NIDA Poll says 56.59% want Yingluck to resign

[Slip]

Do you think the leaders of western democracies should resign whenever their poll numbers drop below 50%?

Perhaps not, but do you think leaders of western democracies should resign if:

-The have proven to lack leadership and have repeatedly mismanagement their own policies?

-They take orders from a fugitive living abroad?

-Provide a new passport for that same fugitive and refusing to answer for the action?

-They neglect their duties (as in not attending a single meeting of the Rice Committee, which she is chairperson of)?

-Being under investigation for corruption?

-Shown a complete lack of transparency in the use of public money?

-Trying to pass legislation to whitewash 10 years worth of prosecutions against corruption?

-Place cronies in their cabinets that are unfit for the position from either a professional or ethical point of view?

-Ignored rulings from the courts?

How about whenever all of the above, and more, are put together together?

You mean, do you think leaders of western democracies should resign if:

-Their opponents claim, The have proven to lack leadership and have repeatedly mismanagement their own policies?

-Their opponents claim, They take orders from a fugitive living abroad?

-Provide a new passport for that same fugitive and refusing to answer for the action claim their opponents?

-Their opponents claim,They neglect their duties (as in not attending a single meeting of the Rice Committee, which she is chairperson of)?

-Being under investigation for corruption by their opponents?

-Their opponents claim,Shown a complete lack of transparency in the use of public money?

-Trying to pass legislation to whitewash 10 years worth of prosecutions against opponent claims of corruption?

-Their opponents claim,Place cronies in their cabinets that are unfit for the position from either a professional or ethical point of view?

-Their opponents claim,Ignored rulings from the courts?

See opposition parties and their media propagandists make claims all the time, it's just politics. You should see the endless garbage they throw at Obama from Fox news/Drudge etc.. It's very similar to the endless garbage Bluesky/Nation/Bangkokpost tries against Yingluk.

No, they should not resign just because of a bunch of propaganda.

In a proper democratic system that list would spell the downfall of any government, never mind one as inept and corrupt as this.

[HD 205]

A picture speaks a 1000 words. This is 2 weeks after the coup. Seems he is not saying democracy is lost here. He is not saying "respect my vote here" True yes?

And unlike me not dodging difficult questions like your friends, As for explaining my other points…I support the DEM's because the don't have a Deputy PM telling the voters they are garbage. They don't have a Deputy PM saying he would behead himself. No denying the public a hearing on policy hearings. Not once and I repeat NOT ONCE have the DEMS said to the south, the north and the centre that the voters are garbage. Not once and I repeat not once have the DEM's said to the north "We will not give you an international conference hall until you vote for us"

Thats why I support them. Because I support 15 principles of democracy while the PTP support one.

Simple.

Cheers.

Ok, I agree that there is no argument that could be made to say that Thaksin was against that coup.

While he wasn't in politics at the time, it still makes no difference to his probable views at the time.

As for your support for the democrats, will you be brutally honest with me/yourself and admit that they don't support the fundamental principal of democracy, which is the public vote?

I believe I've been honest enough to admit anything you have pointed out, would you not agree that the democrats don't feel they can get into power by the purest level of democracy?

Would you admit that the only way they can get into power is by ridding the opposition through non-elective means?

I appreciate your honesty in advance.

I wish you wouldn't have ignored this djjamie, it seems that you expect others to answer your questions and points while not bothering to answer what has been put back to you.

I say this because I've seen you've been posting since, so you must have seen the notification, read my reply and ignored it.

[wolfmanjack]

I have been waiting to say this for ages.

"Time to listen to the will of the majority……..Even if you don't like it!!!"

I can read from the pro "1 principle of democracy" supporters that this is really getting under their skin.

First the majority didn't vote. Off the majority that did vote only 70% voted for one of the 50 parties.

Then the poll that said 60% wanted yingluck to step down. Then the poll that showed over 80% believed the PTP and or the PM (not the boss Thaksin) were involved in corruption in the rice scheme.

The majority keeps speaking and the "1 principle" supporters keep denying. I LOVE IT!!!

