Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[Thaddeus]

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.

Hello Pot

[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."

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.

ok, we're done.

[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."

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.

Well, thank you for your insight, dear phiphidon. I really welcome more input here.

Mind you I didn't avoid a question, I refused to answer it and gave reasons as to why.

BTW in another topic wasn't it you who complaint about people breaking in into other's conversation? Don't remember and can't check, all removed by now

[Thaddeus]

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.

ok, we're done.

Marvellous..... got tapped on the knee with a rubber hammer and a month later your leg moved.

[rubl]

Although I did have an interesting discussion here, by now it's 1:24AM. I n\need to recharge, sleep and work tomorrow. If not too tired I'll check-in again late tomorrow night. If anyone likes to continue the discussion here and wonders why no reply forthcoming. Don't worry, I'm not ignoring, just scheduling :-)

[whybother]

"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.

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

[tlansford]

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 because your nonsense is growing tiresome.

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.

"the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

exactly the point which will never be conceded by supporters of Abhisit/Dems on this forum, because to do so acknowledges the lack of mandate, and tacitly acknowledges the military's role in the change of power.

It wasn't a military coup with tanks. The tools were different, but that is why the 2008 change is referred to as a judicial coup.

Because "the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008" - is the reason why the Abhisit government was confronted by Thai citizens who recognized this fact and were not willing to let the status quo stand.

If the military and other power-brokers in my country could sit in the background and decide whether a government elected by the people should be "dissolved and replaced" by something more to the liking of those elite, then, frankly, I would be protesting too.

[whybother]

"the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

exactly the point which will never be conceded by supporters of Abhisit/Dems on this forum, because to do so acknowledges the lack of mandate, and tacitly acknowledges the military's role in the change of power.

It wasn't a military coup with tanks. The tools were different, but that is why the 2008 change is referred to as a judicial coup.

Because "the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008" - is the reason why the Abhisit government was confronted by Thai citizens who recognized this fact and were not willing to let the status quo stand.

If the military and other power-brokers in my country could sit in the background and decide whether a government elected by the people should be "dissolved and replaced" by something more to the liking of those elite, then, frankly, I would be protesting too.

Who's fault was it that the electorate didn't have a say? It was the PTP that didn't call an election to let the electorate have their say. It was the PTP that chose to go to parliament to vote for a new PM. It was the PTP that lost.

[Nickymaster]

well let me break it down simply for you rubl because your nonsense is growing tiresome.

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.

"the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

exactly the point which will never be conceded by supporters of Abhisit/Dems on this forum, because to do so acknowledges the lack of mandate, and tacitly acknowledges the military's role in the change of power.

It wasn't a military coup with tanks. The tools were different, but that is why the 2008 change is referred to as a judicial coup.

Because "the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008" - is the reason why the Abhisit government was confronted by Thai citizens who recognized this fact and were not willing to let the status quo stand.

If the military and other power-brokers in my country could sit in the background and decide whether a government elected by the people should be "dissolved and replaced" by something more to the liking of those elite, then, frankly, I would be protesting too.

If an elected government only whitewashes and enriches its own friends, family and Red "warriors", frankly, I would be protesting too.

Isn't Thaksin an elite....

Edited September 6, 2012 by Nickymaster

[rixalex]

"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.

What sort of like are you actually giving here though phiphidon? Is it one of those keyboard warrior, insincere i am saying i like it but i actually hate it, i am just giving the "like" in a cunning, daring and rebelious fashion, as i have seen you and your like-minded fellows have jointly taken to doing these days?

[OzMick]

"the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

exactly the point which will never be conceded by supporters of Abhisit/Dems on this forum, because to do so acknowledges the lack of mandate, and tacitly acknowledges the military's role in the change of power.

It wasn't a military coup with tanks. The tools were different, but that is why the 2008 change is referred to as a judicial coup.

Because "the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008" - is the reason why the Abhisit government was confronted by Thai citizens who recognized this fact and were not willing to let the status quo stand.

