NIDA Poll says 56.59% want Yingluck to resign

[AleG]

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.

How about aiding a convicted fugitive by providing him a new passport and pressuring other governments to grant him visas, how does that rank in your legality scale?

[ponchi]

i think in bangkok is about 100% of the people want yingluck resign.

we want a new prime minister who is fair to the people and dont take the money.

we have to stop let the people in isaan vote for the prime minister because many people are not educate enough to decide who is good to lead the country.

they do not understand what is need.

i think with the reform we can change how thailand vote the new prime minister and then somebody from democrat can win.

[paz]

Hi ponchi, please explain here too why the farang has to pay for gov.t rice, and why all the bad things in Thailand are because of the farang.

You have said that in another place, but not here, so please let the farang know what do you think.

[mrtoad]

i think in bangkok is about 100% of the people want yingluck resign.

we want a new prime minister who is fair to the people and dont take the money.

we have to stop let the people in isaan vote for the prime minister because many people are not educate enough to decide who is good to lead the country.

they do not understand what is need.

i think with the reform we can change how thailand vote the new prime minister and then somebody from democrat can win.

You aren't doing yourself any favours, with your posts. From Racism to Elitist fool.

I think there are plenty of people in Isaan that are educated and not supporting PTP.

Proper law enforcement and zero tolerance on corrupt politicians and their proxies is what is needed.

[AleG]

i think in bangkok is about 100% of the people want yingluck resign.

we want a new prime minister who is fair to the people and dont take the money.

we have to stop let the people in isaan vote for the prime minister because many people are not educate enough to decide who is good to lead the country.

they do not understand what is need.

i think with the reform we can change how thailand vote the new prime minister and then somebody from democrat can win.

You aren't doing yourself any favours, with your posts. From Racism to Elitist fool.

I think there are plenty of people in Isaan that are educated and not supporting PTP.

Proper law enforcement and zero tolerance on corrupt politicians and their proxies is what is needed.

I very much suspect "ponchi" is not what he/she pretends to be or espouse.

[heybruce]

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.

How about aiding a convicted fugitive by providing him a new passport and pressuring other governments to grant him visas, how does that rank in your legality scale?

Are these among the charges against her? If not, that should tell you something.

[JRSoul]

Are these among the charges against her? If not, that should tell you something.

She's not charged with perjury either, though it was evident that she committed it. Why is that/ That should tell you something.

BTW the charge pending is negligence and that IS a crime, as is illegally issuing a passport, allowing Thaksin access to cabinet meetings, and abuse of position.

[heybruce]

Are these among the charges against her? If not, that should tell you something.

She's not charged with perjury either, though it was evident that she committed it. Why is that/ That should tell you something.

BTW the charge pending is negligence and that IS a crime, as is illegally issuing a passport, allowing Thaksin access to cabinet meetings, and abuse of position.

Ok, so there are crimes being committed on both sides. Let's hope Yingluck, Suthep, and all the other miscreants are brought to justice soon.

[casualbiker]

Are these among the charges against her? If not, that should tell you something.

She's not charged with perjury either, though it was evident that she committed it. Why is that/ That should tell you something.

BTW the charge pending is negligence and that IS a crime, as is illegally issuing a passport, allowing Thaksin access to cabinet meetings, and abuse of position.

Ok, so there are crimes being committed on both sides. Let's hope Yingluck, Suthep, and all the other miscreants are brought to justice soon.

That would be good! New blood.

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[AleG]

How about aiding a convicted fugitive by providing him a new passport and pressuring other governments to grant him visas, how does that rank in your legality scale?

Are these among the charges against her? If not, that should tell you something.

That you refuse to answer the question tells me a lot.

Same as Thaksin's sister and Thaksin's cousin refusing to ansewer the summons from the ombudsman over issuing a passport to a convicted fugitive, who happens to be Thaksin, tells a lot.

Edited February 18, 2014 by AleG

[larsjohnsson]

i think in bangkok is about 100% of the people want yingluck resign.

we want a new prime minister who is fair to the people and dont take the money.

we have to stop let the people in isaan vote for the prime minister because many people are not educate enough to decide who is good to lead the country.

they do not understand what is need.

i think with the reform we can change how thailand vote the new prime minister and then somebody from democrat can win.

This have to be the most stupid post ever.

"Have to stop people from Isaan voting!!!! Because they have to little education.

You are such an moron!! With people like you, the reform will make Thailand go back 50 years. And make this country poor

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

Edited February 18, 2014 by larsjohnsson

[heybruce]

How about aiding a convicted fugitive by providing him a new passport and pressuring other governments to grant him visas, how does that rank in your legality scale?

