Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[tlansford]

2/ NEVER (it's that word again) WON (that means won?) an ELECTION - they were handed power by the COURTS

Saying that they were handed power by the COURTS is like a criminal saying that he is in prison because of the COURTS. Criminals are in prison because they do CRIME. The Dems were handed power because PPP COMMITTED ELECTORAL FRAUD and then the PPP decided against having a general election.

It's not a parallel that fits I'm afraid.The suggestion is that the courts in Thailand are often subject to political direction:there is plenty of evidence for this over the years and not only in connection with the attempt to destroy Thaksin.The unelected elites knew they could not defeat Thaklsin in a fair election and therefore tried a coup initially but in view of that method's disastrous impact opted for the time tested measure of co-opting the judicial system.There is plenty of irrefutable evidence for this.Incidentally the use of capital letters in posts is discouraged.It's considered "shouting" and I'm afraid as in this instance often suggests blustering as opposed to hard analysis and transparent reasoning.

There has never been a fair election in Thailand so let's not go that way. You have a winner and loser, yes, but has to whole election been "fair"..? Be honest!

What is fair in your mind?

ANFREL observed the last election and did not find any reason to say that the results did not reflect the will of the electorate.

[nurofiend]

seems people here don't think that when a government changes parties, that it should be based upon a vote by the electorate.

they seem to think the people shouldn't have a say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

yellow democracy.

[rubl]

seems people here don't think that when a government changes parties, that it should be based upon a vote by the electorate.

they seem to think the people shouldn't have a say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

yellow democracy.

Interesting way of phrasing 'a government changes parties'. Since when do governments 'change' parties? If a government changed parties it might be time for a coup, who knows?

All of the electorate is free to vote whoever they want, whatever party they want. The tallying will determine which party will get first chance of forming a new government. That means some of the electorate may not get the party they'd like to govern.

Multi-colour democracy

[binjalin]

2/ NEVER (it's that word again) WON (that means won?) an ELECTION - they were handed power by the COURTS

Saying that they were handed power by the COURTS is like a criminal saying that he is in prison because of the COURTS. Criminals are in prison because they do CRIME. The Dems were handed power because PPP COMMITTED ELECTORAL FRAUD and then the PPP decided against having a general election.

IF the Courts had dissolved and then held an election THAT would have been fairer - but to ban a party? can you IMAGINE the Rep's in USA banned because of Nixon? it's an absurdity that power is handed to another party (unelected)

my case STANDS Abhisit has NEVER won an election - just admit it I have called it right and posters claiming 2008 was democratic should be ashamed. I'd far rather you just argue why it should have happened not saying it was elected - it just ain't true

It would indeed have been better if PM Somchai had dissolved parliament and called for new general elections. It was in his powers to do so, AFAIK. Ask him why he didn't

glad you agree with me - Abhisit has never stood for, and won, a election by the Thai people - at least you have a modicum of integrity but as for 'ask him' don't forget the party was dissolved and MP's banned so he probably thought 'hey this might not be a fair contest'? or was that the intention??? banish the thought! could not possibly be!

[nurofiend]

seems people here don't think that when a government changes parties, that it should be based upon a vote by the electorate.

they seem to think the people shouldn't have a say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

yellow democracy.

Interesting way of phrasing 'a government changes parties'. Since when do governments 'change' parties? If a government changed parties it might be time for a coup, who knows?

All of the electorate is free to vote whoever they want, whatever party they want. The tallying will determine which party will get first chance of forming a new government. That means some of the electorate may not get the party they'd like to govern.

Multi-colour democracy

i mean when the main ruling government changes parties like they did in 2008, it should be based on the vote of the electorate.

because without it, it is people not having the say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

this has been proven to be the case because the democrats were not chosen when the people got to make the decision.

yellow democracy was meant tongue in cheek btw,

just a little counter to the (in)famous tv catchphrase.

