Democrats Launch Campaign To ' Save Thai Democracy'

[Roadman]

Not quite:

Leader of the Democrat Party Abhisit Vejjajiva voiced displeasure at the coup hours just before all political activities were banned: “

We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it's done. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out reforms they promised. They have to prove themselves. I urge them to lift all restrictions as soon as possible. There is no need to write a brand new constitution. They could make changes to the 1997 constitution and if that's the case, there is no reason to take a year. Six months is a good time.

from Wikipedia. (yeah, I know) http://en.wikipedia....ai_coup_d'état

That should actually be pinned above for forced reading for the countless amounts of dribble (on even several current threads) about how the Dems led the coup, or led the Army into the coup, or organised the coup or ordered the Army to a coup etc. etc. etc.

[whybother]

Unlike in 2008, Yingluck’s party now controls an outright majority in parliament. http://www.bloomberg...ust-sister.html

That wouldn't actually help them if, like in 2008, the party was disbanded and a major regional faction jumped ship.

Edited October 29, 2012 by whybother

[DocN]

Rig

Not quite:

Leader of the Democrat Party Abhisit Vejjajiva voiced displeasure at the coup hours just before all political activities were banned: “

We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it's done. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out reforms they promised. They have to prove themselves. I urge them to lift all restrictions as soon as possible. There is no need to write a brand new constitution. They could make changes to the 1997 constitution and if that's the case, there is no reason to take a year. Six months is a good time.

from Wikipedia. (yeah, I know) http://en.wikipedia....oup_d'état

That should actually be pinned above for forced reading for the countless amounts of dribble (on even several current threads) about how the Dems led the coup, or led the Army into the coup, or organised the coup or ordered the Army to a coup etc. etc. etc.

Agreed!

But if you are so much opposed to a coup...why lead a government coming out of one?

Political integrity? Contradiction in terms, I guess!

Or rather just saying what everybody wants to hear...and doing a totally different thing.

Please understand: I am not saying, the Dems were condoning it (well...that is what I think, though!), but they (and Abisisth in person) were the ones profiting from it! And they gladly took their chance! ...or rather: didn't!

[EvilDrSomkid]

Rig

Not quite:

Leader of the Democrat Party Abhisit Vejjajiva voiced displeasure at the coup hours just before all political activities were banned: “

We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it's done. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out reforms they promised. They have to prove themselves. I urge them to lift all restrictions as soon as possible. There is no need to write a brand new constitution. They could make changes to the 1997 constitution and if that's the case, there is no reason to take a year. Six months is a good time.

from Wikipedia. (yeah, I know) http://en.wikipedia....oup_d'état

That should actually be pinned above for forced reading for the countless amounts of dribble (on even several current threads) about how the Dems led the coup, or led the Army into the coup, or organised the coup or ordered the Army to a coup etc. etc. etc.

Agreed!

But if you are so much opposed to a coup...why lead a government coming out of one?

Political integrity? Contradiction in terms, I guess!

Or rather just saying what everybody wants to hear...and doing a totally different thing.

Please understand: I am not saying, the Dems were condoning it (well...that is what I think, though!), but they (and Abisisth in person) were the ones profiting from it! And they gladly took their chance! ...or rather: didn't!

I highly recommend reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28Thailand%29

They came to power in a very strange way, yes, but I am SOOOO sick and tired of the arguments here about it.

[whybother]

Agreed!

But if you are so much opposed to a coup...why lead a government coming out of one?

Political integrity? Contradiction in terms, I guess!

Or rather just saying what everybody wants to hear...and doing a totally different thing.

Please understand: I am not saying, the Dems were condoning it (well...that is what I think, though!), but they (and Abisisth in person) were the ones profiting from it! And they gladly took their chance! ...or rather: didn't!

Yes, it was terrible of Samak to lead the government after the (elections after the) coup, wasn't it?

[KKvampire]

Peau Thai are smart , in that they have managed to convince the poor and under privileged that they have and will represent their interests when they have no such intention.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

[EvilDrSomkid]

Peau Thai are smart , in that they have managed to convince the poor and under privileged that they have and will represent their interests when they have no such intention.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

But that illusion is fast disappearing, isn't it?

[MunterHunter]

Peau Thai are smart , in that they have managed to convince the poor and under privileged that they have and will represent their interests when they have no such intention.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

But that illusion is fast disappearing, isn't it?

I hope so.

[Thai at Heart]

Peau Thai are smart , in that they have managed to convince the poor and under privileged that they have and will represent their interests when they have no such intention.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

But that illusion is fast disappearing, isn't it?

Even if the illusion disappears, the issue is that there is a fairly solid feeling that the "poor" can never ever bring themselves to vote Democrat ever again, and history has shown that they wouldn't really be wrong. Someone needs to come up with a significant 3rd party, because I really can't see that the Dems can ever get a solid coalition or majority together.

[DocN]

Agreed!

But if you are so much opposed to a coup...why lead a government coming out of one?

Political integrity? Contradiction in terms, I guess!

Or rather just saying what everybody wants to hear...and doing a totally different thing.