Are these among the charges against her? If not, that should tell you something.

That you refuse to answer the question tells me a lot.

Same as Thaksin's sister and Thaksin's cousin refusing to ansewer the summons from the ombudsman over issuing a passport to a convicted fugitive, who happens to be Thaksin, tells a lot.

That you throw out general accusations and hope some will stick tells me a lot.

What aid did Yingluck provide Thaksin and what laws did this aid break? How much help does a man with billions in overseas banks need? What pressure did she apply, or could she apply, on other governments? Have you considered the possibility that many governments considered the coup illegal and are sympathetic to a fugitive from the victor's justice that followed the coup?

[heybruce]

i think in bangkok is about 100% of the people want yingluck resign.

we want a new prime minister who is fair to the people and dont take the money.

we have to stop let the people in isaan vote for the prime minister because many people are not educate enough to decide who is good to lead the country.

they do not understand what is need.

i think with the reform we can change how thailand vote the new prime minister and then somebody from democrat can win.

This have to be the most stupid post ever.

"Have to stop people from Isaan voting!!!! Because they have to little education.

You are such an moron!! With people like you, the reform will make Thailand go back 50 years. And make this country poor

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

I haven't figured out if ponchi is a "buffalo", a term Democrats often use to describe Isaan people, in the Democrats camp, or an agent provocateur pretending to be a Democrat. In the first case it\s a sad commentary on the Democrats, in the second it reflects poorly on their opposition. Either way I don't respond to his posts.

[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!!

From the Cambridge on-line dictionary, both British and American English: landslide (election victory) - the winning of an election with an extremely large number of votes.

From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory.

An large majority of the votes for one side in a multiparty system is rare, but few would deny that Yingluck won an overwhelming victory. I assume that is why Abhisit took responsibility for his party's loss and resigned.

I think this is what you are referring to with your "naughty lille boys and gals" comment: From the Jan 15, 2014 on-line edition of the "Economist": "The anti-corruption commission is pressing charges against 308 former MPs and senators, most of them from the Pheu Thai party, for voting to make the upper house fully elected (a court had ruled in November that such a change would be unconstitutional)."

In most democratic constitution based governments it is not illegal for the elected representatives to try to change the constitution. Many of these MPs and senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected. I don't know if what they did will be ruled illegal and warrant barring them from politics, but if that is the court's ruling it is another example of something seriously wrong with the current system. And I don't think "naughty little boys and girls" is an accurate description of elected representatives attempting to fulfill campaign promises.

[AleG]

That you refuse to answer the question tells me a lot.

Same as Thaksin's sister and Thaksin's cousin refusing to ansewer the summons from the ombudsman over issuing a passport to a convicted fugitive, who happens to be Thaksin, tells a lot.

That you throw out general accusations and hope some will stick tells me a lot.

What aid did Yingluck provide Thaksin and what laws did this aid break? How much help does a man with billions in overseas banks need? What pressure did she apply, or could she apply, on other governments? Have you considered the possibility that many governments considered the coup illegal and are sympathetic to a fugitive from the victor's justice that followed the coup?

Let's keep it simple, shall we?

Did "Yingluck's" government give a passport to her brother, convicted fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra: YES or NO?

Answer: Yes

the government indicated it planned to return Mr Thaksin's passport as "a New Year gift".

The Foreign Ministry spokesman told the BBC the new passport was issued in Abu Dhabi in October but did not confirm whether it had been used yet.

The quoted text is a link to a news articles, also known as a citation in support of a fact which is something very, very different from "throw out general accusations and hope some will stick tells me a lot."

Did "Yingluck's government interceded in Thaksin's, a convicted fugitive under Thailand's laws, name so that the Japanese government would grant him a visa, YES or NO?

Answer: yes

Japan on Monday said it had issued a visa to former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, following a personal request made by Thailand's new government to grant him special entry to Japan, senior Japanese official said.

So are you now going to answer the question yes or no?

How about aiding a convicted fugitive by providing him a new passport and pressuring other governments to grant him visas, how does that rank in your legality scale?

[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!!

From the Cambridge on-line dictionary, both British and American English: landslide (election victory) - the winning of an election with an extremely large number of votes.

From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory.

An large majority of the votes for one side in a multiparty system is rare, but few would deny that Yingluck won an overwhelming victory. I assume that is why Abhisit took responsibility for his party's loss and resigned.