If the military and other power-brokers in my country could sit in the background and decide whether a government elected by the people should be "dissolved and replaced" by something more to the liking of those elite, then, frankly, I would be protesting too.

Exactly the lies fed to the naive who recognised this BS as fact. Coalitions falling apart and reforming to change power are a not unusual part of the Westminster system. I understand it is a bit complex for those brought up on a strictly 2-party political arrangement, but a bit of self-education would enlighten you immensely.

For starters, there is only 2 reason why an election NEEDS to be called. One is if the mandate of the election has expired and the other is if a functioning government cannot be formed.

[Rimmer]

Flame a quoted replies removed

[AleG]

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge how a parliamentary system works...

Unless it's in favour of their agenda.

Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup.

BJT switching support from PPP to the democrats, evil plot that de-ligitimatizes the Abhisit government, Pracha Thai reneging of their election promise of not supporting PPP and then doing a 180 degree turn and voting for a PPP PM, not a whisper of electorates voice being muffled, illegitimacy or whatnot.

[RubbaJohnny]

The winning Democrat Party candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa

Phwoar, she's a looker, where did she get her degree from, can she even speak english, wonder if she's well known at the holiday Inn, what did she do for a job before she got this one, who's her daddy, does she even know where parliament is, doesn't matter 'cos she'll be shopping for handbags as soon as your back's turned.

And all because the PM MP is a woman.......................................

Regardless of politics has your misogyny meter failed?

Those reality checks produced locally may be defective.

[nurofiend]

"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.

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

yes twisting, like you've just done yet again.

if a party gets a relative majority, then yes, most of the electorate want them to be in charge more than any other party... and in this case far more.

you make it out like you're teaching me how the system works, but you can save it for someone else.

you knew what i meant when i said the electorate wanted them in power, i meant they were the party that most people wanted in power far more than any other party.

but ye just love your little nitpicks don't ye, ye thrive on them in fact... and it's tiresome and does nothing for reasonable debate.

the reason abhisit got in, is because the country's most popular party was banned and of course the bribery, that while not proven afaik, even you must suspect it to be what happened.

i wonder would you admit that?

[nurofiend]

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge how a parliamentary system works...

Unless it's in favour of their agenda.

Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup.

BJT switching support from PPP to the democrats, evil plot that de-ligitimatizes the Abhisit government, Pracha Thai reneging of their election promise of not supporting PPP and then doing a 180 degree turn and voting for a PPP PM, not a whisper of electorates voice being muffled, illegitimacy or whatnot.

"Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup."

so it was the exact same was it? no difference in circumstances?

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge that an abhisit/democrat led government wasn't what the electorate wanted.

[OzMick]

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge how a parliamentary system works...

Unless it's in favour of their agenda.

Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup.

BJT switching support from PPP to the democrats, evil plot that de-ligitimatizes the Abhisit government, Pracha Thai reneging of their election promise of not supporting PPP and then doing a 180 degree turn and voting for a PPP PM, not a whisper of electorates voice being muffled, illegitimacy or whatnot.

"Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup."

so it was the exact same was it? no difference in circumstances?

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge that an abhisit/democrat led government wasn't what the electorate wanted.

Sour grapes, old son. The lesson is that if you break electoral law, you get shafted. If you can still collect enough MPs, you form a government. If you can't, you whine about "judicial coups". And , just maybe, you can get a lot of uneducated, naive people to believe your BS.

I must add, if you get enough uneducated, naive people to threaten violence, then the electoral commission may be reluctant to enforce electoral law, much like what has happened since the last election, for fear the country will be thrown into civil war. But is that democracy or mob rule?

Edited September 6, 2012 by OzMick

[whybother]

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge how a parliamentary system works...

Unless it's in favour of their agenda.

Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup.

BJT switching support from PPP to the democrats, evil plot that de-ligitimatizes the Abhisit government, Pracha Thai reneging of their election promise of not supporting PPP and then doing a 180 degree turn and voting for a PPP PM, not a whisper of electorates voice being muffled, illegitimacy or whatnot.

"Somchai being elected PM by a majority of votes in parliament, no problem, Abhisit the same procedure and it's a coup."

so it was the exact same was it? no difference in circumstances?