[rubl]

IF the Courts had dissolved and then held an election THAT would have been fairer - but to ban a party? can you IMAGINE the Rep's in USA banned because of Nixon? it's an absurdity that power is handed to another party (unelected)

my case STANDS Abhisit has NEVER won an election - just admit it I have called it right and posters claiming 2008 was democratic should be ashamed. I'd far rather you just argue why it should have happened not saying it was elected - it just ain't true

It would indeed have been better if PM Somchai had dissolved parliament and called for new general elections. It was in his powers to do so, AFAIK. Ask him why he didn't

glad you agree with me - Abhisit has never stood for, and won, a election by the Thai people - at least you have a modicum of integrity but as for 'ask him' don't forget the party was dissolved and MP's banned so he probably thought 'hey this might not be a fair contest'? or was that the intention??? banish the thought! could not possibly be!

I agree it would have been better PM Somchai had dissolved the parliament. No idea why he didn't, no idea if your assumptions have any value.

In the mean time the Democrats won this 'surprise' victory, it seems fairly and squarly with hard work, showing care for the people, avoiding annoying constituency boat owners, etc., etc. Surely you might agree with that

[binjalin]

IF the Courts had dissolved and then held an election THAT would have been fairer - but to ban a party? can you IMAGINE the Rep's in USA banned because of Nixon? it's an absurdity that power is handed to another party (unelected)

my case STANDS Abhisit has NEVER won an election - just admit it I have called it right and posters claiming 2008 was democratic should be ashamed. I'd far rather you just argue why it should have happened not saying it was elected - it just ain't true

It would indeed have been better if PM Somchai had dissolved parliament and called for new general elections. It was in his powers to do so, AFAIK. Ask him why he didn't

glad you agree with me - Abhisit has never stood for, and won, a election by the Thai people - at least you have a modicum of integrity but as for 'ask him' don't forget the party was dissolved and MP's banned so he probably thought 'hey this might not be a fair contest'? or was that the intention??? banish the thought! could not possibly be!

I agree it would have been better PM Somchai had dissolved the parliament. No idea why he didn't, no idea if your assumptions have any value.

In the mean time the Democrats won this 'surprise' victory, it seems fairly and squarly with hard work, showing care for the people, avoiding annoying constituency boat owners, etc., etc. Surely you might agree with that

well let's put it this way it was a council seat, often happens in every country, swings. Nothing to get excited about - not nearly excited as the SURPRISE victory of PTP in winning the general election right? Surely you must agree with that

[rubl]

seems people here don't think that when a government changes parties, that it should be based upon a vote by the electorate.

they seem to think the people shouldn't have a say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

yellow democracy.

Interesting way of phrasing 'a government changes parties'. Since when do governments 'change' parties? If a government changed parties it might be time for a coup, who knows?

All of the electorate is free to vote whoever they want, whatever party they want. The tallying will determine which party will get first chance of forming a new government. That means some of the electorate may not get the party they'd like to govern.

Multi-colour democracy

i mean when the main ruling government changes parties like they did in 2008, it should be based on the vote of the electorate.

because without it, it is people not having the say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

this has been proven to be the case because the democrats were not chosen when the people got to make the decision.

yellow democracy was meant tongue in cheek btw,

just a little counter to the (in)famous tv catchphrase.

You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008? I remember the main ruling government in 2008 changed PM's, but only because k. Thaksin didn't like the late Samak to return. Too independent rumour had it, brother-in-law Somchai was seen as more 'dedicated' to the right cause.

As for 'chosen' ALL MP's in parliament are choosen. The electorate chooses candidates from various parties or votes for a party.

BTW the electorate choose a Democrat candidate is the topic

[binjalin]

" it's an absurdity that power is handed to another party (unelected)"

The MPs of a banned party are free to form a new party (as in TRT to PPP) and retain power, if necessary by forming a coalition. Your "handover" was in fact caused by BJT withdrawing from their coalition with PPP/PTP and forming a governing coalition with the Democrats.

This has been misrepresented by Thaksin's propagandists as a judicial coup - it just ain't true.