I think this is what you are referring to with your "naughty lille boys and gals" comment: From the Jan 15, 2014 on-line edition of the "Economist": "The anti-corruption commission is pressing charges against 308 former MPs and senators, most of them from the Pheu Thai party, for voting to make the upper house fully elected (a court had ruled in November that such a change would be unconstitutional)."

In most democratic constitution based governments it is not illegal for the elected representatives to try to change the constitution. Many of these MPs and senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected. I don't know if what they did will be ruled illegal and warrant barring them from politics, but if that is the court's ruling it is another example of something seriously wrong with the current system. And I don't think "naughty little boys and girls" is an accurate description of elected representatives attempting to fulfill campaign promises.

So you agree now that it certainly wasn't a landside victory.

It doesn't matter what they have in their election mandate - if I was a politician then I could state that all Arsenal supporters should be jailed and people will proceed to vote according to what the partaking political parties manifesto's promises are.

If we got elected and then arrested anyone who supported Arsenal we couldn't say "what's the problem it was in our manifesto", could we.

What they are guilty of is attempting to remove the checks and balances put in place in the constitution to police parliament - clearly a case of attempting to modify the constitution by the back door!!! I'm afraid that this is not allowed and those who voted for it on each of the three readings of the bill will get their comeuppance in the form of 5 year bans. Yingluck is not party to this but she is guilty of nearly everything else from the rice scam to the 2 trillion baht corruption scheme and things are looking extremely dire for her!!!

[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!!

From the Cambridge on-line dictionary, both British and American English: landslide (election victory) - the winning of an election with an extremely large number of votes.

From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory.

An large majority of the votes for one side in a multiparty system is rare, but few would deny that Yingluck won an overwhelming victory. I assume that is why Abhisit took responsibility for his party's loss and resigned.

I think this is what you are referring to with your "naughty lille boys and gals" comment: From the Jan 15, 2014 on-line edition of the "Economist": "The anti-corruption commission is pressing charges against 308 former MPs and senators, most of them from the Pheu Thai party, for voting to make the upper house fully elected (a court had ruled in November that such a change would be unconstitutional)."

In most democratic constitution based governments it is not illegal for the elected representatives to try to change the constitution. Many of these MPs and senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected. I don't know if what they did will be ruled illegal and warrant barring them from politics, but if that is the court's ruling it is another example of something seriously wrong with the current system. And I don't think "naughty little boys and girls" is an accurate description of elected representatives attempting to fulfill campaign promises.

So you agree now that it certainly wasn't a landside victory.

It doesn't matter what they have in their election mandate - if I was a politician then I could state that all Arsenal supporters should be jailed and people will proceed to vote according to what the partaking political parties manifesto's promises are.

If we got elected and then arrested anyone who supported Arsenal we couldn't say "what's the problem it was in our manifesto", could we.

What they are guilty of is attempting to remove the checks and balances put in place in the constitution to police parliament - clearly a case of attempting to modify the constitution by the back door!!! I'm afraid that this is not allowed and those who voted for it on each of the three readings of the bill will get their comeuppance in the form of 5 year bans. Yingluck is not party to this but she is guilty of nearly everything else from the rice scam to the 2 trillion baht corruption scheme and things are looking extremely dire for her!!!

No, I think the description of landslide victory is in keeping with the Webster and Cambridge definitions, not that it's important.

I'm not sure what your Arsenal analogy is about.

The current constitution was written by a military installed government with the intent to create a weak, ineffective democratic government, then approve in a vote in which the choices were a flawed constitution or military rule. Many PMs and senators campaigned on the promise to change the constitution to strengthen democracy, and tried to fulfill that promise. The fact that half the senators are appointed and don't want to lose their appointed positions made that very difficult. The elected senators tried to get around the problem with scheduling tricks common in other parliaments and congresses. In other parliaments and congresses they would be criticized and perhaps have their wrists slapped, but they would not be banned from politics for five years. But then other parliaments and congresses are not working with a constitution written by a military junta.

BTW, the current constitution is running out of supporters. I recall an interview, I think it was in December, in which Suthep said the constitution needs to be reformed, ironically at about the same time he said Yingluck should step down for disrespecting the constitution. Presumably he wanted reforms that would eliminate the risk of majority rule in Thailand. How do you think the constitution should be reformed? Let me guess--"peoples counsels", carefully screened to include the traditional elites and with few or no representatives from the north or northeast, right?

Edited February 18, 2014 by heybruce

[SICHONSTEVE]

It doesn't surprise me that the Arsenal analogy defeated your brain.

