Thaksin warns on democracy, economy in New Year message

[rubl]

"That should read "non-'pro-clone government'"."

Ah, now I understand, you mean those opposed to elected governments.

Thanks for clearing that up.

No, those opposed to a government with a pretty face as PM and run by a criminal fugitive, the one from the topic warning about democracy.

"No"? BS!

The PTP government you clearly hate was elected in an internationally monitored election. During the election and after the PTP made no secret of the fact that it was consulting with Thaksin. These consultations were legal; it doesn't matter that you didn't like them.

You lied rubl, you are clearly opposed to that elected government, and eager to avoid new elections in a real democracy because you know you once again won't like the results.

BTW, their was no escalating violence to justify the coup. The protesters had retreated to Lumpini Park and were fading fast. The coup was staged because the anti-democrats were afraid the scheduled July elections would be successful.

'you hate', 'you lied' ?

I guess you disagree with me. That's alright, no problem.

[Siripon]

This doesn't really add up.You object to political parties campaigning on populist measures - yet to some extent all campaign promises are populist measures.It's reasonable to ask that campaign promises are costed out - but that function cannot be delegated to some state quango.In the UK, the NHS and indeed the whole massive benefits system are populist measures beyond any ever contemplated in Thailand.You are all over the place with your examples anyway, the negligible tablets programme and the irrelevant traffic point.People like you never mention the massive skew of expenditure towards middle class urban residents in Bangkok - a populist measure if there ever was one.

You make ridiculous charges that Thailand was on the road to becoming another Cambodia ignoring the fact that Yingluck's government was checked at every turn.Above all you show no trust in the Thai people and equally you ignore that all political movements decline over time.You emerge as an apologist for repression.You never seem to understand that to defeat the influence of Shinawatra, it's necessary for the Democrats to reform.You seem to see to see the Junta and their stooges as the solution whereas for most Thais they are the problem.

Firstly i don't object to populist measures, i object to the practice of being able to promise whatever you like to win power. There has to be some holding to account beyond the ballot box because otherwise political parties will simply take the view that even if they get voted out in four years, it will have been worth it. There are indeed rules in place in most democracies regarding this - things that you can't promise - and my point was simply that i would like to see the rules here stiffened up and enforced more strictly.

Secondly, the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn. Had it been, certain disasters may have been avoided.

Thirdly, my lack of trust is in Thai politicians and a political system that can be severely bent, not in Thai people.

Lastly. where do i state or even imply that the junta is the solution? The solution is a democratic system that properly holds politicians to account, and a new breed of politician and political party which comes to power with an actual vision for the country, not just for their own bank account. That is when things may change. Until then, expect the same old cycle.

I'm sorry but that was a very unsatisfactory response.At the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power - as in every democracy.

You take the view that politicians are wicked and are only interested in making money while they are in power.This is precisely the view of the self appointed good people who are attempting to impose their agenda on the country.

You refer to rules in democracies preventing politicians from promising too much.No idea what you are referring to.I do not see how Thailand can tighten up on rules which don't exist.The solution to the problem is vigorous political debate.

If you do not think the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn you were either not paying attention or blinded by the Suthep agenda.

I kind of agree with your last para although you include the lazy assumption that politicians are only in it for the money.You also find it hard to accept the Thai people must have the chief influence.Of course politicians need to improve their act and in my view the Democrats have generally underperformed appallingly in this regard - because we expected so much more from the likes of Abhisit.

'Vigorous political debate' means nothing if the checks and balances are weak or ignored, Yingluk was warned by several institutions the rice policy was open to corruption and was losing money.

And when has Thaksin or Ying'luk ever 'debated' an issue with the Opposition? Every time Apisit proposed it it was rejected by Pheua Thai- 'not Thai style was their excuse,

[heybruce]

"That should read "non-'pro-clone government'"."

Ah, now I understand, you mean those opposed to elected governments.

Thanks for clearing that up.

No, those opposed to a government with a pretty face as PM and run by a criminal fugitive, the one from the topic warning about democracy.