It's quite obvious that some people just don't want to acknowledge that an abhisit/democrat led government wasn't what the electorate wanted.

It is what the majority of the electorate's representatives wanted.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[whybother]

"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.

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

yes twisting, like you've just done yet again.

if a party gets a relative majority, then yes, most of the electorate want them to be in charge more than any other party... and in this case far more.

you make it out like you're teaching me how the system works, but you can save it for someone else.

you knew what i meant when i said the electorate wanted them in power, i meant they were the party that most people wanted in power far more than any other party.

but ye just love your little nitpicks don't ye, ye thrive on them in fact... and it's tiresome and does nothing for reasonable debate.

the reason abhisit got in, is because the country's most popular party was banned and of course the bribery, that while not proven afaik, even you must suspect it to be what happened.

i wonder would you admit that?

I don't care about "most". I care about "majority". Getting the most votes or getting most seats is irrelevant. Getting the support of the majority is what matters.

The PPP were banned. But there were by-elections and everyone in the electorate were represented.

Abhisit got in because Thaksin's newest proxy party lost the support of a majority of MPs.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[FOODLOVER]

The winning Democrat Party candidate Kanoknuch Narksuwannapa

Phwoar, she's a looker, where did she get her degree from, can she even speak english, wonder if she's well known at the holiday Inn, what did she do for a job before she got this one, who's her daddy, does she even know where parliament is, doesn't matter 'cos she'll be shopping for handbags as soon as your back's turned.

And all because the PM MP is a woman.......................................

........................and not a bumbling idiot.

[phiphidon]

"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.

What sort of like are you actually giving here though phiphidon? Is it one of those keyboard warrior, insincere i am saying i like it but i actually hate it, i am just giving the "like" in a cunning, daring and rebelious fashion, as i have seen you and your like-minded fellows have jointly taken to doing these days?

Well to be perfectly honest, I, personally, am highlighting the absurdity of a 'like' system where certain people have been awarding "like"s to moderators after they have done whatever they do to the black sheep of the forum. Bit of a strange thing to do in my book. Is it a problem for you?

[KireB]

Well to be perfectly honest, I, personally, am highlighting the absurdity of a 'like' system where certain people have been awarding "like"s to moderators after they have done whatever they do to the black sheep of the forum. Bit of a strange thing to do in my book. Is it a problem for you?

Your twin buddy just liked your post, so I guess now it is not absurd! So have a look in your 'book' and tell me why the PT is failing the Thai peuple and why left and right Dem's are making a comeback. I think that bit by bit the people start to realize that the PT/Shinawatra clan are nothing more than criminal hot air!

[rixalex]

Well to be perfectly honest, I, personally, am highlighting the absurdity of a 'like' system where certain people have been awarding "like"s to moderators after they have done whatever they do to the black sheep of the forum. Bit of a strange thing to do in my book. Is it a problem for you?

It's not a problem for me, it just strikes me as being all a bit high school to start clicking "like" on posts you actually don't like.. but you and your gang obviously think it's clever so please do continue and feel free to throw as many "likes" my way as you feel able. All gratefully received.

[Buchholz]

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.

What sort of like are you actually giving here though phiphidon? Is it one of those keyboard warrior, insincere i am saying i like it but i actually hate it, i am just giving the "like" in a cunning, daring and rebelious fashion, as i have seen you and your like-minded fellows have jointly taken to doing these days?

Well to be perfectly honest, I, personally, am highlighting the absurdity of a 'like' system where certain people have been awarding "like"s to moderators after they have done whatever they do to the black sheep of the forum. Bit of a strange thing to do in my book. Is it a problem for you?

If your goal is "highlighting the absurdity" of the like system, there's a more appropriate avenue than the Thailand News Forum

Forum support desk

If you have technical problems or general questions how to use the forum, please post here or email us at support[at]thaivisa.com

there's already a number of threads there on your topic:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1

Quite why you would be bothered by someone liking the cleaning up of threads with the deletion of rule-breaking posts is odd, but then, black sheep often go against societal norms and dislike complying with its expectations.