You are right.That episode was not a judicial coup (never seen anyone argue that point actually).It was however another example of the unelected elites thwarting the views of the Thai people as expressed in a general election.In this instance it involved old fashioned political bribery and skulduggery to lure one of the least appetising factions over to the Democrats side.Strictly speaking this isn't illegal - just so some genius doesn't feel the need to give a lecture on parliamentary democracy (This is how its done in Belgium etc).The reality is that the amart was desperate and prepared to strike a deal with any available low life.Didn't do them much good as the Thai people made clear in the last general election and of course lost Abhisit the moral high ground.

Quite right and plainly 'the truth' a good post - ask most Thais and they are not that stupid!

yes... Dear TVF posters...even those north of Bangkok!!! - you know the ones... the unintelligent ones... those silly people who had their pockets stuffed full of money and voted PTP

I can't find any personally (and I have asked many including many friends who voted PTP) but THEY ARE OUT THERE... somewhere... they must be right...? out 'there' somewhere? somewhere 'north of Bangkok' some of the 'Fararri sons' of the elite could come and look? drive slowly though please - avoid Mini-buses, bus stops and Policemen.

[rubl]

glad you agree with me - Abhisit has never stood for, and won, a election by the Thai people - at least you have a modicum of integrity but as for 'ask him' don't forget the party was dissolved and MP's banned so he probably thought 'hey this might not be a fair contest'? or was that the intention??? banish the thought! could not possibly be!

I agree it would have been better PM Somchai had dissolved the parliament. No idea why he didn't, no idea if your assumptions have any value.

In the mean time the Democrats won this 'surprise' victory, it seems fairly and squarly with hard work, showing care for the people, avoiding annoying constituency boat owners, etc., etc. Surely you might agree with that

well let's put it this way it was a council seat, often happens in every country, swings. Nothing to get excited about - not nearly excited as the SURPRISE victory of PTP in winning the general election right? Surely you must agree with that

I must not, but i might. Doesn't really matter as the topic is still this council seat win by a Democrats candidate through hard work, etc., etc.

[binjalin]

seems people here don't think that when a government changes parties, that it should be based upon a vote by the electorate.

they seem to think the people shouldn't have a say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

yellow democracy.

Interesting way of phrasing 'a government changes parties'. Since when do governments 'change' parties? If a government changed parties it might be time for a coup, who knows?

All of the electorate is free to vote whoever they want, whatever party they want. The tallying will determine which party will get first chance of forming a new government. That means some of the electorate may not get the party they'd like to govern.

Multi-colour democracy

i mean when the main ruling government changes parties like they did in 2008, it should be based on the vote of the electorate.

because without it, it is people not having the say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

this has been proven to be the case because the democrats were not chosen when the people got to make the decision.

yellow democracy was meant tongue in cheek btw,

just a little counter to the (in)famous tv catchphrase.

You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008? I remember the main ruling government in 2008 changed PM's, but only because k. Thaksin didn't like the late Samak to return. Too independent rumour had it, brother-in-law Somchai was seen as more 'dedicated' to the right cause.

As for 'chosen' ALL MP's in parliament are choosen. The electorate chooses candidates from various parties or votes for a party.

BTW the electorate choose a Democrat candidate is the topic

'highlighted' by The Nation and TVF anyway back 'on-topic' a minor swing - normal and not-unusual until, of course, if happens the other way then it's not. As for the country it will have to wait until the next elections to see if this 'Major Surprise' turns into.................. drum role................... seats in Parliament (which I doubt).

[rubl]

i mean when the main ruling government changes parties like they did in 2008, it should be based on the vote of the electorate.

because without it, it is people not having the say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

this has been proven to be the case because the democrats were not chosen when the people got to make the decision.

yellow democracy was meant tongue in cheek btw,

just a little counter to the (in)famous tv catchphrase.

You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008? I remember the main ruling government in 2008 changed PM's, but only because k. Thaksin didn't like the late Samak to return. Too independent rumour had it, brother-in-law Somchai was seen as more 'dedicated' to the right cause.

As for 'chosen' ALL MP's in parliament are choosen. The electorate chooses candidates from various parties or votes for a party.

