PM asked to step down

[Wombat6]

Abhisit, back to his usual tricks, has just cemented his place as the worst opposition leader in Thai political history.

Ah well, if he is joining the list of "Worst of" he will be joining Yingluck who is already on the list as "Worst PM" in Thai Political History

[ginjag]

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you said quote, "many of those that ASKED him to step down were murdered" The reds didn't ask him they pillaged, they murdered, and made a bamboo and tyre fortress with kids in a compound and the parents- they were armed. This is fact the outcome is not the point, "they asked him" is a mega joke

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke.

What topic do you want to talk about ?? this one or an old one that suits ?? Have you any views on the way the government has governed over 3 years ??

Have they a mega good record NO so can we get on topic about why she is asked to step down, or would that make it awkward ???

Easy isn't it ?? PTP got elected, swore to serve the people on oath. disregarded the law, so here we are and you want to rant on about others have you been programmed in some bizarre way to post like this ?? Are you new ???

[jayboy]

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you said quote, "many of those that ASKED him to step down were murdered" The reds didn't ask him they pillaged, they murdered, and made a bamboo and tyre fortress with kids in a compound and the parents- they were armed. This is fact the outcome is not the point, "they asked him" is a mega joke

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke.

What topic do you want to talk about ?? this one or an old one that suits ?? Have you any views on the way the government has governed over 3 years ??

Have they a mega good record NO so can we get on topic about why she is asked to step down, or would that make it awkward ???

Easy isn't it ?? PTP got elected, swore to serve the people on oath. disregarded the law, so here we are and you want to rant on about others have you been programmed in some bizarre way to post like this ?? Are you new ???

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[bigbamboo]

Abhisit, back to his usual tricks, has just cemented his place as the worst opposition leader in Thai political history.

Ah well, if he is joining the list of "Worst of" he will be joining Yingluck who is already on the list as "Worst PM" in Thai Political History

Don't know about that. There's an awful lot of competition!

[rubl]

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

[JesseFrank]

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You must be confused. Abhisit agreed to step down, at that time only innocent people were murdered by red terrorists, but during the meeting the famous sms message from Dubai arrived and the deal was rejected by the red terrorists. If I recall correctly it happened 3 times that his resignation proposals were denied

Some time later when it was clear that the red thugs, my apologies for borrowing your trademark,wouldn't end their protests before Bangkok was burned down and blood had flowed, the government decided to disperse the terrorist gathering, with the known results.

[Thai at Heart]

Ginjag you are just never going to be able to convince me and many others that reform before elections is pro democracy. Parties should contest elections on policy platforms of reform. ASEAN and the UN could provide monitoring support to ensure a democratic election.

If your party is innocent why are you suggesting monitoring ??? before said that your PTP was clean are you saying it isn't clean and needs monitoring???

I think Asean is aware now of the governments record, and is awaiting court verdicts. You cannot have a democratic PTP because the 3 years have proved the opposite.

It's not my party

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Then why is mega reform wrong before elections. Surely it has more stability and a better platform for democracy. You sat you want that so what appears to be the matter ??

Reform of what exactly by who exactly for how long exactly.

They are asking for a free reign to reform.anything they fancy at the moment. It all sounds so nice but until some flesh on the bone, I ain't buying it.

[jayboy]

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

[jayboy]

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You must be confused. Abhisit agreed to step down, at that time only innocent people were murdered by red terrorists, but during the meeting the famous sms message from Dubai arrived and the deal was rejected by the red terrorists. If I recall correctly it happened 3 times that his resignation proposals were denied

Some time later when it was clear that the red thugs, my apologies for borrowing your trademark,wouldn't end their protests before Bangkok was burned down and blood had flowed, the government decided to disperse the terrorist gathering, with the known results.

Obviously low level bar talk not worth a response but it does raise one interesting point, namely the different approach of the Abhisit and Yingluck governments to street protests and disruption of the capital, one with violence and one with restraint (hence the international praise).

[Morch]

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You must be confused. Abhisit agreed to step down, at that time only innocent people were murdered by red terrorists, but during the meeting the famous sms message from Dubai arrived and the deal was rejected by the red terrorists. If I recall correctly it happened 3 times that his resignation proposals were denied

Some time later when it was clear that the red thugs, my apologies for borrowing your trademark,wouldn't end their protests before Bangkok was burned down and blood had flowed, the government decided to disperse the terrorist gathering, with the known results.

Obviously low level bar talk not worth a response but it does raise one interesting point, namely the different approach of the Abhisit and Yingluck governments to street protests and disruption of the capital, one with violence and one with restraint (hence the international praise).

