Yingluck stresses she will stay to the last minute

[Goat Roper]

I wonder how she will determine exactly when the 'last minute' is? Anybody know?

Perhaps when the election is completed, the results are declared and show that she no longer commands a majority.

Mind you if she does command a majority that last minute may be four years away!

That's unlikely I'll grant, as if the election results are anywhere close to her winning they will never be declared.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I just cannot get it into my head she will ever be able to be PM again, seems to me she is too far gone to ever return. Too much of who she is has been exposed. I wonder if she going to CM/CR because of the outside chance a bench warrant for her arrest could be issued? The Thai way is to give her a chance to run but due to the possible charges against her she/her brother might be afraid of this happening. Where else has a sitting/care taker PM ever ran like she has and is afraid to meet her constituents in person? Any thoughts or am I way out there?

[soalbundy]

I wonder how she will determine exactly when the 'last minute' is? Anybody know?

Perhaps when the election is completed, the results are declared and show that she no longer commands a majority.

Mind you if she does command a majority that last minute may be four years away!

That's unlikely I'll grant, as if the election results are anywhere close to her winning they will never be declared.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I just cannot get it into my head she will ever be able to be PM again, seems to me she is too far gone to ever return. Too much of who she is has been exposed. I wonder if she going to CM/CR because of the outside chance a bench warrant for her arrest could be issued? The Thai way is to give her a chance to run but due to the possible charges against her she/her brother might be afraid of this happening. Where else has a sitting/care taker PM ever ran like she has and is afraid to meet her constituents in person? Any thoughts or am I way out there?

like sister like brother.....no shame. Thaksin will go with a bang,she will go with a wimper

[HD 205]

What?

You do understand the simplicity of the fact that a vote not for PTP does not equal a vote against them, don't you? People vote for, not against.

Care to show me any article that reported that 52% of the voters decided that they particularly didn't want her, rather than how they just voted for different parties? I mean I know you wouldn't be foolishly suggesting that every other party in Thailand is anti-Yingluck/PTP. I'll even take the nation as a source btw.

I'll leave your second sentence for yourself to have a think about.

52% didn't vote for other parties, they didn't vote at all. And of those that did vote, a considerable portion chose 'no' , while others defaced their ballot.

PTP have estimated their vote as ~10 million, others put it as low as 7 million. IMHO neither figure is sufficient to claim a mandate to govern.

52% didn't vote for other parties, they didn't vote at all.

You are talking about 2011 as per the conversation right? Because if you are, I really don't understand that sentence. 52% didn't vote at all?

75% of the population voted, so your numbers can't possibly add up.

PTP got 48% of the vote (nearly 16 million people), their closest rivals got 35%.

How is that possibly not a sufficient mandate?

Anyway, this conversation started because hellodolly said that 52% voted against Yingluck, do you agree that in a multi-party system, that's how democracy works?

Do you look at it that 65% of the voting public voted against the democrats?

Why don't we see it reported on the news as X% of people voted against X party during election results, rather than the other way around?

You don't have to oppose one party in order for you to vote for a different party, so the argument of 52% voted against Yingluck is invalid and just straight up incorrect.

Edited February 26, 2014 by HD 205

[HooHaa]

good to see that the current thai pm has resorted to facebook to make public statements while in hiding.

the founders of facebook never saw this coming.

[HD 205]

The problem in the current situation is that the government is being managed by a wanted criminal who is on the run and barred from running anything. Some students maintain the pretense that they study but the result of their output always somehow comes out second rate. Cheerleading for the Shinawatras might be seen as a career that beckons in recompense. Now back to Thaksin's musings on Facebook......

And what do you think of democracy by the people?

Silly (and evasive) question. Listen up. He said, "Cheerleading" (what you glibly - and mistakenly - refer to as "democracy") by the Shinawatres, NOT by the people... If there had been any "democracy by the people", rather than thaksinocracy by the fugitive, Thailand wouldn't BE in the mess it's in!

Evasive? What had his post got to do with mine? nothing, he made no argument or effort to debate what I said. What exactly was I evading?

What I refer to as democracy by the people, I mean as democracy by the vote of the people, easy to get really.

Unfortunately I cannot help that your hatred of Thaksin fogs up a clear question, I'd love to hear your definition of democracy by the people though.

[HD 205]

Go on Yingluck, don't give into this elitist scum.

Fight the good fight!

Run out of things to say??

Either you are repeating yourself or restating somebody else's post!!

A bit of parody actually, nothing more.

Kinda like the opposite of the "Thaksin = hitler" type posts you see on here.

