were to take over, anti-government protesters would take to the streets again.

Another source said that if Pheu Thai did form the next government, the military would definitely have to stage a coup.

For those interested in how the Democrats were able to enjoy this shift in support, here's how it all began:

On the evening of December 5, Democrat Party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban and MP Niphon Promphan met with key leaders of former coalition parties. The leaders included Sanan Kachornprasart and Somsak Prissanananthakul from the disbanded Chart Thai party, Pradit Pattaraprasit and Suwat Liptapanlop from the Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana Party, Pinij Jarusombat and Preecha Laohapongchana from the Puea Pandin Party, Newin Chidchob and the now defunct People Power Party's Sora-at Klinprathum.

In the initial stages of this meeting, the Democrats promised that the three parties and Newin's faction would be given the same ministerial quota they had under the previous government.

However, the decision-making had to be hastened when the ex-wife of fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Pojaman Damapong, suddenly jetted in to Bangkok later that night.

The Democrats called for a press conference at 5pm the very next day.

But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.

This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government.

http://www.nationmul...--30090626.html

[jayboy]

In the case of Abhisit and Brown there is a further similarity:both are highly intelligent men but almost completely devoid of political charisma.

Whilst you won't get any argument from me on Brown, I think the lack of political charisma thing concerning Abhisit is a misnomer and a falsehood that the red side like to repeat, because his character, his ability to express himself - to be articulate in both Thai and English - his calm demeanour, his professionalism in front of the camera - all things that are part of what makes up political charisma - are where his greatest strengths lie.

In politics strengths in your opponents are what you most want to attack, what you most wish to undermine. Nobody within PTP ranks can compete on personality with Abhisit, so they continually throw out there the "talks well but no charisma" retort. Pretty laughable when you look at all of the most recent leaders and their complete lack of charisma, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck. No charm or charisma whatsoever with the first three. Yingluck rates a bit higher by the way she presents herself and her feminine attributes such as appearing gentle and caring, but of course the image somewhat falls apart the moment she opens her mouth and speaks and you realise how terribly unstatesmanly (should that be unstateswomanly?) she is.

Thaksin is i think living proof that you need not have charisma to win the hearts of voters. It's simply about getting them to believe that you can change their lives, make things better. Thaksin managed to sell this belief successfully, not because of things he said or how he presented, but because people judged him by what he had done. In the first instance in 2001, that concerned his business savvy. People saw his business empire and thought how could he not be good at running the country, along with that other prevailing thought of the time, someone as rich and successful as him will have no need for corruption. That was his initial platform for electoral success, and then after that, he helped further cement the belief, again, not by charisma, but by 1) having the good fortune to come to power at the time of world economic boom 2) being smart in introducing populist policies.

So before you jump on my back and ask why hasn't Abhisit been more successful if he is so charismatic, remember that there are many factors involved in getting people to vote for you, and it is quite possible to be unlike-able as a person and completely lacking in charisma, but still be the person people think would do a good job of running the country, and the person that could make their lives better.

Thaksin has been successful not because of, but in spite of his charisma - what there is of it - in spite of his character and in spite of the way he comes across in public. I guess for that he gets a lot of credit. He is indeed a phenomenon (hope addressing him as such cuts me some slack from the usual suspects who would otherwise be rushing along right now with their "how dare you say Thaksin has no charisma" comments).

My message to Abhisit for the next election would be, ignore those like jayboy who say you have no charisma, charisma is not your problem. What you need to do is take a look at those posters PTP put up before the last election, the things they promised. This is where you lost so much ground. Your goodies list was frankly pretty crap. Think of yourself a bit like a new car. People buy new cars from dealers who offer most extras. Wait until PTP announce what they will offer the electorate, and then double it. Don't go around the country giving talks, go around the country having glitzy road shows. Oh, and ditch all the Dem deadwood idiots like Suthep.

Forget about Thaksin for a moment:we are talking about Abhisit.I suspect you do not know much about Abhisit personally because you portray only the attractive aspects of his character (which I am on record as agreeing).The problem like Brown is that he lacks charisma and is a hopeless politician.