And to make me sleep even better tonight is that even with all the majority against them, it means nothing because the PM (not the boss) and most of the minsters involved in the rice scheme will be impeached and charged with corruption.

I say this day coming, not when the rice scheme was implemented, not when the first car scheme was implemented, but the second after they said another SHinwatra would run in it. The only clean Shinawatra left will be tainted with the same brush as the rest of her family soon.

I will say not once more after I press my SMUG mode button.

PTP - "Time to listen to the will of the majority……..Even if you don't like it!!!"

SMUG mode off

I won't point out the obvious flaws in this poll, I'll just ask you this: Do you think the leaders of western democracies should resign whenever their poll numbers drop below 50%?

Do you think the leaders of western democracies should resign whenever their poll numbers drop below 50%?

Perhaps not, but do you think leaders of western democracies should resign if:

-The have proven to lack leadership and have repeatedly mismanagement their own policies?

-They take orders from a fugitive living abroad?

-Provide a new passport for that same fugitive and refusing to answer for the action?

-They neglect their duties (as in not attending a single meeting of the Rice Committee, which she is chairperson of)?

-Being under investigation for corruption?

-Shown a complete lack of transparency in the use of public money?

-Trying to pass legislation to whitewash 10 years worth of prosecutions against corruption?

-Place cronies in their cabinets that are unfit for the position from either a professional or ethical point of view?

-Ignored rulings from the courts?

How about whenever all of the above, and more, are put together together?

Son't forget giving a billion dollars to that same fugitive.

[djjamie]

A picture speaks a 1000 words. This is 2 weeks after the coup. Seems he is not saying democracy is lost here. He is not saying "respect my vote here" True yes?

And unlike me not dodging difficult questions like your friends, As for explaining my other points…I support the DEM's because the don't have a Deputy PM telling the voters they are garbage. They don't have a Deputy PM saying he would behead himself. No denying the public a hearing on policy hearings. Not once and I repeat NOT ONCE have the DEMS said to the south, the north and the centre that the voters are garbage. Not once and I repeat not once have the DEM's said to the north "We will not give you an international conference hall until you vote for us"

Thats why I support them. Because I support 15 principles of democracy while the PTP support one.

Simple.

Cheers.

Ok, I agree that there is no argument that could be made to say that Thaksin was against that coup.

While he wasn't in politics at the time, it still makes no difference to his probable views at the time.

As for your support for the democrats, will you be brutally honest with me/yourself and admit that they don't support the fundamental principal of democracy, which is the public vote?

I believe I've been honest enough to admit anything you have pointed out, would you not agree that the democrats don't feel they can get into power by the purest level of democracy?

Would you admit that the only way they can get into power is by ridding the opposition through non-elective means?

I appreciate your honesty in advance.

I wish you wouldn't have ignored this djjamie, it seems that you expect others to answer your questions and points while not bothering to answer what has been put back to you.

I say this because I've seen you've been posting since, so you must have seen the notification, read my reply and ignored it.

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

As another poster stated below regarding the abuses of power of the PTP and for that party to win another elections goes against all reasoning. The only regimes that continue to get into power after the abuses are countries that hide behind a guise of democracy like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cambodia Iraq etc etc.

Democracy is broken when it is run by a fugitive. Democracy is broken when voters, who are not exposed to the abuse of power and the corruption like the tax payer is will continue to vote for a party that does not even listen to them. Amnesty comes to mind. One poll said 81% didn't want it yet it passed through the lower house with a vote of 307_0.

Farmers are even protesting and the govt have the audacity to call them fake farmers. The govt made 4 promises that they will pay farmers and they break each one. When farmers protest the red shirts intimidate them and tell them to go home. That's not democracy.

Previous polls have suggested that 84% of farmers would have voted for the democrats had they offered a better rice scheme (funnily enough vote projection is the PTP would have gotten 16% of votes this time round). Every vote counts, but in a dictatorship where a narrow section of the community benefit from the govt.'s schemes, where it is easy to control and manipulate that narrow section then that is a dictatorship. Democracy has a wide potential base of support but offers weak incentives to its defenders. Dictatorship provides stronger incentives to a narrower base. As education raises the benefits of civic participation, it raises the support for more democratic regimes relative to dictatorships.