BTW the electorate choose a Democrat candidate is the topic

'highlighted' by The Nation and TVF anyway back 'on-topic' a minor swing - normal and not-unusual until, of course, if happens the other way then it's not. As for the country it will have to wait until the next elections to see if this 'Major Surprise' turns into.................. drum role................... seats in Parliament (which I doubt).

Since the lady is just choosen as council member, since we still have a few years to go with the current government (assuming they don't screw-up), since the lady didn't even mention next she would go for a parliament seat, I think it's a wee bit premature to even start a philosophical discussion on results in the next general election.

Mind you, I think there are still a few Pheu Thai MP's (and maybe others?) who may loose their seat in the current parliament, which would result in a new by-election and then we might or might not get a switch of parties for that particular seat (only).

[nurofiend]

seems people here don't think that when a government changes parties, that it should be based upon a vote by the electorate.

they seem to think the people shouldn't have a say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

yellow democracy.

Interesting way of phrasing 'a government changes parties'. Since when do governments 'change' parties? If a government changed parties it might be time for a coup, who knows?

All of the electorate is free to vote whoever they want, whatever party they want. The tallying will determine which party will get first chance of forming a new government. That means some of the electorate may not get the party they'd like to govern.

Multi-colour democracy

i mean when the main ruling government changes parties like they did in 2008, it should be based on the vote of the electorate.

because without it, it is people not having the say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

this has been proven to be the case because the democrats were not chosen when the people got to make the decision.

yellow democracy was meant tongue in cheek btw,

just a little counter to the (in)famous tv catchphrase.

You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008? I remember the main ruling government in 2008 changed PM's, but only because k. Thaksin didn't like the late Samak to return. Too independent rumour had it, brother-in-law Somchai was seen as more 'dedicated' to the right cause.

As for 'chosen' ALL MP's in parliament are choosen. The electorate chooses candidates from various parties or votes for a party.

BTW the electorate choose a Democrat candidate is the topic

"You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008?"

yes exactly, the main ruling government changed from being the ppp party to being the democrat party in 2008.

do you agree or disagree that the democrats were in power because the electorate, the people, chose them to be?

simple yes or no question.

[rubl]

Interesting way of phrasing 'a government changes parties'. Since when do governments 'change' parties? If a government changed parties it might be time for a coup, who knows?

All of the electorate is free to vote whoever they want, whatever party they want. The tallying will determine which party will get first chance of forming a new government. That means some of the electorate may not get the party they'd like to govern.

Multi-colour democracy

i mean when the main ruling government changes parties like they did in 2008, it should be based on the vote of the electorate.

because without it, it is people not having the say on whether the party ruling the country is the party that the electorate want ruling the country.

this has been proven to be the case because the democrats were not chosen when the people got to make the decision.

yellow democracy was meant tongue in cheek btw,

just a little counter to the (in)famous tv catchphrase.

You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008? I remember the main ruling government in 2008 changed PM's, but only because k. Thaksin didn't like the late Samak to return. Too independent rumour had it, brother-in-law Somchai was seen as more 'dedicated' to the right cause.

As for 'chosen' ALL MP's in parliament are choosen. The electorate chooses candidates from various parties or votes for a party.

BTW the electorate choose a Democrat candidate is the topic

"You may have lost me there. The main ruling government changed parties, in 2008?"

yes exactly, the main ruling government changed from being the ppp party to being the democrat party in 2008.

do you agree or disagree that the democrats were in power because the electorate, the people, chose them to be?

simple yes or no question.

You use terms in a somewhat incorrect way I think, which only causes confusion. One might even think you confuse government with party, very undemocratic, my boy.

Now if I understand you correctly you are trying to say that the government formed by mainly PPP and a few other parties was followed by the next government formed by (partially) other parties. Correct?

Both the old and the new government were formed by MP's and parties chosen by the people. Some of the electorate might have been happy, some not.

If you insists, and if it makes you happy: YES, the Democrats were in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them, just like the PPP was in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them.

[nurofiend]

You use terms in a somewhat incorrect way I think, which only causes confusion. One might even think you confuse government with party, very undemocratic, my boy.