Jim Stent is a longstanding and extremely well connected expatriate who a couple of years ago penned a memorable portrait of Abhisit in "Thoughts on Thailand's Turmoil"

"Why has a well-educated, well spoken, honest and hard-working man like Abhisit failed to understand what the times demanded? Why has he been so intransigent in dealing with the red shirts, and why has he now turned up the heat rather than lowering it, failing to show tolerance and reach out to the other side? Why has he been unable to communicate effectively with the mass of Thai voters? A few possibilities suggest themselves.

1. He is temperamentally unable to empathize with people who do not share his ordered and rational way of looking at the world. Many Thai voters of the lower economic echelons instinctively sense this, and do not identify with him, even if what he is saying makes sense. A foreign journalist who was given a private interview with Abhisit told me that when she asked Abhisit what was his favorite book, he responded with the title of his favorite economics text. This anecdote gives a clue to the psychological make-up of the man.

2. He is an intensely private and self-controlled man, whose only soul-mate has been his wife.

3. He has never been exposed to people with different backgrounds from his own “Sukhumvit-Oxford” background. I wonder how many Thai villagers he has ever spent time with, or how often he has had real conversations with ordinary working folk, listened to what they said, and pondered on what he could learn from them? He appears to have massive self-confidence in his own rectitude.

4. The attempt on his life during the Songkran riots of 2009, and the smearing of blood on the gate of his house may have deeply embittered him, rendering him inflexible.

He is an enigma—so smart and attractive, so effective in parliamentary debate, so cool in the midst of crisis, yet seeming unable to show emotion about the tragedy he has dealt with, unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions. To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side. One has the feeling that the Abhisit government has in fact attempted to put forward some useful, progressive policies, such as the property tax that Korn is advocating, but they have been poorly packaged and presented. Whether for or against Thaksin, one could always immediately name the initiatives that Thaksin was undertaking when he was Prime Minister, conveying a sense of energy being applied to resolve national problems.

It has been apparent that Abhisit has always been more comfortable rubbing shoulders with international political and business leaders than he has been chatting with his fellow-countrymen in the provinces, and he certainly undertook a large number of trips abroad to wave the Thai flag in his first eighteen months in office. A small but revealing news item appeared in the 4 June Bangkok Post. The paper reported that Prime Minister Abhisit would fly to Vietnam on 6 June “to attend a two-day World Economic Forum on East Asia” and went on to say that the Prime Minister “said the priority for government was to restore confidence among the international community since political problems impede economic development.” The blood is barely dry on the streets of Rachaprasong, but Abhisit’s priority is speaking with international investors? The priority should be 100% on reconciling domestic divisions and restoring harmony to the country. If progress on this is made, the international business community and tourists will regain faith in Thailand without Abhisit attending international conferences.

Unfortunately for Thailand, Abhisit lacks the skills and personality to lead a genuine reconciliation, or to project a bold vision for the future development of the country that would have a chance of uniting most of the country behind him. He, almost as much as Thaksin, has made himself a divisive rather than harmonizing leader. "

[rubl]

The winning Democrat Party candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa

Believe it or not, but this is the subject of this particular topic.

[rixalex]

No need to be so defensive.I thought I made it clear in my earlier post that the MIB were likely to be associated with the redshirt movement.But why do we hae so little facts available, particularly since the last government had everything to gain from uncovering the truth? I am afraid for rational people rather more is needed than a thousand big neon pointy signs.

Living here as long as you have, you should know precisely the reason why in any matter of this sort of nature, "facts" are often hard to come by. The skills and resources for evidence gathering, particularly when we are talking incidents that occurred many weeks/months/years ago, are weak, and in rare instances in which evidence is stumbled upon, there are often ways in which that evidence can be "accidentally" lost.

Even with the best crack squad of investigators, best chance of getting hard facts are within the first few hours, if not the first few days. After that, the odds drop drastically. The individual identity of MIB will likely never be uncovered now, which lets face it, suits the red shirts quite well.

[rixalex]

Forget about Thaksin for a moment:we are talking about Abhisit.I suspect you do not know much about Abhisit personally because you portray only the attractive aspects of his character (which I am on record as agreeing).The problem like Brown is that he lacks charisma and is a hopeless politician.