​As long as there are 3 or 4 provinces of that narrow supporter base that benefit from the PTP (which is debatable as 2.3 million of the poorest farmers are not even eligible to be in the rice scheme) then they control Thailand.

Reform is needed to ensure that no one has carte blanche on abuse of power and corruption by controlling that very narrow yet majority section of Thailand.

I didn't answer you earlier simply because you slipped through the cracks so apologies. It was not on purpose.

If it all the same to you. I am going to leave it at that.

Cheers.

-The have proven to lack leadership and have repeatedly mismanagement their own policies?

-They take orders from a fugitive living abroad?

-Provide a new passport for that same fugitive and refusing to answer for the action?

-They neglect their duties (as in not attending a single meeting of the Rice Committee, which she is chairperson of)?

-Being under investigation for corruption?

-Shown a complete lack of transparency in the use of public money?

-Trying to pass legislation to whitewash 10 years worth of prosecutions against corruption?

-Place cronies in their cabinets that are unfit for the position from either a professional or ethical point of view?

-Ignored rulings from the courts?

[heybruce]

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

You put the Democrats on a high pedestal. Not everyone agrees. From the Banyon column of the January 11, 2014 edition of "The Economist" new magazine:

"Thailand could also do with a new constitution. The current one no longer works. The political system has broken and no one can see the way to devise a new one. The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats."

I like that, the Democrats renamed to "Born to Rule!" That does seem to be their attitude. While they would never admit they want a dictatorship, they clearly don't accept a government selected by the majority of the voters.

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

[hellodolly]

Feb2nd we had elections.All the democrats had to do was to win this election.but they did not participate.I wonder why if 5trillion % want Yingluk to resign.Anyway election is a way to vote an unwanted government out of office.But if i didn't win an election in decades i would also prefer a coup or bla bla about reforms or come up with people democratic bla bla

A new Thaksin cyber warrior?

That or a troll certainly no one familiar with the situation. Maybe a Chalerm supporter.

Why not attack what the poster says, instead of attacking the poster?

What do you think is factually incorrect about what he has said, obviously without being pedantic enough to point out his intentional 5trillion % exaggeration?

People who have nothing to say besides insulting the poster in a reply add nothing to a debate, maybe because they know they cannot debate what has been said.

Just giving options to

"A new Thaksin cyber warrior"

Besides do you not feel a little insulted with nonsense posts like his?

I know it is of track a little but but does it not bother you a little bit to watch what is going down and listen to people say an election will solve it. Makes no difference who wins do you honestly feel things should remain the same. I don't. I honestly believe reform in the Thai Government is needed and it is not going to happen as the result of an election. Any reform after an election would only be made to insure the party maintains their grip on power.

[hellodolly]

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

You put the Democrats on a high pedestal. Not everyone agrees. From the Banyon column of the January 11, 2014 edition of "The Economist" new magazine:

"Thailand could also do with a new constitution. The current one no longer works. The political system has broken and no one can see the way to devise a new one. The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats."

I like that, the Democrats renamed to "Born to Rule!" That does seem to be their attitude. While they would never admit they want a dictatorship, they clearly don't accept a government selected by the majority of the voters.

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

Your information is also incorrect 52% is the majority and they voted against Thaksin.

When will people stop trying to rewrite history? Or learn a little bit about Mathematics?

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

How do you know what side they come down on if some of the magazines are not distributed in Thailand. I may be wrong but some how I feel that those issues do not make the PTP out to be all stars and make the Democrats look like carpetbaggers.

[djjamie]

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

You put the Democrats on a high pedestal. Not everyone agrees. From the Banyon column of the January 11, 2014 edition of "The Economist" new magazine:

"Thailand could also do with a new constitution. The current one no longer works. The political system has broken and no one can see the way to devise a new one. The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats."

I like that, the Democrats renamed to "Born to Rule!" That does seem to be their attitude. While they would never admit they want a dictatorship, they clearly don't accept a government selected by the majority of the voters.

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

Your information is also incorrect 52% is the majority and they voted against Thaksin.

When will people stop trying to rewrite history? Or learn a little bit about Mathematics?

