Thaksin warns on democracy, economy in New Year message

[billd766]

With democracy there is no way to "permanently stay in power".- I think Hunsen might disagree with you there, and of course the rulers of Singapore. The point is with the entrenched patronage system in Thailand there is no real democracy, only the MPs for the Democrat party have any independence, the other party MPS are simply minions to be disposed of by the party owners when they feel displeased

Why don't the red shirts set up their own democratic party comprised of grassroots activists and civil reformers?

Perhaps because they don't have any "real" politicians in the UDD who are capable of winning an election and running the country.

They don't appear to have any policies of their own but follow any Thaksin party policies.

They also don't seem to have enough money to found and build a political party which isn't cheap to do in most countries let alone Thailand.

Edited by me for bad spelling.

Edited April 17, 2016 by billd766

[billd766]

You junta boys have no common sense. If in your home country the military over through your government, you would be protesting on the street. But here you say no problem. You guys are the true meaning of hypocrites. In a democracy when people dont like a political figure, they elect him out of office. In Thailand the military overthrows governments because they dont have the knowledge and education to do what is right. Kindergarden kids thats what the government is here. You dont like what Thaksin has to say? Dont listen. Whether you like it or not, the majority people of Thailand want him back. The rich and influential don't but, the country as a whole does.

The majority? Probably the 'vocal' majority paid by Thaksin ?

BTW you demean yourself by thinking you need to start with "you junta boys", IMHO

What should I call the people who support the military junta?

You could always call them "the people who support the junta".

You could also call the people who support Thaksin, the "people who support Thaksin".

Neither are particularly offensive names and would be pretty much "politically correct".

[2fishin2]

J-boys

T-boys

[rubl]

You junta boys have no common sense. If in your home country the military over through your government, you would be protesting on the street. But here you say no problem. You guys are the true meaning of hypocrites. In a democracy when people dont like a political figure, they elect him out of office. In Thailand the military overthrows governments because they dont have the knowledge and education to do what is right. Kindergarden kids thats what the government is here. You dont like what Thaksin has to say? Dont listen. Whether you like it or not, the majority people of Thailand want him back. The rich and influential don't but, the country as a whole does.

The majority? Probably the 'vocal' majority paid by Thaksin ?

BTW you demean yourself by thinking you need to start with "you junta boys", IMHO

What should I call the people who support the military junta?

Do you feel a need for a label which sound funny and allows all to give their own interpretation to what it means? Do you need the implicit suggestion associated with 'boys' (both 'young' and 'one of the boys')?

Interesting is that your post just start with 'junta boys', as if we have some 'junta boys' here. It would seem that anyone who is not rabid against the junta is automatically a 'junta boy'. Reminds me of all those who "are not for Thaksin but ...". Thaksin, the chap of the topic, would of course agree with you. He has a fine feeling for Public Relations.

[rubl]

J-boys

T-boys

Don't forget the Y-boys.

[2fishin2]

Im not a fan of Junta or any followers. If a person is, no respect from me, zero. For the record, Im not a fan of Thaksin either. I am a fan of democracy and the rule of law. Thaksin was far from perfect but, the Junta is much further. At least Thaksin was freely elected by the people. The junta stole the country....again for the umpteenth time. Thai politics same story, different year.

[baboon]

You junta boys have no common sense. If in your home country the military over through your government, you would be protesting on the street. But here you say no problem. You guys are the true meaning of hypocrites. In a democracy when people dont like a political figure, they elect him out of office. In Thailand the military overthrows governments because they dont have the knowledge and education to do what is right. Kindergarden kids thats what the government is here. You dont like what Thaksin has to say? Dont listen. Whether you like it or not, the majority people of Thailand want him back. The rich and influential don't but, the country as a whole does.

The majority? Probably the 'vocal' majority paid by Thaksin ?

BTW you demean yourself by thinking you need to start with "you junta boys", IMHO

What should I call the people who support the military junta?

Do you feel a need for a label which sound funny and allows all to give their own interpretation to what it means? Do you need the implicit suggestion associated with 'boys' (both 'young' and 'one of the boys')?

Interesting is that your post just start with 'junta boys', as if we have some 'junta boys' here. It would seem that anyone who is not rabid against the junta is automatically a 'junta boy'. Reminds me of all those who "are not for Thaksin but ...". Thaksin, the chap of the topic, would of course agree with you. He has a fine feeling for Public Relations.

The Thaivisa master of innuendo and gutter smears gets all uppity.

All in the name of democracy of course.

[rixalex]

Some people don't handle well egg on their face and a prime example is rixalex. It is obvious that there are no laws specifically forbidding criminal fugitives influencing governments. There are also no laws forbidding children, grandmothers (dead or alive), unicorns or aliens to influence decisions.

Case closed.

I wasn't arguing that there were laws "forbidding criminal fugitives influencing governments", I was arguing that there are laws forbidding criminal fugitives from leading political parties and leading the country.

The fact that PTP, Thaksin and Yingluck were at pains to tell the nation that he wasn't leading the party or the country, should tell you something. The case isn't closed but sadly the same can't be said for your mind.

[rixalex]

You don't have evidence, you now claim you were only presenting an opinion, yet you express your opinions with statements such as:

"As i have said a dozen time or so, there are laws that prohibit on the run convicts who don't live in the country from running political parties." post #157

"If you seriously believe there are no laws that would prevent not only someone who doesn't live in the country, but someone who is a wanted and convicted felon, from leading a political party and running the country, then it is you who are the troll, because nobody in their sane mind would believe such a thing." post #160

"Of course there are laws that prohibit on the run criminals who live overseas from leading the country." post #131

I could continue, but that is enough to establish the obvious: you have been consistently presenting your opinion as an indisputable fact, in spite of having no evidence. That is what I object to; don't misrepresent opinions as facts then insist you don't need evidence to support these "facts".

Regarding your being confused, you stated "you think that people who don't live in the country can still lead political parties and run the country." I never posted that, I argued that Thaksin could do nothing more than advise, if the party chose to ignore his advice there was nothing he could do about it. In addition, I argued that no one had identified any laws that were broken.

You were the one constantly arguing, as if it were in indisputable fact, that he was running the party and the country from overseas. Of course you couldn't support this claim with evidence, and you never identified any laws that were broken.

You have no evidence that overseas on the run criminals are legally permitted to lead a political party or a country, but have been stating your opinion that they are as a fact. Stop demanding evidence of others unless you can produce your own.

[rixalex]

I don't recall it being a police state under Thaksin, certainly not compared to now.

You have already stated that you weren't living here under Thaksin.

[rixalex]

Thaksin's real power came by shifting some government investment from Bangkok, which had been receiving 90% of government spending, to the grossly under-served areas in the north and northeast where the majority of the population lives. Roads, clinics and schools were built, remote villagers could get their children to clinics for vaccinations, more children graduated high school and went to university or technical schools, etc.

Bangkok receiving 90% of government spending? More children graduating high school and going to university or technical schools?

Interesting facts. Let's see the evidence for them.