I will try again, in more simple terms to help you. What you put in your manifesto is irrelevant to the laws you attempt to legislate on. Using the "it was in the manifesto" argument does not hold water if you proceed to pass illegitimate laws based on what you promised.

As to the intention of the constitution reform then precisely the opposite to what you stated is true. It was meant to strengthen democracy and ensure that legislation is policed. let's use the police as an example - the top echelons has been hand picked by Thaksin in order to serve his wishes, stuffed with relatives and his old police academy buddies. On this, Thaksin, yes Thaksin, ordered his nephew-in-law to disperse the protesters. However, Pol Lt Gen Winai Thongsong disobeyed Thaksin (and Chalerm, on a similar matter) as he thought it might endanger his men. <deleted> is Thaksin doing ordering the police about any way!!!!! Go on, I dare you, tell me this is right. You see, once you start impositioning people into positions to serve you then it gives you control of that body. The government is another example - just how many Shinawatra family and in-laws are involved in that??

There were two things actually to the senate issue. Not only did he want to control it so he could pass into law anything he so wished (without any checks and balances) he wanted to make the terms indefinite so it would continue to perpetuity. How very democratic is that???

I think you should update your thinking and take on this as it is flawed and wrong.

[heybruce]

It doesn't surprise me that the Arsenal analogy defeated your brain.

I will try again, in more simple terms to help you. What you put in your manifesto is irrelevant to the laws you attempt to legislate on. Using the "it was in the manifesto" argument does not hold water if you proceed to pass illegitimate laws based on what you promised.

As to the intention of the constitution reform then precisely the opposite to what you stated is true. It was meant to strengthen democracy and ensure that legislation is policed. let's use the police as an example - the top echelons has been hand picked by Thaksin in order to serve his wishes, stuffed with relatives and his old police academy buddies. On this, Thaksin, yes Thaksin, ordered his nephew-in-law to disperse the protesters. However, Pol Lt Gen Winai Thongsong disobeyed Thaksin (and Chalerm, on a similar matter) as he thought it might endanger his men. <deleted> is Thaksin doing ordering the police about any way!!!!! Go on, I dare you, tell me this is right. You see, once you start impositioning people into positions to serve you then it gives you control of that body. The government is another example - just how many Shinawatra family and in-laws are involved in that??

There were two things actually to the senate issue. Not only did he want to control it so he could pass into law anything he so wished (without any checks and balances) he wanted to make the terms indefinite so it would continue to perpetuity. How very democratic is that???

I think you should update your thinking and take on this as it is flawed and wrong.

Your Arsenal analogy isn't about elected representatives voting to change a constitution, it's about illegally arresting people. That isn't the same thing, is it? Does the fact that this isn't the same thing defeat your brain? Or perhaps what defeats your brain is that an campaign promise to reform an undemocratic constitution "approved" in a sham election is not the same as a ridiculous promise to arrest football supporters. I was initially confused because the analogy is so totally absurd.

Regarding "As to the intention of the constitution reform then precisely the opposite to what you stated is true. It was meant to strengthen democracy and ensure that legislation is policed." That's obviously nonsense. Once again relying on "The Economist", from April 23, 2007:

"Built-in weakness

In May a constitutional tribunal created by the junta found the TRT guilty of electoral fraud and dissolved it. But the charter-drafters wanted to make it harder for any other dominant majority party to emerge in future. For that reason, the new constitution tweaks the voting system in favour of smaller parties. This is ironic: the whole point of Thailand's last democratic constitution, passed in 1997, was to free the country from the cycle of weak and unstable coalitions and frequent coups. The danger is now that the charter will succeed too well and Thailand will be back to weak governments.

This would suit the military-royalist elite. They could go back to running the country from behind the scenes."

and:

"Public criticism forced the army to drop some egregiously undemocratic clauses, such as the provision for a “national crisis council”, including army officers, to take charge in any future political conflict. However, some dubious bits remain: almost half of the Senate will be appointed by a panel of judges and bureaucrats; and the coupmakers themselves are granted a blanket amnesty."

You also ignored the fact that this is a constitution written by a military junta, forced on the people in a take it or live under military rule vote, and that clearly needs to be reformed. If elected representatives can't change it, and risk their political careers if they try, who can?

Edited February 18, 2014 by heybruce

[heybruce]

Let's keep it simple, shall we?

Did "Yingluck's" government give a passport to her brother, convicted fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra: YES or NO?

Answer: Yes

the government indicated it planned to return Mr Thaksin's passport as "a New Year gift".

The Foreign Ministry spokesman told the BBC the new passport was issued in Abu Dhabi in October but did not confirm whether it had been used yet.