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

How do you know what side they come down on if some of the magazines are not distributed in Thailand. I may be wrong but some how I feel that those issues do not make the PTP out to be all stars and make the Democrats look like carpetbaggers.

Math Facts was never a strong point of the PTP supporters

[heybruce]

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

You put the Democrats on a high pedestal. Not everyone agrees. From the Banyon column of the January 11, 2014 edition of "The Economist" new magazine:

"Thailand could also do with a new constitution. The current one no longer works. The political system has broken and no one can see the way to devise a new one. The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats."

I like that, the Democrats renamed to "Born to Rule!" That does seem to be their attitude. While they would never admit they want a dictatorship, they clearly don't accept a government selected by the majority of the voters.

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

Your information is also incorrect 52% is the majority and they voted against Thaksin.

When will people stop trying to rewrite history? Or learn a little bit about Mathematics?

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

How do you know what side they come down on if some of the magazines are not distributed in Thailand. I may be wrong but some how I feel that those issues do not make the PTP out to be all stars and make the Democrats look like carpetbaggers.

I quoted "The Economist", and they're usually pretty careful about their figures. I can't respond to unreferenced numbers, but if you'll tell me where you got 52% voting against Thaksin I'll check the math for you. I don't recall any elections in which the PTP didn't receive far more votes than the democrats, that's why PTP keeps winning and the Democrats appear to have given up on democracy.

In answer to your second point, there's this thing called the internet. I'm surprised you didn't notice that you're using it. Check out http://www.economist.com/.

[larsjohnsson]

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

You put the Democrats on a high pedestal. Not everyone agrees. From the Banyon column of the January 11, 2014 edition of "The Economist" new magazine:

"Thailand could also do with a new constitution. The current one no longer works. The political system has broken and no one can see the way to devise a new one. The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats."

I like that, the Democrats renamed to "Born to Rule!" That does seem to be their attitude. While they would never admit they want a dictatorship, they clearly don't accept a government selected by the majority of the voters.

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

A very good article

Sent from my GT-I9152 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[HD 205]

A picture speaks a 1000 words. This is 2 weeks after the coup. Seems he is not saying democracy is lost here. He is not saying "respect my vote here" True yes?

And unlike me not dodging difficult questions like your friends, As for explaining my other points…I support the DEM's because the don't have a Deputy PM telling the voters they are garbage. They don't have a Deputy PM saying he would behead himself. No denying the public a hearing on policy hearings. Not once and I repeat NOT ONCE have the DEMS said to the south, the north and the centre that the voters are garbage. Not once and I repeat not once have the DEM's said to the north "We will not give you an international conference hall until you vote for us"

Thats why I support them. Because I support 15 principles of democracy while the PTP support one.

Simple.

Cheers.

Ok, I agree that there is no argument that could be made to say that Thaksin was against that coup.

While he wasn't in politics at the time, it still makes no difference to his probable views at the time.

As for your support for the democrats, will you be brutally honest with me/yourself and admit that they don't support the fundamental principal of democracy, which is the public vote?

I believe I've been honest enough to admit anything you have pointed out, would you not agree that the democrats don't feel they can get into power by the purest level of democracy?

Would you admit that the only way they can get into power is by ridding the opposition through non-elective means?

I appreciate your honesty in advance.

I wish you wouldn't have ignored this djjamie, it seems that you expect others to answer your questions and points while not bothering to answer what has been put back to you.

I say this because I've seen you've been posting since, so you must have seen the notification, read my reply and ignored it.

Dems support all the principles of democracy. Not just one. PTP support one principle of democracy so they can abuse the rest.

As another poster stated below regarding the abuses of power of the PTP and for that party to win another elections goes against all reasoning. The only regimes that continue to get into power after the abuses are countries that hide behind a guise of democracy like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cambodia Iraq etc etc.

Democracy is broken when it is run by a fugitive. Democracy is broken when voters, who are not exposed to the abuse of power and the corruption like the tax payer is will continue to vote for a party that does not even listen to them. Amnesty comes to mind. One poll said 81% didn't want it yet it passed through the lower house with a vote of 307_0.