.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Buchholz

[philw]

Well to be perfectly honest, I, personally, am highlighting the absurdity of a 'like' system where certain people have been awarding "like"s to moderators after they have done whatever they do to the black sheep of the forum. Bit of a strange thing to do in my book. Is it a problem for you?

Your twin buddy just liked your post, so I guess now it is not absurd! So have a look in your 'book' and tell me why the PT is failing the Thai peuple and why left and right Dem's are making a comeback. I think that bit by bit the people start to realize that the PT/Shinawatra clan are nothing more than criminal hot air!

The Dems will have made their comeback when they win an election.

An ex TRT MP, winning what is effectively a local council by-election, having recently moved to the Dem. party is hardly the rout of PTP that you express.

Wonder what your feeling might be if, a few months from now she decides to join PTP ??

Stranger thing have happened in the mysterious world of Thai politics

[philw]

In response to Bucholze

Do societal norms have expectations ?

I'm not convinced that your view of "societal norms" is quite the same as mine, but never mind, back on topic, eh ?

Edited September 7, 2012 by philw

[Buchholz]

In response to Bucholze

I'm not convinced that your view of "societal norms" is quite the same as mine, but never mind, back on topic, eh ?

Do societal norms have expectations ?

once again, it's B-u-c-h-h-o-l-z.

secondly, you suggest we go back on topic.... and then immediately follow it with an off-topic question.

Democrats winning in a Pheu Thai stronghold.... try something along those lines.

You were doing well with the post just prior to this one of yours...

,

Edited September 7, 2012 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

"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.

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

"Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you" "Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government."

Surely those votes represent the people who want your party to win. If we follow the logic that those votes are now irrelevant because the MPs themselves can swap parties and allegiances to get the most seats together to form a government, that makes all your previous and subsequent arguments that the majority of people do not support the PTP also irrelevant.

You are saying that the peoples vote is irrelevant - it is purely down to the MP's and what they are swayed by (in the last governments case, money).

Now can you see why people say that abhisits government was illegal and was brokered by the army and ultimately, why he wasn't re-elected.

[philw]

In response to Bucholze

I'm not convinced that your view of "societal norms" is quite the same as mine, but never mind, back on topic, eh ?

Do societal norms have expectations ?

once again, it's B-u-c-h-h-o-l-z.

secondly, you suggest we go back on topic.... and then immediately follow it with an off-topic question.

Democrats winning in a Pheu Thai stronghold.... try something along those lines.

You were doing well with the post just prior to this one of yours...

,

Have revised my post.

Is that better ???

Thank you for your kind words about my previous post.

[OzMick]

"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.

"yes they did want them to be the MAIN ruling party"

Twisting? I think it's you that is doing that.

The voters get to vote once. They get to vote for who they want to be the main ruling party.

Yes, most people voted for PPP, but a majority of the people did NOT want PPP to be the main ruling party. The PPP managed to get a majority of MPs supporting them to be able to form a coalition government, but that support fell away in 2008 when a majority of MPs decided that they didn't want the new PTP in power.

Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you. "Winning" the election by getting the most votes is irrelevant if the other parties get together a majority of seats to form government.

The electorate doesn't decide who is in charge. They just vote for their local or party list MPs. The MPs then decide who is in charge. In 2008, the MPs decided that Abhisit should be in charge. That could have also happened in 2007. Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government.

"Getting the most votes is irrelevant if you can't get a majority of seats to support you" "Getting the most seats doesn't guarantee that you will lead government."

Surely those votes represent the people who want your party to win. If we follow the logic that those votes are now irrelevant because the MPs themselves can swap parties and allegiances to get the most seats together to form a government, that makes all your previous and subsequent arguments that the majority of people do not support the PTP also irrelevant.

You are saying that the peoples vote is irrelevant - it is purely down to the MP's and what they are swayed by (in the last governments case, money).

Now can you see why people say that abhisits government was illegal and was brokered by the army and ultimately, why he wasn't re-elected.

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.