[JRSoul]

What?

You do understand the simplicity of the fact that a vote not for PTP does not equal a vote against them, don't you? People vote for, not against.

Care to show me any article that reported that 52% of the voters decided that they particularly didn't want her, rather than how they just voted for different parties? I mean I know you wouldn't be foolishly suggesting that every other party in Thailand is anti-Yingluck/PTP. I'll even take the nation as a source btw.

I'll leave your second sentence for yourself to have a think about.

52% didn't vote for other parties, they didn't vote at all. And of those that did vote, a considerable portion chose 'no' , while others defaced their ballot.

PTP have estimated their vote as ~10 million, others put it as low as 7 million. IMHO neither figure is sufficient to claim a mandate to govern.

52% didn't vote for other parties, they didn't vote at all.

You are talking about 2011 as per the conversation right? Because if you are, I really don't understand that sentence. 52% didn't vote at all?

75% of the population voted, so your numbers can't possibly add up.

PTP got 48% of the vote (nearly 16 million people), their closest rivals got 35%.

How is that possibly not a sufficient mandate?

Anyway, this conversation started because hellodolly said that 52% voted against Yingluck, do you agree that in a multi-party system, that's how democracy works?

Do you look at it that 65% of the voting public voted against the democrats?

Why don't we see it reported on the news as X% of people voted against X party during election results, rather than the other way around?

You don't have to oppose one party in order for you to vote for a different party, so the argument of 52% voted against Yingluck is invalid and just straight up incorrect.

It is so difficult to recognise that the figures quoted come from the current election? Is there some reason you wish to avoid that?

[Bkkbound]

It seems she did stay till the last minute before fleeing to Chang rai,

Curently:

An extra 117 military checkpoints will be set up to cover risk spots around anti-government rally sites and other key areas in Bangkok in the wake of escalating protest-related violence.

Maj Gen Wara Boonyasit, commander of the 1st Division, King's Guard, announced the plan on Wednesday during a meeting with senior military officers.

The meeting was called to discuss adjusting security measures after unidentified gunmen carried out a series of late-night gun and grenade attacks on People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) protest sites in Lumpini, Ratchaprasong and Pathumwan on Monday and Tuesday.

The gunmen also exchanged gunfire with soldiers deployed to provide security around PDRC rallies.

The extra 117 military security and surveillance checkpoints, in addition to the existing 29, will be set up around every rally site, parts of the city deemed vulnerable to violent attacks and crowded areas, Maj Gen Wara said.

He said soldiers will perform their duties to provide safety for all sides — the authorities, the general public and the protesters.

Routes for military patrols would be adjusted to suit each area and the frequency of patrols would be increased in an attempt to prevent and suppress violence as much as possible, he added.

[Bkkbound]

Note no reference to the Gov "He said soldiers will perform their duties to provide safety for all sides — the authorities, the general public and the protesters."

[ponchi]

why yingluck ??

she not understand ..

we want all the shinawatra family OUT from thailand.

we want to make the reform so this family never again win the election.

cannot because we dont like your family. so bad !!

why you not understand yingluck ??

so stupid girl.

[hawker9000]

The problem in the current situation is that the government is being managed by a wanted criminal who is on the run and barred from running anything. Some students maintain the pretense that they study but the result of their output always somehow comes out second rate. Cheerleading for the Shinawatras might be seen as a career that beckons in recompense. Now back to Thaksin's musings on Facebook......

And what do you think of democracy by the people?

Silly (and evasive) question. Listen up. He said, "Cheerleading" (what you glibly - and mistakenly - refer to as "democracy") by the Shinawatres, NOT by the people... If there had been any "democracy by the people", rather than thaksinocracy by the fugitive, Thailand wouldn't BE in the mess it's in!

Evasive? What had his post got to do with mine? nothing, he made no argument or effort to debate what I said. What exactly was I evading?

What I refer to as democracy by the people, I mean as democracy by the vote of the people, easy to get really.

Unfortunately I cannot help that your hatred of Thaksin fogs up a clear question, I'd love to hear your definition of democracy by the people though.

North Koreans vote. All of them - it's mandatory. It's a one-party system, but they vote. Is that democracy? Iranians as well. They can only vote for "approved candidates", but they vote. Is that democracy?