Farmers are even protesting and the govt have the audacity to call them fake farmers. The govt made 4 promises that they will pay farmers and they break each one. When farmers protest the red shirts intimidate them and tell them to go home. That's not democracy.

Previous polls have suggested that 84% of farmers would have voted for the democrats had they offered a better rice scheme (funnily enough vote projection is the PTP would have gotten 16% of votes this time round). Every vote counts, but in a dictatorship where a narrow section of the community benefit from the govt.'s schemes, where it is easy to control and manipulate that narrow section then that is a dictatorship. Democracy has a wide potential base of support but offers weak incentives to its defenders. Dictatorship provides stronger incentives to a narrower base. As education raises the benefits of civic participation, it raises the support for more democratic regimes relative to dictatorships.

​As long as there are 3 or 4 provinces of that narrow supporter base that benefit from the PTP (which is debatable as 2.3 million of the poorest farmers are not even eligible to be in the rice scheme) then they control Thailand.

Reform is needed to ensure that no one has carte blanche on abuse of power and corruption by controlling that very narrow yet majority section of Thailand.

I didn't answer you earlier simply because you slipped through the cracks so apologies. It was not on purpose.

If it all the same to you. I am going to leave it at that.

Cheers.

-The have proven to lack leadership and have repeatedly mismanagement their own policies?

-They take orders from a fugitive living abroad?

-Provide a new passport for that same fugitive and refusing to answer for the action?

-They neglect their duties (as in not attending a single meeting of the Rice Committee, which she is chairperson of)?

-Being under investigation for corruption?

-Shown a complete lack of transparency in the use of public money?

-Trying to pass legislation to whitewash 10 years worth of prosecutions against corruption?

-Place cronies in their cabinets that are unfit for the position from either a professional or ethical point of view?

-Ignored rulings from the courts?

You're going to leave it at that by avoiding straight up answering the questions I asked you?

I thought the respect in answering straight forward questions in a straight forward manner was a two way street but I guess not, I guess I was the only one who played that game.

Dissapointing, to say the least.

[HD 205]

You put the Democrats on a high pedestal. Not everyone agrees. From the Banyon column of the January 11, 2014 edition of "The Economist" new magazine:

"Thailand could also do with a new constitution. The current one no longer works. The political system has broken and no one can see the way to devise a new one. The main opposition group, the Democrat Party, should contemplate a name change: to the “anti-Democrats”, perhaps, or the catchier “Born to Rule!”. It is boycotting next month’s election not because it would be unfair (though it might be), but because it would lose. It has not won a general election for more than two decades. Its supporters in the south are outnumbered by those in the north and north-east of the country, who keep on voting in proxies for Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former prime minister. The forces that the Born to Rules represent, including much of Thailand’s traditional elite, find this impossible to accept. They are openly campaigning for what amounts to dictatorship, though they do not call it that. Democracy has not worked for the Democrats."

I like that, the Democrats renamed to "Born to Rule!" That does seem to be their attitude. While they would never admit they want a dictatorship, they clearly don't accept a government selected by the majority of the voters.

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

Your information is also incorrect 52% is the majority and they voted against Thaksin.

When will people stop trying to rewrite history? Or learn a little bit about Mathematics?

"The Economist" has run more than its usual number of columns on Thailand in the last couple of months, some of them resulting in the magazine not being distributed in Thailand. They have a lot of well informed criticism for all the players in this farce, but they come down not on the side of the Democrats, but for democracy. So do I.

How do you know what side they come down on if some of the magazines are not distributed in Thailand. I may be wrong but some how I feel that those issues do not make the PTP out to be all stars and make the Democrats look like carpetbaggers.

Math Facts was never a strong point of the PTP supporters

Or, as you should already know, "52% voted against Thaksin" is neither mathematically or factually correct, people vote for parties not against parties.

There are more than two parties and a vote that isn't for PTP does not automatically mean a vote against Thaksin, it can also, shockingly, be for a party that the individual supports.

The democrats got 35%, that leaves over 16% (when you include the point percentages).

So before slating other peoples maths and facts, maybe have a think about it yourselves first.

[HD 205]

That or a troll certainly no one familiar with the situation. Maybe a Chalerm supporter.

