Natthawut says no to national reconciliation government

[halloween]

When proved wrong, don't admit it, change the subject by deleting "of votes". Is there some standing order that says this shall never be admitted?

yawn, did I not wonder with reason about your understanding of English as a native speaker just a few days ago?

As you will notice, the only ones who don't admit that the PTP and their previous incarnations were popular and had the popular support of the Thai people are you and other like minded posters around here, ... along with Suthep and his "mass of people" foundation, of course...

But for the record, as noted above, the PTP government had far more than an absolute majority of both votes and seats - the coalition had right around 300 seats out of 500.

As for the lack of English comprehension on your part, here is the definition of "majority" and if you manage to understand the definition correctly, then you will see that even 48.41% of the vote in the 2011 elections in Thailand does indeed constitute a "majority" of the votes...

1. ma·jor·i·ty

   məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/

   noun

   1. 1.

      the greater number.

      "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

      synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

      plurality, bulk, mass, weight, (main) body, preponderance,predominance, generality, lion's share

      "the majority of cases"
   2. 2.

      the age when a person is legally considered a full adult, in most contexts either 18 or 21.

      synonyms: legal age, adulthood, manhood/womanhood, maturity; More

Are you and MZ separated twins? He did the same search, ignoring the first 3 results until he found one he liked, and then deleting the definition didn't like.

3 missing bullet points. Would you like to tell us what 1.3 is, or should I? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/majority

In any case, PTP did not win more than 50% of the votes and your democratic ideal seems rather tarnished. But why not talk about the subject instead? Is that somehow uncomfortable for you after Thaksin's stooge (aka HMV) has declared it unacceptable? Do you something against INCLUSIVE democracy?

[Rimmer]

A number of inflammatory posts using the term 'Brown Shirts' have been removed also the quoted replies to them.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[marquisdesade]

The Thais should hire experts on different parts of government agencies from foreign countries and ban all Thais from being in the government or any position that could enrich themselves for 40 years.

Then maybe when the country is running in a non corrupt way let them back in on a basis that they are educated enough to run a country, also all relations of anyone in the government down to third cousins should be ineligible to be in any position in any government agency or company that does business with the government. ( end nepotism )

Once the culture of a corruption free government is in place the country would benefit from its central location in Asia and really become a true "Hub" of many things that would benefit all Thais. This is a dream though as their pride and self image of being the superior race could never admit that a foreigner could run their country better!

[MaxLee]

Natthawut says no to national reconciliation government

Hey, isn't this the guy, whose attitude has been adjusted?????? ..... I think it didn't work out too well........ Now he dares to come out with a bad attitude again....

[Linky]

No, it just means that when they cannot agree then the army steps in, yet again.

All the more reason to come to an agreement then. Would it be easy? No. Would it be more democratic than having some criminal in Dubai giving orders?

Who do you think should give in to come to an agreement? What has Mr T got to do with it? Unless you think that only the Dems should have their man as PM as the Reds cant be trusted.

Your own posts and reasoning by bringing that up proves my point. They will never agree and the army will have power. Yes that is worse than the people deciding who they want.

Get off your high horse. No-one has to give in, a compromise has to be reached. Thaksin was the de facto head of the last government with autocratic control from the bribes he paid monthly to his PTP MPs, And he certainly can't be trusted.

Your argument that the people decide who they want is fallacious. If all the MPs are elected they have decided who they want, but a simple 51% majority would not over-ride the other 49%, they will have input too. It is a PROPOSAL, it has some merit though the percentage is likely too high at 80, but I don't see inclusiveness as being wrong. Why do you?

In what country do a minority get a say in who is PM. The party that gets into govt decides who is PM.

For there to be a compromise someone has to give a bit. Why should those elected go against the wishes of those that elected them.

If you ran for parliament and told the voters that you would elect Fred Flinstone as PM and the people voted for you then you should stand by that promise. They voted you in on what you promised, so dont treat them with disrespect by going against your word. The voters deserve better and for you to speak on their behalf by doing what they elected you to do.

If the minority members dont like it then they must change their ways to appeal to what the voters want.

[halloween]

Get off your high horse. No-one has to give in, a compromise has to be reached. Thaksin was the de facto head of the last government with autocratic control from the bribes he paid monthly to his PTP MPs, And he certainly can't be trusted.