Please understand: I am not saying, the Dems were condoning it (well...that is what I think, though!), but they (and Abisisth in person) were the ones profiting from it! And they gladly took their chance! ...or rather: didn't!

Yes, it was terrible of Samak to lead the government after the (elections after the) coup, wasn't it?

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

[whybother]

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

The Democrats came to power 2 years after the coup, and a year after elections.

What does the Democrats coming to power have to do with the coup?

[MunterHunter]

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

The Democrats came to power 2 years after the coup, and a year after elections.

What does the Democrats coming to power have to do with the coup?

Democrats came to power because the current PM got thrown out for moonlighting and the Dems managed to cobble together a (shaky) coalition and seize power before the Reds could stop them. Whilst unusual in its approach, it was legal under the constitution/law of the land.

[h90]

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

The Democrats came to power 2 years after the coup, and a year after elections.

What does the Democrats coming to power have to do with the coup?

Democrats came to power because the current PM got thrown out for moonlighting and the Dems managed to cobble together a (shaky) coalition and seize power before the Reds could stop them. Whilst unusual in its approach, it was legal under the constitution/law of the land.

And such things happened in many countries in history. The bad thing is that they didn't try to use that chance to change things in Thailand.

[Rancid]

Many strive to define democracy as the absolute ideal, below is another view to consider, bearing in mind even the founders of the US did not want democracy as their system of government due to historical failures. This can apply already to many western democracies, although perhaps with Thailand we could substitute oligarchs for voters, regardless the outcome is the same:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Reputedly “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic” - Alexander Tytler

[mrtoad]

I am confused, I thought The DL and his Red Shirt thugs had already saved Democracy?

[DocN]

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

The Democrats came to power 2 years after the coup, and a year after elections.

What does the Democrats coming to power have to do with the coup?

the coup did not stabilize the country. The following years saw elections being held and election winners being thrown out of office twice. I personally see a connection between the coup and the ones who backed it and the rising of the PAD, up to blocking 3 intl. airports and "forcing" the DEMS into government. But it may of course be, I am wrong!

As munterhunter says, it was legal under the law...though I think, you might be able to discuss, if the actions leading to that law, were so legal....

[whybother]

the coup did not stabilize the country. The following years saw elections being held and election winners being thrown out of office twice. I personally see a connection between the coup and the ones who backed it and the rising of the PAD, up to blocking 3 intl. airports and "forcing" the DEMS into government. But it may of course be, I am wrong!

As munterhunter says, it was legal under the law...though I think, you might be able to discuss, if the actions leading to that law, were so legal....

The Democrats didn't back the coup.

The court cases did not "force" the Democrats into power. The defection of a regional political faction led to the Democrats getting into government.

If the PTP had called an election rather than trying to elect another new PM, then maybe they could have stayed in power. As it was, they gambled on being able to elect a PM again, but didn't bank on a regional faction of the PPP, who had moved to a separate party than the PTP, not backing another Thaksin proxy.

[billd766]

In reading these articles I feel like I'm stuck in the movie Groundhog Day.

Bugger ... I was going to say that....

I just thought it was deja vu all over again.

[billd766]

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

The Democrats came to power 2 years after the coup, and a year after elections.

What does the Democrats coming to power have to do with the coup?

Democrats came to power because the current PM got thrown out for moonlighting and the Dems managed to cobble together a (shaky) coalition and seize power before the Reds could stop them. Whilst unusual in its approach, it was legal under the constitution/law of the land.

The fist PM after the coup was Samak and he was taken out not only because he did a cooking program but he also lied about not getting paid (which he was) and the Thai laws the PM is not allowed do have a second job.

He was replaced by Somchai who is Thaksins brother in law and he and the PPP were banned through election cheating.

Then Newin Jumped ship as he is allowed to do which left Thaksins party with no majority.

The Democrats then made a coalition quite legally as Thaksins proxy parties did after the military voluntarily gave up their power.

I hate it when people try to convince others that they are right but cannot connect the dots in their story because they didn't do any research themselves.

Now you may think I am wrong and IF you do your homework properly you will find that I am correct and you are not.

[thaicbr]

So...the Democrats coming to power had nothing to do with the coup and the constant unrest following it...in your opinion?

I love when people can connect the dots and see things in a wider perspective!

The Democrats came to power 2 years after the coup, and a year after elections.

What does the Democrats coming to power have to do with the coup?

Democrats came to power because the current PM got thrown out for moonlighting and the Dems managed to cobble together a (shaky) coalition and seize power before the Reds could stop them. Whilst unusual in its approach, it was legal under the constitution/law of the land.

The fist PM after the coup was Samak and he was taken out not only because he did a cooking program but he also lied about not getting paid (which he was) and the Thai laws the PM is not allowed do have a second job.

He was replaced by Somchai who is Thaksins brother in law and he and the PPP were banned through election cheating.

Then Newin Jumped ship as he is allowed to do which left Thaksins party with no majority.

The Democrats then made a coalition quite legally as Thaksins proxy parties did after the military voluntarily gave up their power.

I hate it when people try to convince others that they are right but cannot connect the dots in their story because they didn't do any research themselves.

Now you may think I am wrong and IF you do your homework properly you will find that I am correct and you are not.