Why not attack what the poster says, instead of attacking the poster?

What do you think is factually incorrect about what he has said, obviously without being pedantic enough to point out his intentional 5trillion % exaggeration?

People who have nothing to say besides insulting the poster in a reply add nothing to a debate, maybe because they know they cannot debate what has been said.

Just giving options to

"A new Thaksin cyber warrior"

Besides do you not feel a little insulted with nonsense posts like his?

I know it is of track a little but but does it not bother you a little bit to watch what is going down and listen to people say an election will solve it. Makes no difference who wins do you honestly feel things should remain the same. I don't. I honestly believe reform in the Thai Government is needed and it is not going to happen as the result of an election. Any reform after an election would only be made to insure the party maintains their grip on power.

What's nonsense about - "All the democrats had to do was to win this election, but they did not participate"?

What's nonsense about - "election is a way to vote an unwanted government out of office"?

What's nonsense about the poster pointing out that the dems haven't won a public election for decades?

What's nonsense about pointing out that coups and unelected councils are the only answers that the dems/yellow movement can seemingly come up with to get power?

None of that is nonsense, it is the reality that we see in front of our eyes.

[Baerboxer]

NIDA, who is pro Democrat, can even only just barely get a 50%.

NIDA is biased?

Proof please..... and don't say 'everyone knows' because I don't know that and have never read anything to support this.

If everyone knows this then there should be plenty of proof.

Also, 56.6% is closer to 60 than it is to 50 so why would you qualify that as 'barely 50%??

Me thinks this is yet another red corruption supporter telling bare faced lies like we get from Pipkins all the time, because they have very little or nothing to support their agenda.

If he was to talk about the election he would call the 48% the PTP got a landslide and the 52% that didn't want them immaterial.

Why is it trolls can't put up reasonable posts?

Maybe I am wrong but if most government workers are red shirts and they don't want her that would say some thing.

On the other hand I don't believe that a lot of them are red shirts they are from all different parties as far as their loyalty goes. But they are a lot closer to the inner workings so it would do well to listen to them.

On the other hand I always have suspicions about Thai poll's but this time it was not a general poll it was a poll from a specific section of society.

Just trying to be non biased.

You say you always have suspicions about Thai poll's yet defend this particular one in the same line.

48% of the vote compared to 35% in a system with two main parties is a landslide victory, the only people who don't call it a landslide are those who support the democruds.

Nearly every article you read from anywhere in the world calls it a landslide victory.

Stop trying to be non biased, it doesn't work. be yourself.

Speaks volumes for the standard of journalism these days. Most probably don't know 48% isn't a majority and far far a landslide. Or quite happy to quote the old PR bullshit and look supportive. Don't rock the boat for truth eh?

If you really think 48% of a 75% turnout is a landslide then good luck to you.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Indeed, It was such a substantial landside that they had to bring virtually all of the minor parties on board to form a government.

A true landslide would mean that they have more MP's than all of the other party's together (and some more)!!!

OK, HD 205 why did they form a coalition government with a landslide victory? answer me that!!.

[heybruce]

"Landslide" is a subjective term, open to interpretation and abuse. Does anyone deny that PTP received significantly more votes that the nearest party in the last two elections? Does anyone deny that the Democrats haven't come close to winning an election?

[SICHONSTEVE]

"Landslide" is a subjective term, open to interpretation and abuse. Does anyone deny that PTP received significantly more votes that the nearest party in the last two elections? Does anyone deny that the Democrats haven't come close to winning an election?

From Wikipedia:

Landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but obliterating the opponents.

I hardly think that the Democrats were obliterated!!

Does anyone deny that Yingluck will be convicted by the courts of corruption and abuse and dereliction of duty??

Do you not also think that they might be a tad concerned that 300+ MP's (none of them Democrats) are going to have their political careers shortened for being naughty little boys and gals?

Things are certainly looking up for Suthep and the team!!