Your argument that the people decide who they want is fallacious. If all the MPs are elected they have decided who they want, but a simple 51% majority would not over-ride the other 49%, they will have input too. It is a PROPOSAL, it has some merit though the percentage is likely too high at 80, but I don't see inclusiveness as being wrong. Why do you?

In what country do a minority get a say in who is PM. The party that gets into govt decides who is PM.

For there to be a compromise someone has to give a bit. Why should those elected go against the wishes of those that elected them.

If you ran for parliament and told the voters that you would elect Fred Flinstone as PM and the people voted for you then you should stand by that promise. They voted you in on what you promised, so dont treat them with disrespect by going against your word. The voters deserve better and for you to speak on their behalf by doing what they elected you to do.

If the minority members dont like it then they must change their ways to appeal to what the voters want.

I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend multi-party democracy, and I assume a minority government would be completely unimaginable. But both do exist.

Usually the leader of the party with the most seats gets to be PM, but not always. And it has nothing to do with voters, they elect a representative, MPs elect the PM.

[billd766]

well, you say that with such fervor that you must be right

but of course ... you're not.

Any one who fails to recognize the popular support - yes, by the majority - of the governments formed by the PTP (300 or so of 500 MPs) or the support of the previous versions of that party is blind - purposefully, through ignorance, or due to their own political dogma.

But other than you who says I am not right and that you are wrong?

Either both of us are wrong, both of us are right, or just one of us is right.

Who can adjudicate?

It can't be you or me as we are both biased in our own ways.

voters, ...

That rules out about 99% of the people who write on Thai visa as none of us can vote.

If none of us can vote why is each side bashing the other as it makes no difference what WE want or think that the Thai people should want.

It is a problem for the Thai people to solve and not us. Let them sort it out in their own way. Whatever they decide millions of Thais won't be happy with and other millions of Thais will be happy.

As for us farangs on Thai Visa we will always find other topics to argue over.

[tbthailand]

When proved wrong, don't admit it, change the subject by deleting "of votes". Is there some standing order that says this shall never be admitted?

yawn, did I not wonder with reason about your understanding of English as a native speaker just a few days ago?

As you will notice, the only ones who don't admit that the PTP and their previous incarnations were popular and had the popular support of the Thai people are you and other like minded posters around here, ... along with Suthep and his "mass of people" foundation, of course...

But for the record, as noted above, the PTP government had far more than an absolute majority of both votes and seats - the coalition had right around 300 seats out of 500.

As for the lack of English comprehension on your part, here is the definition of "majority" and if you manage to understand the definition correctly, then you will see that even 48.41% of the vote in the 2011 elections in Thailand does indeed constitute a "majority" of the votes...

1. ma·jor·i·ty

   məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/

   noun

   1. 1.

      the greater number.

      "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

      synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

      plurality, bulk, mass, weight, (main) body, preponderance,predominance, generality, lion's share

      "the majority of cases"
   2. 2.

      the age when a person is legally considered a full adult, in most contexts either 18 or 21.

      synonyms: legal age, adulthood, manhood/womanhood, maturity; More

Are you and MZ separated twins? He did the same search, ignoring the first 3 results until he found one he liked, and then deleting the definition didn't like.

3 missing bullet points. Would you like to tell us what 1.3 is, or should I? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/majority

In any case, PTP did not win more than 50% of the votes and your democratic ideal seems rather tarnished. But why not talk about the subject instead? Is that somehow uncomfortable for you after Thaksin's stooge (aka HMV) has declared it unacceptable? Do you something against INCLUSIVE democracy?

actually, I just took the text exactly as it appears.

you will even notice that majority CAN mean more than half.

it's other syn is plurality which is also a correct usage.

that you do not like that is not our problem.

that you cannot see that the PTP is popular in Thailand is not our problem.

but when you call people liars and you are WRONG, then some of us will point that out to you.

adios pumpkinhead

ps: I already posted and talked about the topic. this is just a sideline with you in denial about basic English grammar.

[scorecard]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

grammar police:

actually, they did win a "majority" - it is sometimes also called a plurality.

They did not win more than 50% of the total votes.

But they did win more than 50% of the MP seats.