"No"? BS!

The PTP government you clearly hate was elected in an internationally monitored election. During the election and after the PTP made no secret of the fact that it was consulting with Thaksin. These consultations were legal; it doesn't matter that you didn't like them.

You lied rubl, you are clearly opposed to that elected government, and eager to avoid new elections in a real democracy because you know you once again won't like the results.

BTW, their was no escalating violence to justify the coup. The protesters had retreated to Lumpini Park and were fading fast. The coup was staged because the anti-democrats were afraid the scheduled July elections would be successful.

'you hate', 'you lied' ?

I guess you disagree with me. That's alright, no problem.

Prove me wrong. Name an elected government in Thailand that you supported. Name a military government or coup that you objected to.

Edited April 10, 2016 by heybruce

[Plutojames88]

Thaksin makes very clear the future ahead for Thailand and the news looks bleak .

His legacy of 7% growth can't be snubbed at , or vanished by invented polls and propaganda .

The people feeble enough to ignore his warnings are irrelevant to the realities in any case .

Drought, military government who has lost it's way , economic down swing, and international focus on its human rights?

Thaksin must be the real life statesman loved by Thais who in these dark hours tolls the bell .

How long before this government starts to feel the pinch will be measured in months not years.

Though it might take 5 years before its ultimately unable to control the tide that will turn on its governance .

Thaksin is masterfully playing a waiting game .

I would be terrified if I were those government officials of their eventual fates

[rubl]

No, those opposed to a government with a pretty face as PM and run by a criminal fugitive, the one from the topic warning about democracy.

"No"? BS!

The PTP government you clearly hate was elected in an internationally monitored election. During the election and after the PTP made no secret of the fact that it was consulting with Thaksin. These consultations were legal; it doesn't matter that you didn't like them.

You lied rubl, you are clearly opposed to that elected government, and eager to avoid new elections in a real democracy because you know you once again won't like the results.

BTW, their was no escalating violence to justify the coup. The protesters had retreated to Lumpini Park and were fading fast. The coup was staged because the anti-democrats were afraid the scheduled July elections would be successful.

'you hate', 'you lied' ?

I guess you disagree with me. That's alright, no problem.

Prove me wrong. Name an elected government in Thailand that you supported. Name a military government or coup that you objected to.

Oh come on, heybruce. I already said it's no problem you disagree with me. It's no problem you accuse me of lying and hating. That's your opinion.

Now I hope you understand I will not even try to do anything with your accusations. I wasn't impressed by the Pheu Thai Promphong "I accuse, prove me wrong" approach neither by this cloning.

[baboon]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

[djjamie]

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay. You inadvertently cemented that you do not acknowledge when the majority vote against what you believe.

Take care my friend.

See you edited your post after my reply.

So, tell me how (in your mind) I inadvertently cemented my undemocratic creds?

You do know that just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true?

A junta supporter like you cannot accuse an election supporter like me of not accepting election results without looking like a complete......

Again huh?

[Wilsonandson]

Thaksin makes very clear the future ahead for Thailand and the news looks bleak .

His legacy of 7% growth can't be snubbed at , or vanished by invented polls and propaganda .

The people feeble enough to ignore his warnings are irrelevant to the realities in any case .

Drought, military government who has lost it's way , economic down swing, and international focus on its human rights?

Thaksin must be the real life statesman loved by Thais who in these dark hours tolls the bell .

How long before this government starts to feel the pinch will be measured in months not years.

Though it might take 5 years before its ultimately unable to control the tide that will turn on its governance .

Thaksin is masterfully playing a waiting game .

I would be terrified if I were those government officials of their eventual fates

Post of the day!

55555!!!

Keep going guys, best Sunday debate for months, priceless. I thought I posted krap. 5555.

[MZurf]

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay. You inadvertently cemented that you do not acknowledge when the majority vote against what you believe.

Take care my friend.

See you edited your post after my reply.