Simplistic and simple-minded definitions don't always suffice. Sometimes things are defined more clearly by describing what they're NOT. Proxy rule in Thailand by a fugitive criminal is NOT democracy. Rule beyond the limits of constitution and outside the law is also NOT democracy. Lastly, simple mob rule is NOT democracy. Minorities and opposition parties have rights, too. And populism is a perversion of democracy. "The people" (48% of them anyway) voted for a particular party, which turned around and betrayed that trust, and have now lost it. Democracy DOES include the rule of law, however. I don't see how you can squeal so about "democracy" while being so dismissive of that aspect of it. Democracy also DOES include free speech and freedom of assembly. You shin-rouge seem pretty dismissive of that as well.

'Evasive' because SW's point was that the red party line is very much based on cheerleading for the Sinawatres, not really about "democracy". That's all just pretense and window-dressing to try and justify a total sham of elected government. Everybody knows who's really been pulling the strings. Your wordgames are a lame attempt to distract & divert attention.

[HD 205]

52% didn't vote for other parties, they didn't vote at all.

You are talking about 2011 as per the conversation right? Because if you are, I really don't understand that sentence. 52% didn't vote at all?

75% of the population voted, so your numbers can't possibly add up.

PTP got 48% of the vote (nearly 16 million people), their closest rivals got 35%.

How is that possibly not a sufficient mandate?

Anyway, this conversation started because hellodolly said that 52% voted against Yingluck, do you agree that in a multi-party system, that's how democracy works?

Do you look at it that 65% of the voting public voted against the democrats?

Why don't we see it reported on the news as X% of people voted against X party during election results, rather than the other way around?

You don't have to oppose one party in order for you to vote for a different party, so the argument of 52% voted against Yingluck is invalid and just straight up incorrect.

It is so difficult to recognise that the figures quoted come from the current election? Is there some reason you wish to avoid that?

Is it so difficult for you to understand that the conversation I became involved in was about the 2011 elections and PTP's victory? It was in direct reply to a comment about the 2011 election results!

Read back if you need more clarity because the figures being talked about all along since should have made that crystal clear for anybody.

I really don't know how you could possibly, while reading all the figures being quoted during the conversation, think that we were talking about the current election rather than 2011.

Considering there are no concrete percentages to discuss yet!

Seriously, are you just trying to save face about getting mixed up on what was being spoken about or was it a genuine mistake? Everyone makes 'em.

[HD 205]

Evasive? What had his post got to do with mine? nothing, he made no argument or effort to debate what I said. What exactly was I evading?

What I refer to as democracy by the people, I mean as democracy by the vote of the people, easy to get really.

Unfortunately I cannot help that your hatred of Thaksin fogs up a clear question, I'd love to hear your definition of democracy by the people though.

North Koreans vote. All of them - it's mandatory. It's a one-party system, but they vote. Is that democracy? Iranians as well. They can only vote for "approved candidates", but they vote. Is that democracy?

Simplistic and simple-minded definitions don't always suffice. Sometimes things are defined more clearly by describing what they're NOT. Proxy rule in Thailand by a fugitive criminal is NOT democracy. Rule beyond the limits of constitution and outside the law is also NOT democracy. Lastly, simple mob rule is NOT democracy. Minorities and opposition parties have rights, too. And populism is a perversion of democracy. "The people" (48% of them anyway) voted for a particular party, which turned around and betrayed that trust, and have now lost it. Democracy DOES include the rule of law, however. I don't see how you can squeal so about "democracy" while being so dismissive of that aspect of it. Democracy also DOES include free speech and freedom of assembly. You shin-rouge seem pretty dismissive of that as well.

'Evasive' because SW's point was that the red party line is very much based on cheerleading for the Sinawatres, not really about "democracy". That's all just pretense and window-dressing to try and justify a total sham of elected government. Everybody knows who's really been pulling the strings. Your wordgames are a lame attempt to distract & divert attention.

North Koreans vote. All of them - it's mandatory. It's a one-party system, but they vote. Is that democracy? Iranians as well. They can only vote for "approved candidates", but they vote. Is that democracy?

You talk about word games as lame attempts to distract & divert attention and this is the question you ask? No I don't consider those as democracies. To try and even use them to make a point about democracy in Thailand is a joke in itself.

You say they have lost the trust of the 48%, well then let the vote happen without trouble, that's all I stand up for. Hope that's not too evasive.

And as for all your "NOTS", an unelected peoples council is certainly NOT democracy.

Btw, where have I dismissed the rule of law? your imagination is running away with you.

[CockneyGit]

Thaksin: ''I am Yingluck's Caddy''

Abhisit: ''We will not contest the election'' (because the old boys behind told me to say that!)

Puppets on both sides, haven't got a pair between them.

Whoever's in power, nothing will change!