Dont forget Barnharn Silpa Archa also jumped ship..... but then I think his party has been in EVERY government EVER. They dont call him slippery eel for nothing .. no ideology whatsoever ... except power and money ..

sent from my ..................#

[Rich teacher]

The Democrats didn't back the coup.

The court cases did not "force" the Democrats into power. The defection of a regional political faction led to the Democrats getting into government.

If the PTP had called an election rather than trying to elect another new PM, then maybe they could have stayed in power. As it was, they gambled on being able to elect a PM again, but didn't bank on a regional faction of the PPP, who had moved to a separate party than the PTP, not backing another Thaksin proxy.

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team. Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution." Wikipedia

Edited October 29, 2012 by Rich teacher

[Rich teacher]

Democrats Launch Campaign To ' Save Thai Democracy The Democrat Party'

They started with the very sensible sacking of their widely hated leader, Abhisit Vejajiva and the even more loathed, Suthep Thesuban.

[whybother]

The Democrats didn't back the coup.

The court cases did not "force" the Democrats into power. The defection of a regional political faction led to the Democrats getting into government.

If the PTP had called an election rather than trying to elect another new PM, then maybe they could have stayed in power. As it was, they gambled on being able to elect a PM again, but didn't bank on a regional faction of the PPP, who had moved to a separate party than the PTP, not backing another Thaksin proxy.

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team. Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution." Wikipedia

Thank you. As it says, the Democrats didn't support the coup.

[whybother]

Democrats Launch Campaign To ' Save Thai Democracy The Democrat Party'

They started with the very sensible sacking of their widely hated leader, Abhisit Vejajiva and the even more loathed, Suthep Thesuban.

Abhisit wasn't sacked.

[Rich teacher]

Democrats Launch Campaign To ' Save Thai Democracy The Democrat Party'

They started with the very sensible sacking of their widely hated leader, Abhisit Vejajiva and the even more loathed, Suthep Thesuban.

Abhisit wasn't sacked.

Obviously not well versed in satire, Why.

[scorecard]

Peau Thai are smart , in that they have managed to convince the poor and under privileged that they have and will represent their interests when they have no such intention.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

But that illusion is fast disappearing, isn't it?

Even if the illusion disappears, the issue is that there is a fairly solid feeling that the "poor" can never ever bring themselves to vote Democrat ever again, and history has shown that they wouldn't really be wrong. Someone needs to come up with a significant 3rd party, because I really can't see that the Dems can ever get a solid coalition or majority together.

............. there is a fairly solid feeling that the "poor" can never ever bring themselves to vote Democrat ever again, and history has shown that they wouldn't really be wrong. ...................

So please provide some explantion of where this comes from.

Edited October 29, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

Democrats Launch Campaign To ' Save Thai Democracy The Democrat Party'

They started with the very sensible sacking of their widely hated leader, Abhisit Vejajiva and the even more loathed, Suthep Thesuban.

Abhisit wasn't sacked.

Obviously not well versed in satire, Why.

You seem to have joined a small group on tv who don't respond with much logic, or fact, just nasty attempts at personal put down, plus obvious untruths, plus atttempts to write your opinion to appear as statements of fact.

Edited October 29, 2012 by scorecard

[Tatsujin]

Democrats Launch Campaign To ' Save Thai Democracy The Democrat Party'

They started with the very sensible sacking of their widely hated leader, Abhisit Vejajiva and the even more loathed, Suthep Thesuban.

Abhisit wasn't sacked.

Obviously not well versed in satire, Why.

Based on this and your other postings, you're obviously not well versed in anything, least of all facts and logic . . . and certainly not satire.

[visionchaser45]

They need to focus on their campaign strategy for the next election; that is, if they really give a hoot about democracy.

[Thai at Heart]

Peau Thai are smart , in that they have managed to convince the poor and under privileged that they have and will represent their interests when they have no such intention.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

But that illusion is fast disappearing, isn't it?

Even if the illusion disappears, the issue is that there is a fairly solid feeling that the "poor" can never ever bring themselves to vote Democrat ever again, and history has shown that they wouldn't really be wrong. Someone needs to come up with a significant 3rd party, because I really can't see that the Dems can ever get a solid coalition or majority together.

............. there is a fairly solid feeling that the "poor" can never ever bring themselves to vote Democrat ever again, and history has shown that they wouldn't really be wrong. ...................

So please provide some explantion of where this comes from.

Ummn. It's an opinion. The democrats have never made any significant progress in isaan and the north, nada, zilch, nothing in 70 years. The people believe they have never cared for the poor, and as the most successful party, if the development in isaan is testimony to anything to do with democrat policy, i would say no thanks also.

The dems will keep their existing areas, but what they lost to PTP is not coming back for a very long time. The north and isaan are never going to vote democrat in my lifetime, that with the treat if the poor in bangkok, means the dems are unlikely to ever again win.

i would hold out since hope if abhisit and korn would leave the dems and start something new. The dems are tainted goods who cannot reach out beyond their strongholds at all. They are political history.

Just wait until ptp outlives banharns and the other dinosaurs parties, and ptp will have all if the smaller parties absorbed.