So, tell me how (in your mind) I inadvertently cemented my undemocratic creds?

You do know that just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true?

A junta supporter like you cannot accuse an election supporter like me of not accepting election results without looking like a complete......

Again huh?

Seems like djjamie wants to debate at the level of a five year old today. If there are any children reading this thread please feel free to join in.

[jayboy]

This doesn't really add up.You object to political parties campaigning on populist measures - yet to some extent all campaign promises are populist measures.It's reasonable to ask that campaign promises are costed out - but that function cannot be delegated to some state quango.In the UK, the NHS and indeed the whole massive benefits system are populist measures beyond any ever contemplated in Thailand.You are all over the place with your examples anyway, the negligible tablets programme and the irrelevant traffic point.People like you never mention the massive skew of expenditure towards middle class urban residents in Bangkok - a populist measure if there ever was one.

You make ridiculous charges that Thailand was on the road to becoming another Cambodia ignoring the fact that Yingluck's government was checked at every turn.Above all you show no trust in the Thai people and equally you ignore that all political movements decline over time.You emerge as an apologist for repression.You never seem to understand that to defeat the influence of Shinawatra, it's necessary for the Democrats to reform.You seem to see to see the Junta and their stooges as the solution whereas for most Thais they are the problem.

Firstly i don't object to populist measures, i object to the practice of being able to promise whatever you like to win power. There has to be some holding to account beyond the ballot box because otherwise political parties will simply take the view that even if they get voted out in four years, it will have been worth it. There are indeed rules in place in most democracies regarding this - things that you can't promise - and my point was simply that i would like to see the rules here stiffened up and enforced more strictly.

Secondly, the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn. Had it been, certain disasters may have been avoided.

Thirdly, my lack of trust is in Thai politicians and a political system that can be severely bent, not in Thai people.

Lastly. where do i state or even imply that the junta is the solution? The solution is a democratic system that properly holds politicians to account, and a new breed of politician and political party which comes to power with an actual vision for the country, not just for their own bank account. That is when things may change. Until then, expect the same old cycle.

I'm sorry but that was a very unsatisfactory response.At the last election each party campaigned on policies designed to win power - as in every democracy.

You take the view that politicians are wicked and are only interested in making money while they are in power.This is precisely the view of the self appointed good people who are attempting to impose their agenda on the country.

You refer to rules in democracies preventing politicians from promising too much.No idea what you are referring to.I do not see how Thailand can tighten up on rules which don't exist.The solution to the problem is vigorous political debate.

If you do not think the Yingluck government was not checked at every turn you were either not paying attention or blinded by the Suthep agenda.

I kind of agree with your last para although you include the lazy assumption that politicians are only in it for the money.You also find it hard to accept the Thai people must have the chief influence.Of course politicians need to improve their act and in my view the Democrats have generally underperformed appallingly in this regard - because we expected so much more from the likes of Abhisit.

'Vigorous political debate' means nothing if the checks and balances are weak or ignored, Yingluk was warned by several institutions the rice policy was open to corruption and was losing money.

And when has Thaksin or Ying'luk ever 'debated' an issue with the Opposition? Every time Apisit proposed it it was rejected by Pheua Thai- 'not Thai style was their excuse,

Institutions warn governments all the time and a wise government will consider sensible and unbiased advice.Yingluck's government was not wise but it was legitimate.

I value your insights but it does seem to me that you shouldn't expect an elected government to jump just because some agency feels a policy is too "populist" Try that attitude on in Tokyo, London or Washington and see how far you get.

I agree with you about the last government's unwillingness (inability?) to debate properly.But let's face it - they seem like Athenian orators compared with the current mob.

[rubl]

Thaksin makes very clear the future ahead for Thailand and the news looks bleak .

His legacy of 7% growth can't be snubbed at , or vanished by invented polls and propaganda .

The people feeble enough to ignore his warnings are irrelevant to the realities in any case .

Drought, military government who has lost it's way , economic down swing, and international focus on its human rights?