Ignoring the fact that there were numerous attacks on demonstrators, resulting in casualties and injuries, without the police lifting a finger to do anything about it. Yingluck's "soft" approach might have something to do with not enjoying the Army's total support (yes, another issue in Thai politics). Same reason Abhisit brought in the Army in 2010 - not trusting the police to deliver.

Not sure why you'd deny that there were quite a few attempts to broker a deal for resolving the mess back then, some of it was even tediously broadcasted on tv. Other than the Army's clashing with the protestors, most of the violence was not directed at them (meaning grenade attacks, shooting etc.).

[ginjag]

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you said quote, "many of those that ASKED him to step down were murdered" The reds didn't ask him they pillaged, they murdered, and made a bamboo and tyre fortress with kids in a compound and the parents- they were armed. This is fact the outcome is not the point, "they asked him" is a mega joke

They did ask him to allow elections in an extremely large, but peaceful rally at Phan Fa bridge. Things only escalated when he sent in the army with loaded war weapons at dusk, against international conventions. After that declaration of war on the regime's part, the reds were backed into a corner and responded as any group under attack would.

Yingluck has thankfully shown us how a mature and compassionate leader deals with an armed group forcefully occupying city areas.

Being a compassionate leader means running up to the north electioneering and opening OTOP shops and holidaying in Chiang Mai.????

She has done sod all about anything so to you it looks good as she HAS been a fantastic dynamic powerful corrupt free runaway PM

[ginjag]

Then why is mega reform wrong before elections. Surely it has more stability and a better platform for democracy. You sat you want that so what appears to be the matter ??

Reform of what exactly by who exactly for how long exactly.

They are asking for a free reign to reform.anything they fancy at the moment. It all sounds so nice but until some flesh on the bone, I ain't buying it.

Bye bye elections until things are sorted --by who ? but it still HAS to be sorted. While the Shins are present it cannot.

Sorry to put this point again but the courts have to deal with ALL the wrong along with Reforms so as the guilty DO NOT RE OFFEND.

[Morch]

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

Abhisit's route to power may have been unsavory, but not undemocratic. Coalitions are made and unmade all over the world.

If you refer to the repeated dissolution of Thaksin's parties, well, there's some merit to the argument that the system is biased against them. Then again, being remote controlled by a fugitive, not sure they're in a position to complain.

Whenever "strong national backing" style claims arise, it does well to remember that Thailand is a divided country. So yes, there was quite a lot of support for the red-shirt protest, mostly from their traditional power bases, but not that the whole country was up in arms.

[jayboy]

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

Abhisit's route to power may have been unsavory, but not undemocratic. Coalitions are made and unmade all over the world.

If you refer to the repeated dissolution of Thaksin's parties, well, there's some merit to the argument that the system is biased against them. Then again, being remote controlled by a fugitive, not sure they're in a position to complain.

Whenever "strong national backing" style claims arise, it does well to remember that Thailand is a divided country. So yes, there was quite a lot of support for the red-shirt protest, mostly from their traditional power bases, but not that the whole country was up in arms.

Abhisit's ascent to power was not illegal but it was certainly undemocratic.It was also quite different to the normal shaping of coalitions in democratic countries.Do we really have to go over this ground again?

I didn't argue that the whole country supported the redshirt protests.As you say Thailand is deeply divided.But the easy victory of PTP in the subsequent general election confirmed the national position.

Incidentally while I don't quarrel with the statement about PTP's traditional power base, it's quite instructive to look at actual voting numbers outside it.PTP does quite well (without actually winning) in many surprising places including Bangkok.

[Morch]

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

Abhisit's route to power may have been unsavory, but not undemocratic. Coalitions are made and unmade all over the world.

If you refer to the repeated dissolution of Thaksin's parties, well, there's some merit to the argument that the system is biased against them. Then again, being remote controlled by a fugitive, not sure they're in a position to complain.

Whenever "strong national backing" style claims arise, it does well to remember that Thailand is a divided country. So yes, there was quite a lot of support for the red-shirt protest, mostly from their traditional power bases, but not that the whole country was up in arms.

Abhisit's ascent to power was not illegal but it was certainly undemocratic.It was also quite different to the normal shaping of coalitions in democratic countries.Do we really have to go over this ground again?

I didn't argue that the whole country supported the redshirt protests.As you say Thailand is deeply divided.But the easy victory of PTP in the subsequent general election confirmed the national position.

Incidentally while I don't quarrel with the statement about PTP's traditional power base, it's quite instructive to look at actual voting numbers outside it.PTP does quite well (without actually winning) in many surprising places including Bangkok.