Now if I understand you correctly you are trying to say that the government formed by mainly PPP and a few other parties was followed by the next government formed by (partially) other parties. Correct?

Both the old and the new government were formed by MP's and parties chosen by the people. Some of the electorate might have been happy, some not.

If you insists, and if it makes you happy: YES, the Democrats were in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them, just like the PPP was in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them.

i think what i said was pretty obvious, that the ruling party changed from a ppp led one to a democrat led one.

it doesn't mean i forgot or didn't care that other parties made up coalitions, so you can project your thoughts of me being confused about my point onto me all you want...

but that's your projection and your own feigned confusion about what i meant, so i don't really care about all that sidetracking silliness... hopefully it's crystal clear for you now and you won't sidetrack the discussion any further.

now back to the point....either you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be or you don't, simple as.

it's a straightforward question but seemingly impossible for you to answer it in the same straightforward fashion.

i wonder if it's because it was proven that: no, the electorate didn't want the dems in charge and haven't done for decades.

[whybother]

Let's get it straight

1/ a PARTY led BY 'AV' aka 'Abhisit' aka 'Mark' etc.

has

(step two coming for the intellectually challenged)

2/ NEVER (it's that word again) WON (that means won?) an ELECTION - they were handed power by the COURTS

clear now?

edit: nearly forgot - Yingluck went to the country and WON

The Democrats were NOT handed power by the courts.

The PTP was in government after the PPP was disbanded, but they had to elect a new PM.

They could have gone to the electorate to see what they thought, but they decided to go to parliament.

Unfortunately for them, it was parliament (ie the elected MPs - the ones that represent the people) that handed power to the Democrats.

[whybother]

IF the Courts had dissolved and then held an election THAT would have been fairer - but to ban a party? can you IMAGINE the Rep's in USA banned because of Nixon? it's an absurdity that power is handed to another party (unelected)

my case STANDS Abhisit has NEVER won an election - just admit it I have called it right and posters claiming 2008 was democratic should be ashamed. I'd far rather you just argue why it should have happened not saying it was elected - it just ain't true

Actually, it was PTP's choice not to call an election.

You do realise that the PPP's Samak never won an election either, and even Thaksin didn't win in 2001. The PTP won in 2011 after winning a majority of seats, but all the others needed a coalition to form government, which is what Abhisit did.

[rubl]

You use terms in a somewhat incorrect way I think, which only causes confusion. One might even think you confuse government with party, very undemocratic, my boy.

Now if I understand you correctly you are trying to say that the government formed by mainly PPP and a few other parties was followed by the next government formed by (partially) other parties. Correct?

Both the old and the new government were formed by MP's and parties chosen by the people. Some of the electorate might have been happy, some not.

If you insists, and if it makes you happy: YES, the Democrats were in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them, just like the PPP was in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them.

i think what i said was pretty obvious, that the ruling party changed from a ppp led one to a democrat led one.

it doesn't mean i forgot or didn't care that other parties made up coalitions, so you can project your thoughts of me being confused about my point onto me all you want...

but that's your projection and your own feigned confusion about what i meant, so i don't really care about all that sidetracking silliness... hopefully it's crystal clear for you now and you won't sidetrack the discussion any further.

now back to the point....either you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be or you don't, simple as.

it's a straightforward question but seemingly impossible for you to answer it in the same straightforward fashion.

i wonder if it's because it was proven that: no, the electorate didn't want the dems in charge and haven't done for decades.

'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'.

Well, it looks like you started to be a wee bit more precise with "ruling party changed from a ppp led one to a democrat led one", although I think this might have been meant as "with the new government the majority party in it (i.e. the government in general) changed from PPP to Democrats'. At least, as I wrote before, I don't think you confuse government and party as one and the same on purpose. Now I don't want to play the "I'm not a native English speaker" card, but this is what I understand. From discussions I have seen it is important to come to a mutual understand about what you wrote and meant before even contemplating an answer. I do not project my thoughts, but try to understand and ask for a confirmation that I understand correctly, or wrongly. If wrongly, pray correct me, but don't continue in the same confusing manner.