Thaksin must be the real life statesman loved by Thais who in these dark hours tolls the bell .

How long before this government starts to feel the pinch will be measured in months not years.

Though it might take 5 years before its ultimately unable to control the tide that will turn on its governance .

Thaksin is masterfully playing a waiting game .

I would be terrified if I were those government officials of their eventual fates

Post of the day!

55555!!!

Keep going guys, best Sunday debate for months, priceless. I thought I posted krap. 5555.

Absolutely, post of the day!

BTW Thaksin gives his opinion and indeed with him still trying to run the show from abroad the news looks bleak.

7% growth as emerging country when the World economy is booming after years of suffering effect of the 1997 Thai disease is nice. The economy was running out of steam in 2006 though, Thaksinomics don't have a lasting effect, apart from debt of course.

Droughts? Military lost their way? Should they sent out the aircraft carrier to stop El Nino (or did we have El Nina now)?

So, Thaksin playing games again. No surprise there.

[rubl]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

Some seem to have the right to insult and provoke,

others seem to have the duty to ignore such.

Allegedly of course.

[heybruce]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

[djjamie]

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay. You inadvertently cemented that you do not acknowledge when the majority vote against what you believe.

Take care my friend.

See you edited your post after my reply.

So, tell me how (in your mind) I inadvertently cemented my undemocratic creds?

You do know that just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true?

A junta supporter like you cannot accuse an election supporter like me of not accepting election results without looking like a complete......

Again huh?

Seems like djjamie wants to debate at the level of a five year old today. If there are any children reading this thread please feel free to join in.

Funnily enough I was going to say the same thing when you said "huh" and "huh, again"

Decided not to because that means I was not respecting my fellow forum members.

Take care my friend. Enjoy your bullying.

[djjamie]

" When they are held..."

Unfortunately the "when" is decided by an unelected person and his cronies so this might take a while. And even if they are held the junta is doing its very best to make sure it doesn't matter who win.

" ...and the majority decide they do not like thaksin or his parties after the contempt they showed for the majority you will be the first to state "rigged elections".

Untrue. Unlike you and the junta you support I will accept any choice the Thai people makes in a free and fair election (verified by international observers).

Quite frankly, you accusing me of not accepting an election result is laughable. Pot, kettle, black.

" Threatening your own supporters (farmers) if they protest does not win votes. "

Huh?

" The ethos by the thaksinites is respect the majority when they vote in agreeance with what they want and dismiss their voice when they don't. A previous constitution referendum cemented this ethos."

Again, huh?

"99% heay? Surprised it is not 99.7%"

Sorry to disappoint you but only the propaganda department of the junta operate with such ridiculous figures.

Huh? Short memory heay. You inadvertently cemented that you do not acknowledge when the majority vote against what you believe.

Take care my friend.

See you edited your post after my reply.

So, tell me how (in your mind) I inadvertently cemented my undemocratic creds?

You do know that just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true?

A junta supporter like you cannot accuse an election supporter like me of not accepting election results without looking like a complete......

Again huh?

Seems like djjamie wants to debate at the level of a five year old today. If there are any children reading this thread please feel free to join in.

Funnily enough I was going to say the same as you but felt it was against forum rules and besides I try to not disrespect or belittle other forum members. It makes me look weak and insecure.

I will not say "Huh" and "Huh, again" as apparently it makes me look like a 5 year old.

No need to remind some that I mimicked your comments of course when stating that.

[Ricardo]

Thaksin makes very clear the future ahead for Thailand and the news looks bleak .

His legacy of 7% growth can't be snubbed at , or vanished by invented polls and propaganda .

<snip for brevity>

"His legacy of 7% growth"

Just to point out that this was achieved over a decade ago, when the global economy was growing very strongly, and that Thaksin wasn't able to manage anything-like as well with his later governments in 2008 and again in 2011-2014.

In particular he took the credit for the rice scam scheme, which helped screw the farmers long-term, so some would say he helped create one of the economic problems which the current government is still struggling to deal with.