Not sure I have gone over this ground much, but again, there's nothing undemocratic about it. It's just iffy. But so are many coalitions in general. Part of the parliamentary system. The only thing different about Thailand in this regard are the ban-a-party rules, which are quite silly (like the defamation rules). We can agree to disagree, though.

The PTP did quite well, as you say. This could be attributed to smaller parties being either erased off the map or absorbed within PTP. The Democrats, on top of their failings and tarnished post 2010 image, led a surprisingly pallid campaign.

[jayboy]

Not sure I have gone over this ground much, but again, there's nothing undemocratic about it. It's just iffy. But so are many coalitions in general. Part of the parliamentary system. The only thing different about Thailand in this regard are the ban-a-party rules, which are quite silly (like the defamation rules). We can agree to disagree, though.

The PTP did quite well, as you say. This could be attributed to smaller parties being either erased off the map or absorbed within PTP. The Democrats, on top of their failings and tarnished post 2010 image, led a surprisingly pallid campaign.

It's been discussed endlessly on this forum.I don't think any rational person argues Abhisit came to power illegally but his ascent can only be understood if the political, social and historical context is understood.To argue it was just another coalition - as might form in Belgium or the Netherlands - is I believe specious.

The strength of the PTP is due as you say partly to fragmentation of smallerl parties.A clever Bangkok based equities analyst (Andrew Stotz) has done some very interesting work on that subject.However equally if not more important is the breaking down of social deference and the rise of a more prosperous middle class impatient with old elites.While the Bangkok Sino Thai bourgeoise is still fairly solidly with the Democrats there are many others who feel torn between a distate for Thaksin on one side and a dislike on the other side for their so called social betters.Finally there is of course the same stunning incompetence, lack of vision and inertia of the Democrat Party.

[rubl]

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

For a learned gentleman you seem to get confused easily, my dear jBoy. Also somewhat untruthfull and full of "do as I say, don't do as I do".

You say "The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict." and continue with various unrelated aspects of the past. Even the 'unelectable' Abhisit is incorrect with your last sentence nonsense and touching on a personal insult.

Furthermore I didn't say 'not enough red-shirts murdered', I only remark that with 70 red-shirts killed your "many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets." seems a bit over the top. To counter my objective observation with "stomach churning heartlessness" suggests you are at a loss of words on how to explain the "many who asked" as the way you wrote that seemed to suggest MANY, just like you like to talk about 'the Thai people'.

BTW with the last sentence you seem incapable to understand that both Yingluck and Abhisit won the support of the Thai people while being number one party list candidate in the 2011 general elections. You seem to be in the group of posters who think that in a democracy a party only wins when it has a majority of seats or at least is the biggest party. Maybe you should do some studying again.

[jayboy]

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

For a learned gentleman you seem to get confused easily, my dear jBoy. Also somewhat untruthfull and full of "do as I say, don't do as I do".

You say "The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict." and continue with various unrelated aspects of the past. Even the 'unelectable' Abhisit is incorrect with your last sentence nonsense and touching on a personal insult.

Furthermore I didn't say 'not enough red-shirts murdered', I only remark that with 70 red-shirts killed your "many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets." seems a bit over the top. To counter my objective observation with "stomach churning heartlessness" suggests you are at a loss of words on how to explain the "many who asked" as the way you wrote that seemed to suggest MANY, just like you like to talk about 'the Thai people'.

BTW with the last sentence you seem incapable to understand that both Yingluck and Abhisit won the support of the Thai people while being number one party list candidate in the 2011 general elections. You seem to be in the group of posters who think that in a democracy a party only wins when it has a majority of seats or at least is the biggest party. Maybe you should do some studying again.

Just a garbled rehash of your original post so my earlier comments stand.It was a disgraceful effort.

Anyway congratulations on an amazing piece of gobblededook which purports to demonstrate that Abhisit and Yingluck have the same democratic mandate from the last election.

For the more serious minded there's an interesting Financial Times editorial today (can't quote it because it's behind a paywall) but it's summarised in Bangkok Pundit.While noting the present government has made many mistakes and that Yingluck is on the way out, it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies.It makes some sensible suggestions for a way forward

[mikemac]

Just a garbled rehash of your original post so my earlier comments stand.It was a disgraceful effort.

Anyway congratulations on an amazing piece of gobblededook which purports to demonstrate that Abhisit and Yingluck have the same democratic mandate from the last election.