Jim Stent is a longstanding and extremely well connected expatriate who a couple of years ago penned a memorable portrait of Abhisit in "Thoughts on Thailand's Turmoil"

"Why has a well-educated, well spoken, honest and hard-working man like Abhisit failed to understand what the times demanded? Why has he been so intransigent in dealing with the red shirts, and why has he now turned up the heat rather than lowering it, failing to show tolerance and reach out to the other side? Why has he been unable to communicate effectively with the mass of Thai voters? A few possibilities suggest themselves.

1. He is temperamentally unable to empathize with people who do not share his ordered and rational way of looking at the world. Many Thai voters of the lower economic echelons instinctively sense this, and do not identify with him, even if what he is saying makes sense. A foreign journalist who was given a private interview with Abhisit told me that when she asked Abhisit what was his favorite book, he responded with the title of his favorite economics text. This anecdote gives a clue to the psychological make-up of the man.

2. He is an intensely private and self-controlled man, whose only soul-mate has been his wife.

3. He has never been exposed to people with different backgrounds from his own “Sukhumvit-Oxford” background. I wonder how many Thai villagers he has ever spent time with, or how often he has had real conversations with ordinary working folk, listened to what they said, and pondered on what he could learn from them? He appears to have massive self-confidence in his own rectitude.

4. The attempt on his life during the Songkran riots of 2009, and the smearing of blood on the gate of his house may have deeply embittered him, rendering him inflexible.

He is an enigma—so smart and attractive, so effective in parliamentary debate, so cool in the midst of crisis, yet seeming unable to show emotion about the tragedy he has dealt with, unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions. To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side. One has the feeling that the Abhisit government has in fact attempted to put forward some useful, progressive policies, such as the property tax that Korn is advocating, but they have been poorly packaged and presented. Whether for or against Thaksin, one could always immediately name the initiatives that Thaksin was undertaking when he was Prime Minister, conveying a sense of energy being applied to resolve national problems.

It has been apparent that Abhisit has always been more comfortable rubbing shoulders with international political and business leaders than he has been chatting with his fellow-countrymen in the provinces, and he certainly undertook a large number of trips abroad to wave the Thai flag in his first eighteen months in office. A small but revealing news item appeared in the 4 June Bangkok Post. The paper reported that Prime Minister Abhisit would fly to Vietnam on 6 June “to attend a two-day World Economic Forum on East Asia” and went on to say that the Prime Minister “said the priority for government was to restore confidence among the international community since political problems impede economic development.” The blood is barely dry on the streets of Rachaprasong, but Abhisit’s priority is speaking with international investors? The priority should be 100% on reconciling domestic divisions and restoring harmony to the country. If progress on this is made, the international business community and tourists will regain faith in Thailand without Abhisit attending international conferences.

Unfortunately for Thailand, Abhisit lacks the skills and personality to lead a genuine reconciliation, or to project a bold vision for the future development of the country that would have a chance of uniting most of the country behind him. He, almost as much as Thaksin, has made himself a divisive rather than harmonizing leader. "

Thanks for that. Enjoyable read. A lot of good well made points in there.

At the end of the day though, as i say, i think the charisma business is a red herring. We can argue all day whether or not we think Abhisit has it (might be a boring day but there you go), but either way, i don't think charisma (or lack of) has been his downfall, in the same way i don't think charisma has been Thaksin's key to success.

Perhaps we should though, as Rubl suggests, move the discussion on to Kanoknuch's charisma score chart.

[rixalex]

Even The Nation seems to know about this "hearsay event" as you put it.

One day perhaps you will make up your mind whether Nation articles being offered in support of a particular theory or argument are to be laughed at and mocked or held up as credible and valid.

[jayboy]

Thanks for that. Enjoyable read. A lot of good well made points in there.

At the end of the day though, as i say, i think the charisma business is a red herring. We can argue all day whether or not we think Abhisit has it (might be a boring day but there you go), but either way, i don't think charisma (or lack of) has been his downfall, in the same way i don't think charisma has been Thaksin's key to success.

Perhaps we should though, as Rubl suggests, move the discussion on to Kanoknuch's charisma score chart.