And that too is something which propaganda or criticism from afar can't simply make vanish.

Regarding the return to democracy, perhaps his views have indeed changed since he was directly in-power and decried its importance to his political-thinking, in which case it would be nice to hear him admit to having been wrong ... but I don't think he really does apologies, or admit to past errors. Or at least, not yet, he doesn't.

[rubl]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

[MZurf]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

" I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting."

Please let me know how the following question is loaded and leading:

After 19 coups/ attempted coups after which nothing changed but the snouts in the trough what makes you belive anything will be different this time?

I have posed this question to the junta supporters since right after the coup (when it became painfully apparent that nothing would change) but you all run away from it like Dracula from garlic.

[heybruce]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

I challenge you to "Name an elected government in Thailand that you supported. Name a military government or coup that you objected to." As expected, you dodge the challenge, then accuse me of "twisting and turning".

You are correct on one thing, I shouldn't have used the word "forcing". No forcing is necessary, I leave an obvious opening and you step right into it.

"Even Thaksin warns on democracy."? Thaksin came to power through elections, unlike the junta you defend at every opportunity.

Edited April 10, 2016 by heybruce

[rixalex]

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

Yes of course. Everything is a conspiracy against the Shinawatras. You go on enough about other people have a bogey-man obsession, seemingly oblivious of your own.

The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?), proves that your nasty bogeyman is clearly not as out to get your dear Shinawatras as your paranoid delusions make you think it is.

As far as i am aware, every democratic country that runs elections has an election commission of some sort whose job it is to see that election rules are followed. I already stated that i am not privy to the exact details as to what can and can't be done or said in an election campaign, but i would imagine something such as promising a cash advance to every citizen upon election to power would be in violation of the rules. I may be wrong. As i say, my assumption that there were certain rules or guidelines was taken from the fact that i have heard of parties being investigated for promises made. If there are no rules as you suggest, presumably there would be no investigations.

Irregardless of all of that, the point i was making was that i personally would like to see more responsible campaigning, and since i am not deluded enough to think that politicians will do so of their own accord, i think an independent body is needed to keep track of what is being promised and demand things like cost break downs when necessary, if nothing else just to make sure the public is aware of what is a realistic pledge and what is not. At the end of the day it would still be up to the public to decide.

[jayboy]

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

Yes of course. Everything is a conspiracy against the Shinawatras. You go on enough about other people have a bogey-man obsession, seemingly oblivious of your own.

The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?), proves that your nasty bogeyman is clearly not as out to get your dear Shinawatras as your paranoid delusions make you think it is.

As far as i am aware, every democratic country that runs elections has an election commission of some sort whose job it is to see that election rules are followed. I already stated that i am not privy to the exact details as to what can and can't be done or said in an election campaign, but i would imagine something such as promising a cash advance to every citizen upon election to power would be in violation of the rules. I may be wrong. As i say, my assumption that there were certain rules or guidelines was taken from the fact that i have heard of parties being investigated for promises made. If there are no rules as you suggest, presumably there would be no investigations.

Irregardless of all of that, the point i was making was that i personally would like to see more responsible campaigning, and since i am not deluded enough to think that politicians will do so of their own accord, i think an independent body is needed to keep track of what is being promised and demand things like cost break downs when necessary, if nothing else just to make sure the public is aware of what is a realistic pledge and what is not. At the end of the day it would still be up to the public to decide.

If you ( finally) admit that what you are in fact referring to are Electoral Commissons then you seem blissfully ignorant of what ECs are required to do.It's not a matter to use your comically lame excuse of not being privy to the exact details.

The job of the EC in most countries is to manage elections and referendums effectively including voter registration.An EC must also monitor party and election finance.Thus an EC certainly has a remit in matters of vote buying etc.It has no part in costing campaign pledges as you seemed to believe before backtracking.

[rubl]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

" I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting."

Please let me know how the following question is loaded and leading:

After 19 coups/ attempted coups after which nothing changed but the snouts in the trough what makes you belive anything will be different this time?