The quoted text is a link to a news articles, also known as a citation in support of a fact which is something very, very different from "throw out general accusations and hope some will stick tells me a lot."

Did "Yingluck's government interceded in Thaksin's, a convicted fugitive under Thailand's laws, name so that the Japanese government would grant him a visa, YES or NO?

Answer: yes

Japan on Monday said it had issued a visa to former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, following a personal request made by Thailand's new government to grant him special entry to Japan, senior Japanese official said.

So are you now going to answer the question yes or no?

How about aiding a convicted fugitive by providing him a new passport and pressuring other governments to grant him visas, how does that rank in your legality scale?

It isn't a yes or no question, but issuing a passport to a man on the run from victor's justice following a military coup, and a request to Japan, a much richer and more influential country than Thailand, for a visa aren't the worst crimes being committed in Thailand. I just heard on the news that one of Suthep's minions threw a grenade that injured four policemen, blowing off one the policeman's leg. That is a serious crime on my scale of justice.

However if Yingluck has broken the law I will be happy to see justice pursued, so long as it is pursued with equal vigor against Suthep and all others breaking the law.

[whybother]

From the Cambridge on-line dictionary, both British and American English: landslide (election victory) - the winning of an election with an extremely large number of votes.

From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory.

An large majority of the votes for one side in a multiparty system is rare, but few would deny that Yingluck won an overwhelming victory. I assume that is why Abhisit took responsibility for his party's loss and resigned.

I think this is what you are referring to with your "naughty lille boys and gals" comment: From the Jan 15, 2014 on-line edition of the "Economist": "The anti-corruption commission is pressing charges against 308 former MPs and senators, most of them from the Pheu Thai party, for voting to make the upper house fully elected (a court had ruled in November that such a change would be unconstitutional)."

In most democratic constitution based governments it is not illegal for the elected representatives to try to change the constitution. Many of these MPs and senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected. I don't know if what they did will be ruled illegal and warrant barring them from politics, but if that is the court's ruling it is another example of something seriously wrong with the current system. And I don't think "naughty little boys and girls" is an accurate description of elected representatives attempting to fulfill campaign promises.

"From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory."

Given that they didn't even get a majority of the votes, let alone "a great majority", that would indicate that it wasn't a landslide.

[heybruce]

From the Cambridge on-line dictionary, both British and American English: landslide (election victory) - the winning of an election with an extremely large number of votes.

From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory.

An large majority of the votes for one side in a multiparty system is rare, but few would deny that Yingluck won an overwhelming victory. I assume that is why Abhisit took responsibility for his party's loss and resigned.

I think this is what you are referring to with your "naughty lille boys and gals" comment: From the Jan 15, 2014 on-line edition of the "Economist": "The anti-corruption commission is pressing charges against 308 former MPs and senators, most of them from the Pheu Thai party, for voting to make the upper house fully elected (a court had ruled in November that such a change would be unconstitutional)."

In most democratic constitution based governments it is not illegal for the elected representatives to try to change the constitution. Many of these MPs and senators campaigned with the promise to make the Senate fully elected. I don't know if what they did will be ruled illegal and warrant barring them from politics, but if that is the court's ruling it is another example of something seriously wrong with the current system. And I don't think "naughty little boys and girls" is an accurate description of elected representatives attempting to fulfill campaign promises.

"From the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: landslide- 2.a: a great majority of votes for one side b: an overwhelming victory."

Given that they didn't even get a majority of the votes, let alone "a great majority", that would indicate that it wasn't a landslide.

But it was an overwhelming victory--with 265 seats they had a majority without the need for a coalition. My original statement was:

'"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?'

The fact that the differing definitions leave room for interpretation validates the statement. You don't have to call it the victory a landslide, but others can call it a landslide and have dictionary definitions on their side. Feel free to reply, but I'm going to let this ridiculously minor point rest.

[HD 205]

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.

Most understand that 48% isn't a majority but more prefer to get caught up in wordplay.

48% vs 35% in what's basically a two party system, is a landslide victory (which is a broad term) over the democrats.

Why do most non-biased, non Thai media articles state it as so? please answer me that.

[HD 205]

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.

Winning the highest vote is certainly not 'irrelevant' when it's by a margin of 48% compared to the next highest contender for an opposition party getting 35%.

You think the democrats could have ever in reality gotten the other 16(+)% to side with them, rather than the PTP getting the few percentages that they needed? No.

So winning the highest vote in this particular case is very much relevant, it's the very reason PTP got into power.