I am glad you enjoyed it (genuinely).Here is the link to the full article

http://poppyfieldjournal.blogspot.com/p/thoughts-on-thailands-turmoil-by-james.html

Like you I am not sold on the idea of the need for overwhelming charisma in a politician, though as for any leader it cannot be too low.Besides Abhisit's issue is slightly different:

"unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions. To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side."

[rixalex]

I am glad you enjoyed it (genuinely).Here is the link to the full article

http://poppyfieldjou...l-by-james.html

Thanks again (genuinely).

Like you I am not sold on the idea of the need for overwhelming charisma in a politician, though as for any leader it cannot be too low.Besides Abhisit's issue is slightly different:

"unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions. To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side."

I think you are right in identifying there being a failing to successfully reach out to victims (somewhat different from the earlier lack of charisma charge), but again, i can't help wondering just how much of an affect it has had on his success or lack thereof, when we consider the way that say Thaksin reached out to victims of the tsunami or the victims of Tak Bai, and considering the way Yingluck is reaching out to the victims of the 2010 protest or the way she reached out to victims of the flood. I struggle to see in any of those instances either with Thaksin or with Yingluck, a real sense of them getting down to the level of the common man or woman. There always seems to be an air of detachment... not helped of course when you are whisked in and out in private jets, or when you rock up to disasters in designer Burberry boots.

[473geo]

Even The Nation seems to know about this "hearsay event" as you put it.

One day perhaps you will make up your mind whether Nation articles being offered in support of a particular theory or argument are to be laughed at and mocked or held up as credible and valid.

Well let's hear your opinion on the validity of the article presented....surely you have one?

[rixalex]

Well let's hear your opinion on the validity of the article presented....surely you have one?

Deary me. If you aren't telling people what to comment on, you are telling them on what forums you think they should post.

Anyway, i think the article reflects something that whilst has never actually been proven, is not something people tend to waste too much time questioning. I don't.

I have been warned against rushing to judgement though.... I have also been warned that The Nation is full of propaganda and lies.

[Rimmer]

Speculative and rumourmongering post removed

[phiphidon]

Even The Nation seems to know about this "hearsay event" as you put it.

One day perhaps you will make up your mind whether Nation articles being offered in support of a particular theory or argument are to be laughed at and mocked or held up as credible and valid.

One day you will understand why I offered this piece of "evidence" to you. I thought maybe you would empathise with this article rather than some of the "harder" sources I could provide. I do indeed hold up the nation articles as generally to be mocked. Try thinking about what it means that even a source that I mock agrees with a large number of people that are more than aware that abhisit owes his coalition government to the army.

I actually think that this article is fairly well written and well researched - quite a bit of detailed information there for "hearsay" don't you think?

Maybe when you and your likees have finished gladslapping each other you might want to think again about your resistance to this type of "hearsay".........................

[jcw]

I hope these folks in this thread will be at the TV party, should make it more of an intellectual experience.

[nurofiend]

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

Reading problem?

no, have you?

Problem with guilt then?

what do you mean?

are you telling me no red shirt people admit the existence of the MIB?

also guilt? why would i feel guilt?

[binjalin]

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 said Abhisit not Dems

give me an EXAMPLE? when Abhisit was voted in by the Thai people?

PS let's make it clear to you ok?

1/ I said Abhisit

2/ I meant Abhisit

3/ I really did mean Abhisit

so better luck to YOU next time

[whybother]

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 said Abhisit not Dems

give me an EXAMPLE? when Abhisit was voted in by the Thai people?

PS let's make it clear to you ok?

1/ I said Abhisit

2/ I meant Abhisit

3/ I really did mean Abhisit

so better luck to YOU next time

Abhisit was voted for by the Thai people to be an MP. That's as far as "the people" go in voting for a PM. The rest is done by the MPs in parliament.

[nurofiend]

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 said Abhisit not Dems

give me an EXAMPLE? when Abhisit was voted in by the Thai people?

PS let's make it clear to you ok?

1/ I said Abhisit

2/ I meant Abhisit

3/ I really did mean Abhisit

so better luck to YOU next time

Abhisit was voted for by the Thai people to be an MP. That's as far as "the people" go in voting for a PM. The rest is done by the MPs in parliament.

yeah, and thank god the people of the country eventually got to decide on it by public vote and not have to grin and bear parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes anymore, and once they did, it was bye bye abhisit.