I have posed this question to the junta supporters since right after the coup (when it became painfully apparent that nothing would change) but you all run away from it like Dracula from garlic.

Anyway, my favourite example in this is Thaksin of the topic warning on democracy whatever questions others may ask.

[rubl]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

I challenge you to "Name an elected government in Thailand that you supported. Name a military government or coup that you objected to." As expected, you dodge the challenge, then accuse me of "twisting and turning".

You are correct on one thing, I shouldn't have used the word "forcing". No forcing is necessary, I leave an obvious opening and you step right into it.

"Even Thaksin warns on democracy."? Thaksin came to power through elections, unlike the junta you defend at every opportunity.

Nice challenge, my dear heybruce. The usual confirmation you provoke on purpose as well, but that's obvious when you write "you hate, you lied".

Back to Thaksin who is also good at nonsense and non-denials. A man good at public relations, Amply Rich enough to buy political parties, hypocrite enough to talk about democracy.

[MZurf]

Heybruce - You didn't seriously expect any kind of straight answer from this character, did you?

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

" I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting."

Please let me know how the following question is loaded and leading:

After 19 coups/ attempted coups after which nothing changed but the snouts in the trough what makes you belive anything will be different this time?

I have posed this question to the junta supporters since right after the coup (when it became painfully apparent that nothing would change) but you all run away from it like Dracula from garlic.

Anyway, my favourite example in this is Thaksin of the topic warning on democracy whatever questions others may ask.

I guess you answered my question.

[heybruce]

No, of course not. But by forcing him to evade simple, direct questions he shows everyone that he is a fan of "autocracy" (can't use the best word for the current government) and opposes democracy.

Just for the record, I don't evade simple direct questions. I just refuse to take on loaded and leading questions aimed at distracting. Of course your "you hate, you lied" didn't really make me feel it to be worthwhile to answer. Interesting that you describe that as 'forcing'.

So, you don't like my opinion and do your best to provoke me with 'you hate', 'you lied'. Following to try to position me as the 'bad boy'. Typical. No wonder even Thaksin warns on democracy. Maybe I can borrow his 'X' to indicate inappropriate questions ?

Enjoy your day, twisting and turned as usual. Democratically of course.

I challenge you to "Name an elected government in Thailand that you supported. Name a military government or coup that you objected to." As expected, you dodge the challenge, then accuse me of "twisting and turning".

You are correct on one thing, I shouldn't have used the word "forcing". No forcing is necessary, I leave an obvious opening and you step right into it.

"Even Thaksin warns on democracy."? Thaksin came to power through elections, unlike the junta you defend at every opportunity.

Nice challenge, my dear heybruce. The usual confirmation you provoke on purpose as well, but that's obvious when you write "you hate, you lied".

Back to Thaksin who is also good at nonsense and non-denials. A man good at public relations, Amply Rich enough to buy political parties, hypocrite enough to talk about democracy.

Is this what you mean by "twisting and turning"--writing a reply that says nothing?

You are vaguely specific when you post "hypocrite enough to talk about democracy." What is hypocritical about a man who consistently wins elections talking about democracy?

[heybruce]

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

Yes of course. Everything is a conspiracy against the Shinawatras. You go on enough about other people have a bogey-man obsession, seemingly oblivious of your own.

The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?), proves that your nasty bogeyman is clearly not as out to get your dear Shinawatras as your paranoid delusions make you think it is.

As far as i am aware, every democratic country that runs elections has an election commission of some sort whose job it is to see that election rules are followed. I already stated that i am not privy to the exact details as to what can and can't be done or said in an election campaign, but i would imagine something such as promising a cash advance to every citizen upon election to power would be in violation of the rules. I may be wrong. As i say, my assumption that there were certain rules or guidelines was taken from the fact that i have heard of parties being investigated for promises made. If there are no rules as you suggest, presumably there would be no investigations.