For the more serious minded there's an interesting Financial Times editorial today (can't quote it because it's behind a paywall) but it's summarised in Bangkok Pundit.While noting the present government has made many mistakes and that Yingluck is on the way out, it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies.It makes some sensible suggestions for a way forward

If it is summarized in Bangkok Pundit it may as well be scratched on a dunny door in a Nana go-go bar.

Typical red flavored bs - "it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies."

And what is it with the freaky avatar ? I hope for your sake that is not a selfie.

[rubl]

For a learned gentleman you seem to get confused easily, my dear jBoy. Also somewhat untruthfull and full of "do as I say, don't do as I do".

You say "The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict." and continue with various unrelated aspects of the past. Even the 'unelectable' Abhisit is incorrect with your last sentence nonsense and touching on a personal insult.

Furthermore I didn't say 'not enough red-shirts murdered', I only remark that with 70 red-shirts killed your "many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets." seems a bit over the top. To counter my objective observation with "stomach churning heartlessness" suggests you are at a loss of words on how to explain the "many who asked" as the way you wrote that seemed to suggest MANY, just like you like to talk about 'the Thai people'.

BTW with the last sentence you seem incapable to understand that both Yingluck and Abhisit won the support of the Thai people while being number one party list candidate in the 2011 general elections. You seem to be in the group of posters who think that in a democracy a party only wins when it has a majority of seats or at least is the biggest party. Maybe you should do some studying again.

Just a garbled rehash of your original post so my earlier comments stand.It was a disgraceful effort.

Anyway congratulations on an amazing piece of gobblededook which purports to demonstrate that Abhisit and Yingluck have the same democratic mandate from the last election.

For the more serious minded there's an interesting Financial Times editorial today (can't quote it because it's behind a paywall) but it's summarised in Bangkok Pundit.While noting the present government has made many mistakes and that Yingluck is on the way out, it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies.It makes some sensible suggestions for a way forward

I agree, just a garbled rehash of invalid points. You disappoint me, jayboy. I had expected a more quality discussion with you.

Anyway as I understand it anyone who earns a seat in an elections has got a democratic mandate. At least in democracies. Ms. Yingluck might have gotten hers on her brothers merit.

For the FT article, well since I'm not going behind a paywall, and since I know that the anti-government protests started real good with the Yingluck government blanket amnesty bill and it's two Yinglucks administration included, I fear that the FT may be somewhat less knowledgeble on the subject.

Of course your interpretation is somewhat coloured as usual. Seedy allies indeed.

Anyway, when the caretaker PM resigns she can start her civil disobedience tour.

[jayboy]

Just a garbled rehash of your original post so my earlier comments stand.It was a disgraceful effort.

Anyway congratulations on an amazing piece of gobblededook which purports to demonstrate that Abhisit and Yingluck have the same democratic mandate from the last election.

For the more serious minded there's an interesting Financial Times editorial today (can't quote it because it's behind a paywall) but it's summarised in Bangkok Pundit.While noting the present government has made many mistakes and that Yingluck is on the way out, it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies.It makes some sensible suggestions for a way forward

If it is summarized in Bangkok Pundit it may as well be scratched on a dunny door in a Nana go-go bar.

Typical red flavored bs - "it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies."

And what is it with the freaky avatar ? I hope for your sake that is not a selfie.

The Financial Times (FT) article is simply reproduced in the Bangkok Pundit blog and therefore what you say about Bangkok Pundit is irrelevant.

The Financial Times has a strong claim to be the most influential paper in the world, staple reading for the well educated and leaders of opinion.Judging by your boorish post I dare say however it's not a paper read by you or your kind.

[jayboy]

I agree, just a garbled rehash of invalid points. You disappoint me, jayboy. I had expected a more quality discussion with you.

Anyway as I understand it anyone who earns a seat in an elections has got a democratic mandate. At least in democracies. Ms. Yingluck might have gotten hers on her brothers merit.

For the FT article, well since I'm not going behind a paywall, and since I know that the anti-government protests started real good with the Yingluck government blanket amnesty bill and it's two Yinglucks administration included, I fear that the FT may be somewhat less knowledgeble on the subject.

Of course your interpretation is somewhat coloured as usual. Seedy allies indeed.

Anyway, when the caretaker PM resigns she can start her civil disobedience tour.

As to the FT article you don't have to go behind a paywall because its reproduced on the Bangkok Pundit site.

I don't really understand most of your post but I should make it clear the conclusions were those of the FT not mine.The article is certainly highly critical of the Yingluck administration including its very ill conceived amnesty proposal and rice subsidy scheme.

[djjamie]

Maybe he doesn't elaborate on the red thugs as you put it because the discussion is about the PDRC?