And in the end, the government coalition which was formed and named after the PTP as the lead in the coalition had far far far more than 50% of both...

And of course you don't mention that many voters had no choice but to attend the hundreds of pt / udd 'Democracy Schools' and wouldn't have dared to not vote for the pt candidate.

And you also don't mention that 99.9% of those elected / gained seats under the pt / pt coalition didn't regularly attend parliament, and 99.9% of them never once spoke in parliament.

And you also don't mention that these folks got a monthly salary so that the pt gang could use their name to build numbers to gain seats.

As said many times over many years - the devil lies in the details.

[tbthailand]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

grammar police:

actually, they did win a "majority" - it is sometimes also called a plurality.

They did not win more than 50% of the total votes.

But they did win more than 50% of the MP seats.

And in the end, the government coalition which was formed and named after the PTP as the lead in the coalition had far far far more than 50% of both...

And of course you don't mention that many voters had no choice but to attend the hundreds of pt / udd 'Democracy Schools' and wouldn't have dared to not vote for the pt candidate.

And you also don't mention that 99.9% of those elected / gained seats under the pt / pt coalition didn't regularly attend parliament, and 99.9% of them never once spoke in parliament.

And you also don't mention that these folks got a monthly salary so that the pt gang could use their name to build numbers to gain seats.

As said many times over many years - the devil lies in the details.

rushing to the pumpkin head's defense?

so, since it and I were talking about voters, and only the first point has anything to do about voting, then I would imagine that you have a link to support your WA claim?

I do, here you go...

it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results.

...

The monitoring group says the most substantial problem was the election commission failing to sufficiently inform some voters of the need to re-register for the election. According to ANFREL, that prevented up to one million Thais, about three percent of voters, from participating.

You guys are completely rabid. Have you had your shots?

[MZurf]

Actually, a majority of the Thai electorate have voted for PTP for years. Of course, this option has graciously been taken away by the benevolent General who will set things right - because after 21 coups and coup attempts this time they will finally make it right.

Sweet dreams.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that this is a lie. PTP did NOT receive a majority of votes to be elected. 48% is NOT a majority.

grammar police:

actually, they did win a "majority" - it is sometimes also called a plurality.

They did not win more than 50% of the total votes.

But they did win more than 50% of the MP seats.

And in the end, the government coalition which was formed and named after the PTP as the lead in the coalition had far far far more than 50% of both...

And of course you don't mention that many voters had no choice but to attend the hundreds of pt / udd 'Democracy Schools' and wouldn't have dared to not vote for the pt candidate.

And you also don't mention that 99.9% of those elected / gained seats under the pt / pt coalition didn't regularly attend parliament, and 99.9% of them never once spoke in parliament.

And you also don't mention that these folks got a monthly salary so that the pt gang could use their name to build numbers to gain seats.

As said many times over many years - the devil lies in the details.

I guess you can back all these claims up with facts and sources? You see, for most of us claims of 99.9 % of this and 99.9 % of that sounds a bit like....

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pull_out_of_one%27s_ass

[tbthailand]

LOL

[Baerboxer]

The REDs already showed their understanding from democracy -

Bombing and sniping on protesters !!

Better to have a Junta than a RED Monkey as PM !!

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

A lesson you learned well Fatty?

[MZurf]

Get off your high horse. No-one has to give in, a compromise has to be reached. Thaksin was the de facto head of the last government with autocratic control from the bribes he paid monthly to his PTP MPs, And he certainly can't be trusted.

Your argument that the people decide who they want is fallacious. If all the MPs are elected they have decided who they want, but a simple 51% majority would not over-ride the other 49%, they will have input too. It is a PROPOSAL, it has some merit though the percentage is likely too high at 80, but I don't see inclusiveness as being wrong. Why do you?

In what country do a minority get a say in who is PM. The party that gets into govt decides who is PM.

For there to be a compromise someone has to give a bit. Why should those elected go against the wishes of those that elected them.

If you ran for parliament and told the voters that you would elect Fred Flinstone as PM and the people voted for you then you should stand by that promise. They voted you in on what you promised, so dont treat them with disrespect by going against your word. The voters deserve better and for you to speak on their behalf by doing what they elected you to do.

If the minority members dont like it then they must change their ways to appeal to what the voters want.