EDIT: just improving the English

[nurofiend]

You use terms in a somewhat incorrect way I think, which only causes confusion. One might even think you confuse government with party, very undemocratic, my boy.

Now if I understand you correctly you are trying to say that the government formed by mainly PPP and a few other parties was followed by the next government formed by (partially) other parties. Correct?

Both the old and the new government were formed by MP's and parties chosen by the people. Some of the electorate might have been happy, some not.

If you insists, and if it makes you happy: YES, the Democrats were in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them, just like the PPP was in government because (part of) the electorate wanted them.

i think what i said was pretty obvious, that the ruling party changed from a ppp led one to a democrat led one.

it doesn't mean i forgot or didn't care that other parties made up coalitions, so you can project your thoughts of me being confused about my point onto me all you want...

but that's your projection and your own feigned confusion about what i meant, so i don't really care about all that sidetracking silliness... hopefully it's crystal clear for you now and you won't sidetrack the discussion any further.

now back to the point....either you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be or you don't, simple as.

it's a straightforward question but seemingly impossible for you to answer it in the same straightforward fashion.

i wonder if it's because it was proven that: no, the electorate didn't want the dems in charge and haven't done for decades.

'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'.

Well, it looks like you started to be a wee bit more precise with "ruling party changed from a ppp led one to a democrat led one", although I think this might have been meant as "with the new government the majority party in it (i.e. the government in general) changed from PPP to Democrats'. At least, as I wrote before, I don't think you confuse government and party as one and the same on purpose. Now I don't want to play the "I'm not a native English speaker" card, but this is what I understand. From discussions I have seen it is important to come to a mutual understand about what you wrote and meant before even contemplating an answer. I do not project my thoughts, but try to understand and ask for a confirmation that I understand correctly, or wrongly. If wrongly, pray correct me, but don't continue in a same confusing way.

so you still avoid just answering the one simple question.

"'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'."

keep twisting rubl, you again, know exactly what i meant.

it's all just wordplay with you guys isn't it, especially when ye're blatantly avoiding answering a question in a straightforward manner.

and the main part of your post just continues the needless sidetracking, even after me making crystal clear what i meant.

there was absolutely no need for you to regurgitate it all over again in a big paragraph.

but well done, great debating or should i say great wordplay and sidetracking.

[whybother]

so you still avoid just answering the one simple question.

"'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'."

keep twisting rubl, you again, know exactly what i meant.

it's all just wordplay with you guys isn't it, especially when ye're blatantly avoiding answering a question in a straightforward manner.

and the main part of your post just continues the needless sidetracking, even after me making crystal clear what i meant.

there was absolutely no need from you to regurgitate it all over again in a big paragraph.

well done, great debating or should i say great wordplay and sidetracking.

It seems that the electorate didn't want the PPP in charge either.

And certainly, the representatives of the electorate didn't want the PTP in charge in 2008.

[rubl]

so you still avoid just answering the one simple question.

"'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'."

keep twisting rubl, you again, know exactly what i meant.

it's all just wordplay with you guys isn't it, especially when ye're blatantly avoiding answering a question in a straightforward manner.

and the main part of your post just continues the needless sidetracking, even after me making crystal clear what i meant.

there was absolutely no need for you to regurgitate it all over again in a big paragraph.

but well done, great debating or should i say great wordplay and sidetracking.

Have you considered that asking "the electorate wanted XYZ in charge. Yes or no only' can be described as a leading question which can only be answered with YES truthfully if XYZ won a majority of seats otherwise the answer must be NO if no other answers are allowed?

BTW in the December 2007 elections PPP won 233, Democrats 165 seats out of a total of 480 at that time.

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2007

[nurofiend]

so you still avoid just answering the one simple question.

"'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'."

keep twisting rubl, you again, know exactly what i meant.

it's all just wordplay with you guys isn't it, especially when ye're blatantly avoiding answering a question in a straightforward manner.

and the main part of your post just continues the needless sidetracking, even after me making crystal clear what i meant.

there was absolutely no need for you to regurgitate it all over again in a big paragraph.

but well done, great debating or should i say great wordplay and sidetracking.