[3NUMBAS]

everyone else uses a ballot box but in LOS they use guns and thuggery and intimidation . this reflects on their nature of blow someone away if they upset you for some minor infraction ,say on the highway or in a bar etc . lawlessness and lack of order runs deep in their DNA

[heybruce]

"Landslide" is a subjective term, open to interpretation and abuse. Does anyone deny that PTP received significantly more votes that the nearest party in the last two elections? Does anyone deny that the Democrats haven't come close to winning an election?

From Wikipedia:

Landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but obliterating the opponents.

I hardly think that the Democrats were obliterated!!

Does anyone deny that Yingluck will be convicted by the courts of corruption and abuse and dereliction of duty??

Do you not also think that they might be a tad concerned that 300+ MP's (none of them Democrats) are going to have their political careers shortened for being naughty little boys and gals?

Things are certainly looking up for Suthep and the team!!

Not if the justice system starts working. How many crimes have been committed under his leadership, and charges filed against him?

[SICHONSTEVE]

"Landslide" is a subjective term, open to interpretation and abuse. Does anyone deny that PTP received significantly more votes that the nearest party in the last two elections? Does anyone deny that the Democrats haven't come close to winning an election?

From Wikipedia:

Landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but obliterating the opponents.

I hardly think that the Democrats were obliterated!!

Does anyone deny that Yingluck will be convicted by the courts of corruption and abuse and dereliction of duty??

Do you not also think that they might be a tad concerned that 300+ MP's (none of them Democrats) are going to have their political careers shortened for being naughty little boys and gals?

Things are certainly looking up for Suthep and the team!!

Not if the justice system starts working. How many crimes have been committed under his leadership, and charges filed against him?

....and how many have been thrown out already.......and how many won't stick (like the ridiculous murder charges).

[Fryslan boppe]

"NIDA Poll says 56.59% want Yingluck to resign"

What a shocking result?

Coming from NIDA, that "bastion of PAD-Dem sympathy", this poll result is truly astounding.

[Blackmirage2013]

Nida is about as accurate as the soothsayers that Thaksin and Pojawatchamacallit went to visit in Mynmar

[heybruce]

"Landslide" is a subjective term, open to interpretation and abuse. Does anyone deny that PTP received significantly more votes that the nearest party in the last two elections? Does anyone deny that the Democrats haven't come close to winning an election?

From Wikipedia:

Landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but obliterating the opponents.

I hardly think that the Democrats were obliterated!!

Does anyone deny that Yingluck will be convicted by the courts of corruption and abuse and dereliction of duty??

Do you not also think that they might be a tad concerned that 300+ MP's (none of them Democrats) are going to have their political careers shortened for being naughty little boys and gals?

Things are certainly looking up for Suthep and the team!!

Not if the justice system starts working. How many crimes have been committed under his leadership, and charges filed against him?

....and how many have been thrown out already.......and how many won't stick (like the ridiculous murder charges).

I believe there is video of his people blocking roads and occupying government buildings. I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

I don't know all the charges against Yingluck, but the main ones seem to be that she is incompetent (not good but not a crime) and she listens to her brother, also not a crime. I don't think those will stick.

Even if she is convicted of something, PT disbanded, and fresh elections called, the Democrats won't win the election. That's why their the anti-Democrats and don't want elections, they can't get elected.

[whybother]

I do believe it needs an overhaul, another example of parties being bought (even forced) into coalitions is when Abhisit came to power. That's genuinely not meant as a "one up" type comment, just pointing out something that I found disturbing and needs to be cut out as you say.

I 100% agree that there is more to a democratic government than just winning the highest vote but that comes first and foremost.

Do I think PTP have been democratic beyond getting into power? I'm not trying to be difficult but could you be more specific in what you mean.

Do you mean how they act in parliament when voting on bills?

Edit: For spelling

Winning the highest vote is irrelevant. Getting the majority of the seats is all that matters in forming government.

Having the majority of the vote is relevant when talking about the "mandate" that a party has for putting their main policies into action.

[casualbiker]

"Landslide" is a subjective term, open to interpretation and abuse. Does anyone deny that PTP received significantly more votes that the nearest party in the last two elections? Does anyone deny that the Democrats haven't come close to winning an election?

From Wikipedia:

Landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but obliterating the opponents.

I hardly think that the Democrats were obliterated!!