I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend multi-party democracy, and I assume a minority government would be completely unimaginable. But both do exist.

Usually the leader of the party with the most seats gets to be PM, but not always. And it has nothing to do with voters, they elect a representative, MPs elect the PM.

"I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend..."

You know, you continuously claim that other posters have difficulty comprehending what you write but that will always be the result of you posting drivel - and condescending drivel to boot. You constantly fail to answer simple questions on what part of the definition of a parliamentary democracy is wrong for Thailand and tie yourself into linguistic knots when trying to get away from the fact that the PTP (in its various forms) have won every election for the last 9 years - i.e. they have gotten more/most/the majority of the votes.

So here is another chance for you to spell it out for us;

What country are you from and what system of government does it have. And finally; why shouldn't Thailand have the same system. I am, of course, assuming that you come from a country where elections are held and whatever party gets the most votes forms a government that runs the country - without having to ask the opposition for permission to govern.

[Baerboxer]

When proved wrong, don't admit it, change the subject by deleting "of votes". Is there some standing order that says this shall never be admitted?

yawn, did I not wonder with reason about your understanding of English as a native speaker just a few days ago?

As you will notice, the only ones who don't admit that the PTP and their previous incarnations were popular and had the popular support of the Thai people are you and other like minded posters around here, ... along with Suthep and his "mass of people" foundation, of course...

But for the record, as noted above, the PTP government had far more than an absolute majority of both votes and seats - the coalition had right around 300 seats out of 500.

As for the lack of English comprehension on your part, here is the definition of "majority" and if you manage to understand the definition correctly, then you will see that even 48.41% of the vote in the 2011 elections in Thailand does indeed constitute a "majority" of the votes...

1. ma·jor·i·ty

   məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/

   noun

   1. 1.

      the greater number.

      "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

      synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

      plurality, bulk, mass, weight, (main) body, preponderance,predominance, generality, lion's share

      "the majority of cases"
   2. 2.

      the age when a person is legally considered a full adult, in most contexts either 18 or 21.

      synonyms: legal age, adulthood, manhood/womanhood, maturity; More

Are you and MZ separated twins? He did the same search, ignoring the first 3 results until he found one he liked, and then deleting the definition didn't like.

3 missing bullet points. Would you like to tell us what 1.3 is, or should I? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/majority

In any case, PTP did not win more than 50% of the votes and your democratic ideal seems rather tarnished. But why not talk about the subject instead? Is that somehow uncomfortable for you after Thaksin's stooge (aka HMV) has declared it unacceptable? Do you something against INCLUSIVE democracy?

actually, I just took the text exactly as it appears.

you will even notice that majority CAN mean more than half.

it's other syn is plurality which is also a correct usage.

that you do not like that is not our problem.

that you cannot see that the PTP is popular in Thailand is not our problem.

but when you call people liars and you are WRONG, then some of us will point that out to you.

adios pumpkinhead

ps: I already posted and talked about the topic. this is just a sideline with you in denial about basic English grammar.

Like PTP often do, you take the bits you like and ignore the rest. The definitions of majority have been argued on other threads but you only want to use the one that suits and pretend the others don't exist. Bit like imagining prices are going up due to the hot weather - all in the imagination as PTP via it's then PM told everyone.

Thaksin and whatever proxy party at the time have been popular and received large amounts of votes. All his governments have subsequently, like himself, had issues with the law, breaking the law, and being caught and punished.

PTP were popular in 2011. Many people in Thailand are bribed with cash and/or promises of aid, coerced or intimidated, have peer pressure applied, to vote for certain parties, PTP in the North and North East, Dems in the South and then the collection of local parties headed by the local big family big wig. That happens in the rural areas. And if you have family, relatives and friends in those areas you'll know that.

Equally, many many people I know in BKK and neighboring provinces never get this interference or even any political hustings. The usual vans and loudspeekers and that's about it. Many of those I know, all educated professionals, voted PTP in 2011 hoping Yingluck would be a change, something different. Those same people went to the protests against the Amnesty Bill - appalled by the whitewash being engineered primarily for Thaksin and appalled by the perceived corruption and constant lying of the PTP administration.