Have you considered that asking "the electorate wanted XYZ in charge. Yes or no only' can be described as a leading question which can only be answered with YES truthfully if XYZ won a majority of seats otherwise the answer must be NO if no other answers are allowed?

BTW in the December 2007 elections PPP won 233, Democrats 165 seats out of a total of 480 at that time.

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2007

asking if you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be is not a leading question, it's a straightforward question.

and it is a yes or no answer.

[nurofiend]

so you still avoid just answering the one simple question.

"'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'."

keep twisting rubl, you again, know exactly what i meant.

it's all just wordplay with you guys isn't it, especially when ye're blatantly avoiding answering a question in a straightforward manner.

and the main part of your post just continues the needless sidetracking, even after me making crystal clear what i meant.

there was absolutely no need from you to regurgitate it all over again in a big paragraph.

well done, great debating or should i say great wordplay and sidetracking.

It seems that the electorate didn't want the PPP in charge either.

And certainly, the representatives of the electorate didn't want the PTP in charge in 2008.

"It seems that the electorate didn't want the PPP in charge either."

here we go with the twisting, surprise, surprise... this is why i made clear in my posts that i was talking about the MAIN ruling party.

so yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party, if of course you're referring to the proof of this coming from the vote of the electorate when they had a chance to vote, i assume you are.

"And certainly, the representatives of the electorate didn't want the PTP in charge in 2008."

which ignores the question i asked.

[Thaddeus]

so you still avoid just answering the one simple question.

"'the electorate didn't want the Dems in charge' should be 'a sufficiently large part of the electorate seemed to favour a coalition which was led by PPP rather than the Democrats'."

keep twisting rubl, you again, know exactly what i meant.

it's all just wordplay with you guys isn't it, especially when ye're blatantly avoiding answering a question in a straightforward manner.

and the main part of your post just continues the needless sidetracking, even after me making crystal clear what i meant.

there was absolutely no need from you to regurgitate it all over again in a big paragraph.

well done, great debating or should i say great wordplay and sidetracking.

It seems that the electorate didn't want the PPP in charge either.

And certainly, the representatives of the electorate didn't want the PTP in charge in 2008.

"It seems that the electorate didn't want the PPP in charge either."

here we go with the twisting, surprise, surprise... this is why i made clear in my posts that i was talking about the MAIN ruling party.

so yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party, if of course you're referring to the proof by the vote given to them by the electorate when they had a chance to vote, i assume you are.

"And certainly, the representatives of the electorate didn't want the PTP in charge in 2008."

[rubl]

Have you considered that asking "the electorate wanted XYZ in charge. Yes or no only' can be described as a leading question which can only be answered with YES truthfully if XYZ won a majority of seats otherwise the answer must be NO if no other answers are allowed?

BTW in the December 2007 elections PPP won 233, Democrats 165 seats out of a total of 480 at that time.

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2007

asking if you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be is not a leading question, it's a straightforward question.

and it is a yes or no answer.

Before I can answer a question truthfully I have to understand the question and accept it as valid, no nonsense, non leading. Very strictly speaking only when ALL the electorate voted AND all votes are valid AND all votes were for a single party you may get a YES as answer. Otherwise 'the electorate' was divided with some favouring this, some that party.

Sorry, no yes no no, but a refusal to accept your question.

BTW same refusal if you change Democrats into PPP, or would you like to pose both questions (one with Dems, one with PPP) to maybe drag two times YES out of me?

[nurofiend]

Have you considered that asking "the electorate wanted XYZ in charge. Yes or no only' can be described as a leading question which can only be answered with YES truthfully if XYZ won a majority of seats otherwise the answer must be NO if no other answers are allowed?

BTW in the December 2007 elections PPP won 233, Democrats 165 seats out of a total of 480 at that time.

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2007

asking if you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be is not a leading question, it's a straightforward question.

and it is a yes or no answer.