Irregardless of all of that, the point i was making was that i personally would like to see more responsible campaigning, and since i am not deluded enough to think that politicians will do so of their own accord, i think an independent body is needed to keep track of what is being promised and demand things like cost break downs when necessary, if nothing else just to make sure the public is aware of what is a realistic pledge and what is not. At the end of the day it would still be up to the public to decide.

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

[rixalex]

"The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?)"

Are there laws against such a thing? How would one write a law saying a politician or political party can't consult with anyone it wanted to?

I assume if there were such laws, there would have been many legal challenges against the PTP before, during and after the election.

To try and argue that Thaksin was merely "consulting" the party is nothing more than a sad and pathetic attempt to try and dance around the truth with semantics. Nobody believes it, not even the idiots who spout it. It's to be received with the same sort of incredulity as Bill Clinton saying that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, on the basis that his supposed understanding of the definition of having sexual relations included the giving of oral sex but excluded the receiving.

No doubt if pushed to respond on the matter of leadership in the case of a legal challenge, Thaksin would offer some similarly mealy mouthed lie, based on his own concocted and farcical idea of what was included in the definition of leadership and what wasn't.

Why embarrass yourself with all this? Why not just admit the truth?

Edited April 12, 2016 by rixalex

[rixalex]

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

Yes of course. Everything is a conspiracy against the Shinawatras. You go on enough about other people have a bogey-man obsession, seemingly oblivious of your own.

The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?), proves that your nasty bogeyman is clearly not as out to get your dear Shinawatras as your paranoid delusions make you think it is.

As far as i am aware, every democratic country that runs elections has an election commission of some sort whose job it is to see that election rules are followed. I already stated that i am not privy to the exact details as to what can and can't be done or said in an election campaign, but i would imagine something such as promising a cash advance to every citizen upon election to power would be in violation of the rules. I may be wrong. As i say, my assumption that there were certain rules or guidelines was taken from the fact that i have heard of parties being investigated for promises made. If there are no rules as you suggest, presumably there would be no investigations.

Irregardless of all of that, the point i was making was that i personally would like to see more responsible campaigning, and since i am not deluded enough to think that politicians will do so of their own accord, i think an independent body is needed to keep track of what is being promised and demand things like cost break downs when necessary, if nothing else just to make sure the public is aware of what is a realistic pledge and what is not. At the end of the day it would still be up to the public to decide.

If you ( finally) admit that what you are in fact referring to are Electoral Commissons then you seem blissfully ignorant of what ECs are required to do.It's not a matter to use your comically lame excuse of not being privy to the exact details.

The job of the EC in most countries is to manage elections and referendums effectively including voter registration.An EC must also monitor party and election finance.Thus an EC certainly has a remit in matters of vote buying etc.It has no part in costing campaign pledges as you seemed to believe before backtracking.

I'm aware thank you of the primary function of the EC in most countries, i'm just not aware of the precise remit in individual cases, as it seems nor are you.

If you do a search for EC investigates you will find that this body has been involved into looking into a fairly wide range of matters concerning elections and election campaigns. Whether or not they take an interest in exactly what promises are being made and how they are being made, i admit to being uncertain, except to say, and to repeat, that i do know of investigations that have been launched into promises made and it would be a logical conclusion to suspect that the EC were in some way involved into looking into these matters, would it not.

All of this however is nicely sidetracking from the main point i was making, and that was that whatever the rules are or aren't, i would like to see a more responsible type of campaigning that didn't use crude, simplistic, short-term vote buying techniques, that played on voters vulnerabilities. I do appreciate however, as this technique has been exemplified most successfully by a certain politician - who by no coincidence has also had great election success - why some people would be in favour of the keeping of this practice, and might be fearful were it curbed.

[jayboy]

You will have to do a lot better than this.I asked you to be specific about the rules governing what can be said by a political party during election campaigns.You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe.You do not even demonstrate there are any such rules in Thailand apart from a vague reference to the Junta's political campaign against the Shinawatras.