These people do not want to vote for the Dems. They know that's a vote for no changes, keeping the rich in power and the poor under the thumb. They won't vote PTP again, or any other Shin controlled party, because they know that is just a vehicle for Thaksin and have now seen the reality of what his control means.

There only hope is real reform - which given the current progress isn't very likely. So they except they can't do anything and probably will register not to vote next time, if and when there is a general election.

[halloween]

Get off your high horse. No-one has to give in, a compromise has to be reached. Thaksin was the de facto head of the last government with autocratic control from the bribes he paid monthly to his PTP MPs, And he certainly can't be trusted.

Your argument that the people decide who they want is fallacious. If all the MPs are elected they have decided who they want, but a simple 51% majority would not over-ride the other 49%, they will have input too. It is a PROPOSAL, it has some merit though the percentage is likely too high at 80, but I don't see inclusiveness as being wrong. Why do you?

In what country do a minority get a say in who is PM. The party that gets into govt decides who is PM.

For there to be a compromise someone has to give a bit. Why should those elected go against the wishes of those that elected them.

If you ran for parliament and told the voters that you would elect Fred Flinstone as PM and the people voted for you then you should stand by that promise. They voted you in on what you promised, so dont treat them with disrespect by going against your word. The voters deserve better and for you to speak on their behalf by doing what they elected you to do.

If the minority members dont like it then they must change their ways to appeal to what the voters want.

I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend multi-party democracy, and I assume a minority government would be completely unimaginable. But both do exist.

Usually the leader of the party with the most seats gets to be PM, but not always. And it has nothing to do with voters, they elect a representative, MPs elect the PM.

"I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend..."

You know, you continuously claim that other posters have difficulty comprehending what you write but that will always be the result of you posting drivel - and condescending drivel to boot. You constantly fail to answer simple questions on what part of the definition of a parliamentary democracy is wrong for Thailand and tie yourself into linguistic knots when trying to get away from the fact that the PTP (in its various forms) have won every election for the last 9 years - i.e. they have gotten more/most/the majority of the votes.

So here is another chance for you to spell it out for us;

What country are you from and what system of government does it have. And finally; why shouldn't Thailand have the same system. I am, of course, assuming that you come from a country where elections are held and whatever party gets the most votes forms a government that runs the country - without having to ask the opposition for permission to govern.

Do you know how boring you are? And what a hypocrite, continually asking off topic questions, never answering relevant questions yourself, and making false assumptions about what others think. Why don't you try replying to the subject of people's posts instead of diverting off topic?

The subject is about a super majority parliament which would require inclusiveness. Obviously it is rejected by Thaksin's sycophants. Why?

[MZurf]

In what country do a minority get a say in who is PM. The party that gets into govt decides who is PM.

For there to be a compromise someone has to give a bit. Why should those elected go against the wishes of those that elected them.

If you ran for parliament and told the voters that you would elect Fred Flinstone as PM and the people voted for you then you should stand by that promise. They voted you in on what you promised, so dont treat them with disrespect by going against your word. The voters deserve better and for you to speak on their behalf by doing what they elected you to do.

If the minority members dont like it then they must change their ways to appeal to what the voters want.

I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend multi-party democracy, and I assume a minority government would be completely unimaginable. But both do exist.

Usually the leader of the party with the most seats gets to be PM, but not always. And it has nothing to do with voters, they elect a representative, MPs elect the PM.

"I know it's difficult for Americans to comprehend..."

You know, you continuously claim that other posters have difficulty comprehending what you write but that will always be the result of you posting drivel - and condescending drivel to boot. You constantly fail to answer simple questions on what part of the definition of a parliamentary democracy is wrong for Thailand and tie yourself into linguistic knots when trying to get away from the fact that the PTP (in its various forms) have won every election for the last 9 years - i.e. they have gotten more/most/the majority of the votes.

So here is another chance for you to spell it out for us;

What country are you from and what system of government does it have. And finally; why shouldn't Thailand have the same system. I am, of course, assuming that you come from a country where elections are held and whatever party gets the most votes forms a government that runs the country - without having to ask the opposition for permission to govern.

Do you know how boring you are? And what a hypocrite, continually asking off topic questions, never answering relevant questions yourself, and making false assumptions about what others think. Why don't you try replying to the subject of people's posts instead of diverting off topic?