Before I can answer a question truthfully I have to understand the question and accept it as valid, no nonsense, non leading. Very strictly speaking only when ALL the electorate voted AND all votes are valid AND all votes were for a single party you may get a YES as answer. Otherwise 'the electorate' was divided with some favouring this, some that party.

Sorry, no yes no no, but a refusal to accept your question.

BTW same refusal if you change Democrats into PPP, or would you like to pose both questions (one with Dems, one with PPP) to maybe drag two times YES out of me?

well let me break it down simply for you rubl

no, they weren't in power because the electorate chose them to be... the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008.

it's not so hard but i'll leave you to ponder it and try to actually understand how easy it is to answer with a yes or no... though i get the strong feeling that you know this already.

[rubl]

Have you considered that asking "the electorate wanted XYZ in charge. Yes or no only' can be described as a leading question which can only be answered with YES truthfully if XYZ won a majority of seats otherwise the answer must be NO if no other answers are allowed?

BTW in the December 2007 elections PPP won 233, Democrats 165 seats out of a total of 480 at that time.

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2007

asking if you think they were in power because the electorate chose them to be is not a leading question, it's a straightforward question.

and it is a yes or no answer.

Before I can answer a question truthfully I have to understand the question and accept it as valid, no nonsense, non leading. Very strictly speaking only when ALL the electorate voted AND all votes are valid AND all votes were for a single party you may get a YES as answer. Otherwise 'the electorate' was divided with some favouring this, some that party.

Sorry, no yes no no, but a refusal to accept your question.

BTW same refusal if you change Democrats into PPP, or would you like to pose both questions (one with Dems, one with PPP) to maybe drag two times YES out of me?

well let me break it down simply for you rubl

no, they weren't in power because the electorate chose them to be... the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008.

it's not so hard but i'll leave you to ponder it and try to actually understand how easy it is to answer with a yes or no... though i get the strong feeling that you know this already.

How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked as no-one bothered to dissolve the parliament. So all MP's could haggle as only politicians can and form a new government. As I wrote in a reply to binjalin "why PM Somchai did't, I do not know".

Now if you asked "do you think it was a good idea" I'm inclined to say NO.

[nurofiend]

How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked as no-one bothered to dissolve the parliament. So all MP's could haggle as only politicians can and form a new government. As I wrote in a reply to binjalin "why PM Somchai did't, I do not know".

Now if you asked "do you think it was a good idea" I'm inclined to say NO.

"How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked"

precisely the point i was making rubl.

which is why i said "no, they weren't in power because the electorate chose them to be... the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

[phiphidon]

How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked as no-one bothered to dissolve the parliament. So all MP's could haggle as only politicians can and form a new government. As I wrote in a reply to binjalin "why PM Somchai did't, I do not know".

Now if you asked "do you think it was a good idea" I'm inclined to say NO.

"How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked"

precisely the point i was making rubl.

which is why i said "no, they weren't in power because the electorate chose them to be... the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

You deserve a like at the very least for sticking with it. So exasperating at times trying to get a point across to spinmeisters, especially those who innocently purport to get the thread back on topic whilst doing everything they can to avoid answering.

[rubl]

How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked as no-one bothered to dissolve the parliament. So all MP's could haggle as only politicians can and form a new government. As I wrote in a reply to binjalin "why PM Somchai did't, I do not know".

Now if you asked "do you think it was a good idea" I'm inclined to say NO.

"How can you be so sure? The electorate wasn't asked"

precisely the point i was making rubl.

which is why i said "no, they weren't in power because the electorate chose them to be... the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

Now you're somewhat obtuse, my dear nurofiend.

The electorate asked in December 2007 voted 233 seats PPP, 165 Democrats, plus some Barnhan, some Newin's party and a handfull more. So some of the electorate wanted PPP to lead, some Democrats, some ... ... and so on. That might or might not have shifted after all the good PPP did or didn't do in the government they were legally allowed to form. The electorate wasn't asked again!

That brings us back to me saying "I don't think not calling a new general election was a good idea". From a legal point of view nothing wrong, from a political point of view business as usual.