[philw]

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 said Abhisit not Dems

give me an EXAMPLE? when Abhisit was voted in by the Thai people?

PS let's make it clear to you ok?

1/ I said Abhisit

2/ I meant Abhisit

3/ I really did mean Abhisit

so better luck to YOU next time

Abhisit was voted for by the Thai people to be an MP. That's as far as "the people" go in voting for a PM. The rest is done by the MPs in parliament.

Thank you whybother, a very useful and constructive post.

[whybother]

yeah, and thank god the people of the country eventually got to decide on it by public vote and not parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes, and once they did, it was bye bye abhisit.

In the 2001 election, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes.

In 2005, the backroom deals and handshakes were before the election.

In 2007, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes.

In 2008, when Somchai was elected PM, there were parliamentary deals and backroom hand shakes.

In 2008, when Abhisit was elected PM, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes.

In 2011, PTP got a majority of seats, but there were still parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes to make sure they had a large enough coalition majority to be functional.

[nurofiend]

yeah, and thank god the people of the country eventually got to decide on it by public vote and not parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes, and once they did, it was bye bye abhisit.

In the 2001 election, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes.

In 2005, the backroom deals and handshakes were before the election.

In 2007, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes.

In 2008, when Somchai was elected PM, there were parliamentary deals and backroom hand shakes.

In 2008, when Abhisit was elected PM, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes.

In 2011, PTP got a majority of seats, but there were still parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes to make sure they had a large enough coalition majority to be functional.

In the 2001 election, there was a general election... voted for by the public.

In 2005, there was a general election... voted for by the public

In 2007, there was a general election... voted for by the public

in 2008, yes it was senate election and i think it should have been put for a general election, even though in 2007 ppp had 233 seats and the dems had 165

In 2008, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes, and i think it should have been put for a general election, especially because in 2007 ppp had 233 seats and the dems had 165

In 2011, there was a general election... voted for by the public.

[whybother]

In the 2001 election, there was a general election... voted for by the public.

In 2005, there was a general election... voted for by the public

In 2007, there was a general election... voted for by the public

in 2008, yes it was senate election and i think it should have been put for a general election, even though in 2007 ppp had 233 seats and the dems had 165

In 2008, there were parliamentary deals and backroom handshakes, and i think it should have been put for a general election, especially because in 2007 ppp had 233 seats and the dems had 165

In 2011, there was a general election... voted for by the public.

It wasn't the Democrats that decided to go to parliament to elect the PM in 2008, it was the PTP. If you have a problem with Abhisit being elected in parliament, then blame the PTP.

In 2008, a factional and regional block of MPs decided that they didn't want to support Thaksin's 2nd proxy party. They changed allegiance after the party that they had become part of was disbanded.

The Democrats had 165 seats at the 2007 election, but they got the support of the majority of MPs to be able to form government. Having the most MPs does not guarantee that you can form government. Having the majority does.

[rixalex]

One day you will understand why I offered this piece of "evidence" to you.

Not looking like it is going to be this day, judging by the jumbled and contradictory explanation that followed. And pray tell, what does evidence written in inverted commas mean?

I thought maybe you would empathise with this article rather than some of the "harder" sources I could provide. I do indeed hold up the nation articles as generally to be mocked. Try thinking about what it means that even a source that I mock agrees with a large number of people that are more than aware that abhisit owes his coalition government to the army.

Absolutely ridiculous. A source you mock and that you are constantly telling us is full of propaganda and lies, agrees with what you are saying, and suddenly, in a complete turn about face, you are quoting them and telling us that their word, which on all other occasions means nothing to you, adds weight to your argument.

Maybe when you and your likees have finished gladslapping each other you might want to think again about your resistance to this type of "hearsay".........................

Resistance? What resistance is that? What part of i don't question this article are you struggling with?

Anyway, i think the article reflects something that whilst has never actually been proven, is not something people tend to waste too much time questioning. I don't.

[tlansford]

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.

Do they?

[rubl]

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.

Do they?

May I invite you guys to this topic

http://www.thaivisa....rom-red-shirts/

so we can concentrate on the nice lady who won a council seat for the Democrats ?