The subject is about a super majority parliament which would require inclusiveness. Obviously it is rejected by Thaksin's sycophants. Why?

I'm asking you pretty simple questions but instead of answering you become abusive. That's a very obvious way of deflecting attention away from the fact that you can't. How surprising!

[tbthailand]

yawn, did I not wonder with reason about your understanding of English as a native speaker just a few days ago?

As you will notice, the only ones who don't admit that the PTP and their previous incarnations were popular and had the popular support of the Thai people are you and other like minded posters around here, ... along with Suthep and his "mass of people" foundation, of course...

But for the record, as noted above, the PTP government had far more than an absolute majority of both votes and seats - the coalition had right around 300 seats out of 500.

As for the lack of English comprehension on your part, here is the definition of "majority" and if you manage to understand the definition correctly, then you will see that even 48.41% of the vote in the 2011 elections in Thailand does indeed constitute a "majority" of the votes...

1. ma·jor·i·ty

   məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/

   noun

   1. 1.

      the greater number.

      "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

      synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

      plurality, bulk, mass, weight, (main) body, preponderance,predominance, generality, lion's share

      "the majority of cases"
   2. 2.

      the age when a person is legally considered a full adult, in most contexts either 18 or 21.

      synonyms: legal age, adulthood, manhood/womanhood, maturity; More

Are you and MZ separated twins? He did the same search, ignoring the first 3 results until he found one he liked, and then deleting the definition didn't like.

3 missing bullet points. Would you like to tell us what 1.3 is, or should I? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/majority

In any case, PTP did not win more than 50% of the votes and your democratic ideal seems rather tarnished. But why not talk about the subject instead? Is that somehow uncomfortable for you after Thaksin's stooge (aka HMV) has declared it unacceptable? Do you something against INCLUSIVE democracy?

actually, I just took the text exactly as it appears.

you will even notice that majority CAN mean more than half.

it's other syn is plurality which is also a correct usage.

that you do not like that is not our problem.

that you cannot see that the PTP is popular in Thailand is not our problem.

but when you call people liars and you are WRONG, then some of us will point that out to you.

adios pumpkinhead

ps: I already posted and talked about the topic. this is just a sideline with you in denial about basic English grammar.

Like PTP often do, you take the bits you like and ignore the rest. The definitions of majority have been argued on other threads but you only want to use the one that suits and pretend the others don't exist. Bit like imagining prices are going up due to the hot weather - all in the imagination as PTP via it's then PM told everyone.

Thaksin and whatever proxy party at the time have been popular and received large amounts of votes. All his governments have subsequently, like himself, had issues with the law, breaking the law, and being caught and punished.

PTP were popular in 2011. Many people in Thailand are bribed with cash and/or promises of aid, coerced or intimidated, have peer pressure applied, to vote for certain parties, PTP in the North and North East, Dems in the South and then the collection of local parties headed by the local big family big wig. That happens in the rural areas. And if you have family, relatives and friends in those areas you'll know that.

Equally, many many people I know in BKK and neighboring provinces never get this interference or even any political hustings. The usual vans and loudspeekers and that's about it. Many of those I know, all educated professionals, voted PTP in 2011 hoping Yingluck would be a change, something different. Those same people went to the protests against the Amnesty Bill - appalled by the whitewash being engineered primarily for Thaksin and appalled by the perceived corruption and constant lying of the PTP administration.

These people do not want to vote for the Dems. They know that's a vote for no changes, keeping the rich in power and the poor under the thumb. They won't vote PTP again, or any other Shin controlled party, because they know that is just a vehicle for Thaksin and have now seen the reality of what his control means.

There only hope is real reform - which given the current progress isn't very likely. So they except they can't do anything and probably will register not to vote next time, if and when there is a general election.

you take the bits you like and ignore the rest. The definitions of majority have been argued on other threads but you only want to use the one that suits and pretend the others don't exist.

dang, you guys are thick, aren't you ...

I have acknowledged all the definitions and synonyms for "majority"...

That is, kind of the point here. Because there are some posters calling other posters "liars" because they DO only want to use the one that suits THEM and ignore the rest...

Adios, ...

[jerojero]

Who gives a Sh*t what Mr. Nutt-job thinks or says!