I've been denied entry to Thailand - Now What ! ?

[jesimps]

I see that some posters like this article.

It makes sense that they do because Tulsathit is a diehard anti-democratic royalist mouthpiece and makes a number of fake arguments that his side repeat and repeat, some of them are arguments which I see repeated by equally undemocratic Falangs here.

The first is that democracy cannot exist in Thailand until corruption is defeated.

• This is a favorite refrain of the elites. It's a fake argument.
• But since corruption will always exist, it is an argument that fits the anti-democratic agenda perfectly
• Tulsathit, like all other elites, think that only politicians are corrupt, ie; the good generals who "save" the country every time (for the elites) are just good people with the country's best interests at heart. That too is complete nonsense
• The only solution Tulsathit and his friends see to corruption is an undemocratic solution - surprise surprise, they hate democracy, so that is the goal of the fake argument

The second fake argument is that elected governments "can do just about anything"

• this is also called "parliamentary dictatorship" by anti-democrats, or
• it is just called the "democracy trap" by the current, self-appointed, "PM"

The reality is, even in Thailand under the last military constitution, much less the 1997 constitution, politicians and parliament have rules and must follow them. When you notice that the first court complaint was lodged against the PTP government in August of 2011, then you can see that the anti-democrats, in fact, use the "rule of law" to their full advantage. But when it suits them, as in 2014, even with the courts and the NACC hounding the government with legal cases, they pretend that the politicians are untouchable and only the Generals can, once again, save the country.

Given that Tulsathit's own position is blatantly anti-democratic, he must also try to smear his opponents. The next fake argument is that people who want a democratic constitution are only interested in how much power elected governments have, and "there is little more to it than that". Tulsathit could at least expend a bit more effort to disparage democratic people, but I serious doubt his overall level of intelligence in the first place. But as for his fake argument:

• He is trying, again, to tie political power to corruption - this time without stating it explicitly.
• This apparently, is supposed to support his other fake argument, that "true" democracy cannot exist until corruption is eliminated.
• He dismisses with such ease, the fact that elected governments are elected to represent the people and must therefore, have the means of governing. This is a core aspect of democracy and anti-democrats hate it because they want the government to represent, and benefit, them, and them only.

Another gem of a moronic fake argument is that defending the constitution depends on the behavior of politicians. He, like so many anti-democrats, feel the need to skate on this dangerously thin ice, since they are the ones who tear up constitution after constitution, even the ones they write themselves. First,

• Illegal behaviour by politicians must be, and is, dealt with by the legal system. Their "misbehaviour" is no justification for a coup.
• Defending the constitution means that all parties follow the constitution which is another dangerous point for the anti-election, anti-democrats and their military buddies who sat on the side lines while their fake-crisis and the PDRC interrupted the very constitutional process called for in a crisis : an election.
• Tulsathit and his friends know this which is why they must always always always make corrupt politicians the boogeymen and pretend that the only "solution" is the army.

In general, this guy is not only a diehard anti-democrat, but all of his articles which I have seen posted in The Nation follow this same level of base, moronic, logic to support the cause of the military/elite alliance that has kept a grip on the country since the mid 50s.

Great post.

[The Deerhunter]

I think he lifted the wrong phrase from former US president. Should have gone with "What's good for General Motors Thai ruling elite is good for the country"

"the presence of a black american Muslim president for two terms" <deleted>? Suggest you take a look at Constitution: religious test to hold office has been gone a few hundred years, and also no qualification as to race of President either. Just thought you might want to know....

Heck, I think GW Bush must have frightened every American voter except the Southern baptist/Military/Industrial blocs. And since him the Republican presidential candidates have just got worse. Of course the people voted for Obama! The alternative obviously seemed worse! In many (most) elections people are voted out not IN! Millions would have said "Oh no, Not him/her etc." And,"Could Obama possibly be worse than that? Not a chance. Lets at least give him a go." A Black American president? I would not have thought America was that "democratic" yet. But, I think they voted against the Republican presidential candidate the last two elections, by voting FOR the Democrat alternative. Regardless who he was, he was resoundingly NOT Romney, Palin, Mccain etc etc. I cannot see Trump changing that. Most people would hardly see him as the guy to make America a happy caring successful place again. Not exactly a JFK, or a Reagan, "Man of the people" kinda guy, is he? "Ich bin ein New Yorker!" Nah. Doesn't have the same ring to it. Sorry for an off-topic rant, but some people do not seem to understand plain English.

Edited September 2, 2015 by The Deerhunter