Yes of course. Everything is a conspiracy against the Shinawatras. You go on enough about other people have a bogey-man obsession, seemingly oblivious of your own.

The very fact that the PTP were able to assume power in spite of the fact that the party was very obviously being lead by an overseas criminal (are you going to deny that that was the situation or deny that there are laws against that sort of thing?), proves that your nasty bogeyman is clearly not as out to get your dear Shinawatras as your paranoid delusions make you think it is.

As far as i am aware, every democratic country that runs elections has an election commission of some sort whose job it is to see that election rules are followed. I already stated that i am not privy to the exact details as to what can and can't be done or said in an election campaign, but i would imagine something such as promising a cash advance to every citizen upon election to power would be in violation of the rules. I may be wrong. As i say, my assumption that there were certain rules or guidelines was taken from the fact that i have heard of parties being investigated for promises made. If there are no rules as you suggest, presumably there would be no investigations.

Irregardless of all of that, the point i was making was that i personally would like to see more responsible campaigning, and since i am not deluded enough to think that politicians will do so of their own accord, i think an independent body is needed to keep track of what is being promised and demand things like cost break downs when necessary, if nothing else just to make sure the public is aware of what is a realistic pledge and what is not. At the end of the day it would still be up to the public to decide.

If you ( finally) admit that what you are in fact referring to are Electoral Commissons then you seem blissfully ignorant of what ECs are required to do.It's not a matter to use your comically lame excuse of not being privy to the exact details.

The job of the EC in most countries is to manage elections and referendums effectively including voter registration.An EC must also monitor party and election finance.Thus an EC certainly has a remit in matters of vote buying etc.It has no part in costing campaign pledges as you seemed to believe before backtracking.

I'm aware thank you of the primary function of the EC in most countries, i'm just not aware of the precise remit in individual cases, as it seems nor are you.

If you do a search for EC investigates you will find that this body has been involved into looking into a fairly wide range of matters concerning elections and election campaigns. Whether or not they take an interest in exactly what promises are being made and how they are being made, i admit to being uncertain, except to say, and to repeat, that i do know of investigations that have been launched into promises made and it would be a logical conclusion to suspect that the EC were in some way involved into looking into these matters, would it not.

All of this however is nicely sidetracking from the main point i was making, and that was that whatever the rules are or aren't, i would like to see a more responsible type of campaigning that didn't use crude, simplistic, short-term vote buying techniques, that played on voters vulnerabilities. I do appreciate however, as this technique has been exemplified most successfully by a certain politician - who by no coincidence has also had great election success - why some people would be in favour of the keeping of this practice, and might be fearful were it curbed.

It has been explained to you several times your assumptions on the role of the EC are completely wrong.There is no fuzziness or doubt on this matter since the regulations of the EC are public documents.

Certainly there is a common view in some circles that the PTP conned a gullible and poorly educated rural electorate with unsustainable populist promises - and this should have been nipped in the bud before the election.Perhaps this is what you were struggling to articulate.It is all pernicious nonsense of course but quite widely held.

I too would like to see more responsible campaigning but this cannot be dealt with by diktat.Your complaint about Thaksin seems to be he is a very effective campaigning politician who has outclassed his rivals in this respect.

Frankly I find your obsessive tone on Thaksin's campaigning style rather bizarre given the current climate when politicians are being threatened with imprisonment for engaging in democratic debate.On this of course you and other apologists for repression remain firmly silent.

[rixalex]

It has been explained to you several times your assumptions on the role of the EC are completely wrong.There is no fuzziness or doubt on this matter since the regulations of the EC are public documents.

You talked about such rules in most democracies but as far as I know there are no such rules in the US, the UK and Western Europe

Interesting how you have switched from an earlier as far as i know position to now this sudden and new position of complete clarity without room for a whisker of doubt in your understanding. I assume in the interim period you sat down and read, back to front, the entire list of published rules by the EC, in order to have climbed to your lofty superior knowledge perch. Impressive dedication to the cause.

Either that or you are just guessing...