Does anyone deny that Yingluck will be convicted by the courts of corruption and abuse and dereliction of duty??

Do you not also think that they might be a tad concerned that 300+ MP's (none of them Democrats) are going to have their political careers shortened for being naughty little boys and gals?

Things are certainly looking up for Suthep and the team!!

Not if the justice system starts working. How many crimes have been committed under his leadership, and charges filed against him?

....and how many have been thrown out already.......and how many won't stick (like the ridiculous murder charges).

I believe there is video of his people blocking roads and occupying government buildings. I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

I don't know all the charges against Yingluck, but the main ones seem to be that she is incompetent (not good but not a crime) and she listens to her brother, also not a crime. I don't think those will stick.

Even if she is convicted of something, PT disbanded, and fresh elections called, the Democrats won't win the election. That's why their the anti-Democrats and don't want elections, they can't get elected.

I'm pretty sure there's a video of the UDD leadership telling people to burn down Bangkok etc.... Thaksin made some of them MP's.

Having a convicted criminal helping run the county is illegal but Thaksin still does it..

I personally am all for a NEW election but I can also understand why some want reform before.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[heybruce]

I'm pretty sure there's a video of the UDD leadership telling people to burn down Bangkok etc.... Thaksin made some of them MP's.

Having a convicted criminal helping run the county is illegal but Thaksin still does it..

I personally am all for a NEW election but I can also understand why some want reform before.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Reality check: Yingluck is Prime Minister. Talking to her brother and taking his advice is not illegal. Don't confuse rhetoric with the law.

[SICHONSTEVE]

I'm pretty sure there's a video of the UDD leadership telling people to burn down Bangkok etc.... Thaksin made some of them MP's.

Having a convicted criminal helping run the county is illegal but Thaksin still does it..

I personally am all for a NEW election but I can also understand why some want reform before.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Reality check: Yingluck is Prime Minister. Talking to her brother and taking his advice is not illegal. Don't confuse rhetoric with the law.

The way I see it is that Thaksin has been demoted to caretaker prime minister and Yingluck is still trying to discover herself!!

[dwcrist]

LoL! This is hilarious. You can't gain much of anything from this study one way or the other. Only 1,251 people from a very select group. That sample size is only 0.0018% of Thailand's population.

I want to see a survey conducted with over 50,000 respondents spread evenly over at least 50 different occupations ranging from rice farmers, construction workers, market vendors, school teachers, business employees/owners, etc...

Actually lets save the effort and just have a vote... Oh... Wait....

[casualbiker]

I'm pretty sure there's a video of the UDD leadership telling people to burn down Bangkok etc.... Thaksin made some of them MP's.

Having a convicted criminal helping run the county is illegal but Thaksin still does it..

I personally am all for a NEW election but I can also understand why some want reform before.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Reality check: Yingluck is Prime Minister. Talking to her brother and taking his advice is not illegal. Don't confuse rhetoric with the law.

You have forgotten all the talk from Thaksin. She is my clone. I'm her caddy etc etc.

Also not withstanding Thaksin is the "owner" of Phua Thai.

All done while banned from politics. Don't confuse reality with PTP bullshite.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[heybruce]

I'm pretty sure there's a video of the UDD leadership telling people to burn down Bangkok etc.... Thaksin made some of them MP's.

Having a convicted criminal helping run the county is illegal but Thaksin still does it..

I personally am all for a NEW election but I can also understand why some want reform before.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Reality check: Yingluck is Prime Minister. Talking to her brother and taking his advice is not illegal. Don't confuse rhetoric with the law.

You have forgotten all the talk from Thaksin. She is my clone. I'm her caddy etc etc.

Also not withstanding Thaksin is the "owner" of Phua Thai.

All done while banned from politics. Don't confuse reality with PTP bullshite.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Thaksin can say anything he wants to, Yingluck can't be charged with a crime because of it.

Thaksin is a significant influence in PT, but again that's not a crime committed by Yingluck.

Thaksin's ban from politics precludes him from holding office. I don't think it forbids him from private communications or public statements. If it does it is an unenforceable law and one clearly contrary to the principle of free speech.

As I wrote before, don't confuse rhetoric with the law.