Some of you guys need to take a break from getting so worked up over a political situation you neither have influence or control over.

One poster even said Thailand is finished!! What complete drivel, a few bad apples doesn't destroy an orchard nor the land it's planted in!!.

Thailand will amble on and on and on as it has done so for decades and life all over the rest of Thailand will continue without disruption just like it had also done so since December, Bangkok isn't Thailand and where I live in Korat there's been no political disruptions or Ill feeling towards farangs or anyone else, they're getting on with their lives without disruption which a good many posters here need to start doing as well.

Opinions here are just that totally irrelevant to the voting Thai person.

Happy Coronation Day, long live the King

"I live in Korat there's been no political disruptions or Ill feeling towards farangs or anyone else"

So have you got the facts at hand to back up your claims that there has been no disruption or ill feelings towards falangs or are you just talking speculation and guessing??

I want to see statements from the Thai police stating no disruption, a trend graph of disruption against westerners in Korat over, saw, 10 years and finally statements from Korat locals attesting to your statement.

It's fine if you're not able to provide this evidence, it's as I suspect it's just another opinion here on TVF that is one of many that mean diddly squat

[rubl]

I agree, just a garbled rehash of invalid points. You disappoint me, jayboy. I had expected a more quality discussion with you.

Anyway as I understand it anyone who earns a seat in an elections has got a democratic mandate. At least in democracies. Ms. Yingluck might have gotten hers on her brothers merit.

For the FT article, well since I'm not going behind a paywall, and since I know that the anti-government protests started real good with the Yingluck government blanket amnesty bill and it's two Yinglucks administration included, I fear that the FT may be somewhat less knowledgeble on the subject.

Of course your interpretation is somewhat coloured as usual. Seedy allies indeed.

Anyway, when the caretaker PM resigns she can start her civil disobedience tour.

As to the FT article you don't have to go behind a paywall because its reproduced on the Bangkok Pundit site.

I don't really understand most of your post but I should make it clear the conclusions were those of the FT not mine.The article is certainly highly critical of the Yingluck administration including its very ill conceived amnesty proposal and rice subsidy scheme.

So, without having searched yet, can I assume that the highly critical part explains why (probably you wrote):

"While noting the present government has made many mistakes and that Yingluck is on the way out, it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies.It makes some sensible suggestions for a way forward"

Objectively of course, in the usual jayboy style.

[djjamie]

Maybe he doesn't elaborate on the red thugs as you put it because the discussion is about the PDRC?

Some of you guys need to take a break from getting so worked up over a political situation you neither have influence or control over.

One poster even said Thailand is finished!! What complete drivel, a few bad apples doesn't destroy an orchard nor the land it's planted in!!.

Thailand will amble on and on and on as it has done so for decades and life all over the rest of Thailand will continue without disruption just like it had also done so since December, Bangkok isn't Thailand and where I live in Korat there's been no political disruptions or Ill feeling towards farangs or anyone else, they're getting on with their lives without disruption which a good many posters here need to start doing as well.

Opinions here are just that totally irrelevant to the voting Thai person.

Happy Coronation Day, long live the King

"I live in Korat there's been no political disruptions or Ill feeling towards farangs or anyone else"

So have you got the facts at hand to back up your claims that there has been no disruption or ill feelings towards falangs or are you just talking speculation and guessing??

I want to see statements from the Thai police stating no disruption, a trend graph of disruption against westerners in Korat over, say, 10 years and finally statements from Korat locals attesting to your statement.

It's fine if you're not able to provide this evidence, it's as I suspect it's just another opinion here on TVF that is one of many that mean diddly squat

Edited May 6, 2014 by djjamie

[rubl]

duplicate post, blanked on purpose

Edited May 6, 2014 by rubl

[djjamie]

Maybe he doesn't elaborate on the red thugs as you put it because the discussion is about the PDRC?

Some of you guys need to take a break from getting so worked up over a political situation you neither have influence or control over.

One poster even said Thailand is finished!! What complete drivel, a few bad apples doesn't destroy an orchard nor the land it's planted in!!.

Thailand will amble on and on and on as it has done so for decades and life all over the rest of Thailand will continue without disruption just like it had also done so since December, Bangkok isn't Thailand and where I live in Korat there's been no political disruptions or Ill feeling towards farangs or anyone else, they're getting on with their lives without disruption which a good many posters here need to start doing as well.

Opinions here are just that totally irrelevant to the voting Thai person.

Happy Coronation Day, long live the King

double post

Edited May 6, 2014 by djjamie