CDC agrees only House members are entitled to nominate prime minister

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, sujoop said:

 

one more:
-Want to evade paying tax on your multibillion family biz sale? Just pass a law...

Thaksin, your lot's hero of 'democracy' and democratic values.... how aspirational!
Again, if your Govt pulled sh$t like this you'd be in the street - with pitchforks!
 

You also appear to be alluding Thaksin acted similar to the Junta (just that he was elected, so that's ok by you lot, what hypocrites...) And what accountability? The larger point you lot are missing here, is a Coup WAS the last measure remaining to counter-act the UN-democratic actions and subverting of checks/balances by Thaksin & proxies. The other option was to just roll over and let him take complete control like a Marcos, Suharto, or his buddy Hun Sen etc. Well that eventuality was necessarily stopped again and now directly BECAUSE of Thaksin's incessant, blatant abuse and manipulation of 'democracy', HERE WE ARE! Deal with it and see you in 5 years to try again. Meanwhile, sorry, but the senate baby-sitting role has been proven to be HIGHLY necessary in the interim.

 

Just pass a law ? A law that had to be approved by elected PM's and elected senators (as at that time, the 1997 constitution was still in effect).

 

Now indeed they just pass a law, as there is no-one that can stop them. And no pitchforks either, as that would mean serious jail time...

 

We in the west could and probably would have voted him out of office. There was ample accountability, he was accountable to parliament, to the constitution court and to the electorate. To whom is Prayuth accountable ?, especially considering his self aclaimed amnesty and article 44 ?

 

The senate baby sitting role is just to ensure the elite has access to power. There is no denying, as history has shown without any doubt that this is what they have been doing for decades here in Thailand. Your ignorance about this country's history is obvious and astounishing. These people are a whole lot worse than Thaksin could ever hope to be, and they cannot be voted out of office.

 

Rest assured, this constitution isn't going to last five years, I just hope it can go without violence. The ghost will not go back into the bottle and that is a very good thing.

 

As to the coup being the last measure, that's a lie. General elections were scheduled, under a junta devised constitution. My I think you mean, it was the last measure to prevent the Thai electorate to have a say, and that indeed was exactly what the coup was. This constitution is ample proof of the real reason for the coup. It was never about the Thai people or Thailand as a whole, the blatant human rights abuses being further prove of this statement.

 

Get out of your bubble, you are being played for a fool.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by sjaak327

[MZurf]

24 minutes ago, smedly said:

more garbage

 

you know Thailand just had a referendum - right

 

The peasants as you call them voted - move on

So you demand that the referendum result be honored. A referendum organized by an illegal junta with not public debate allowed. Yet you do not honor the results of several election, elections which saw vigorous public debate.

The hypocrisy you're displaying is mind numbing!

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

More garbage.  Only the most blinkered junta supporters call the referendum legitimate. 

 

Propaganda, censorship, no independent monitoring of the election and a choice between military rule under the proposed constitution or a military rule under the constitution of the military's choosing.

 

As I pointed out to Halloween, if there were a referendum in which the choice was between PTP rule with Yingluck as leader of TRT rule with Thaksin as leader, you would scream the referendum was unfair.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

And Halloween denies your BS. But that won't stop repeating it people get tired of refuting your crap.

You can't refute the above.  The best you've come up with is referring to widely recognized facts as "opinions".

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

" Thailand's history has demonstrated the corrupt military "baby-sitters" will abuse power and enrich themselves at the expense of the nation, and the only recourse involves blood on the streets."

 

I was citing historical precedent, not advocating violence.  But a good junta propagandist like you doesn't let facts get in your way.

 

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the fraudulent referendum doesn't reflect the choices of the Thai people.  But, again, you don't let facts interfere with your propaganda.

"

And don't let the repetition of calls to violence interrupt your citing of historical precedent.

[heybruce]

Just now, halloween said:

And don't let the repetition of calls to violence interrupt your citing of historical precedent.

Please show me where anyone on this forum has called for violence.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, MZurf said:

So you demand that the referendum result be honored. A referendum organized by an illegal junta with not public debate allowed. Yet you do not honor the results of several election, elections which saw vigorous public debate.

The hypocrisy you're displaying is mind numbing!

 

Actually the results of elections were honored, right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonorable. Being elected doesn't give you a mandate to commit crimes, or to vote yourself an amnesty.

Cue 'but but but the junta.'

[Eric Loh]

34 minutes ago, smedly said:

believe we are looking at 5 years of stability, if I see a foul I will call it like always have done

 

Hilarious. you slept through the recent bombings?

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Please show me where anyone on this forum has called for violence.

" the only recourse involves blood on the streets."  is not a call to violence? Claiming there is NO other course of action when there obviously is?

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Actually the results of elections were honored, right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonorable. Being elected doesn't give you a mandate to commit crimes, or to vote yourself an amnesty.

Cue 'but but but the junta.'

 

Last I know that the only amnesty legislated into law was by the military. Others simply didn't happen. Don't but Thaksin me, Halloween.  

[MZurf]

17 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Actually the results of elections were honored, right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonorable. Being elected doesn't give you a mandate to commit crimes, or to vote yourself an amnesty.

Cue 'but but but the junta.'

"Actually the results of elections were honored, right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonorable."

OK, so being "dishonorable" is reason enough for a government institution (the army) with certain "issues" wrt corruption to suspend basic human rights and overthrow an elected government?

Tell me, who shall be the judge of whether a government is dishonorable or no? The army chief? If that's the case you really must tell me what has made you confident Thai army chiefs are paragons of virtue!!

 

"Being elected doesn't give you a mandate to commit crimes..."

Quite right, and being in uniform doesn't give you a mandate to commit treason by staging coups.

 

Cue "But, but, but....Thaksin!"

[MZurf]

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Last I know that the only amnesty legislated into law was by the military. Others simply didn't happen. Don't but Thaksin me, Halloween.  

Actually, halloween has stated that he doesn't care who is in charge as long as it's not Thaksin so the "But, but, but..Thaksin" argument trumps everything in his peculiar world.

[sjaak327]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

more garbage

 

you know Thailand just had a referendum - right

 

The peasants as you call them voted - move on

HAHAHA, now all of sudden you respect election results ! Of course the fact that those particular elections didn't offer people a real choice and the fact that it violated pretty much all democratic principles is of no concern right.

no-one outside of your little world has taken the referendum seriously.

[sjaak327]

35 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Actually the results of elections were honored, right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonorable. Being elected doesn't give you a mandate to commit crimes, or to vote yourself an amnesty.

Cue 'but but but the junta.'

This post really takes the cake.

 

So let me get this straight, removing an elected government with 300 out of 500 seats in parliament by means of a coup is respecting election results, not to mention the fact that the government was in care taker mode and elections were pending ?

 

By the way, I am dying to hear what crimes Yingluck did commit. She was accused of a few things and has been removed from office (another bubble burts, there were checks and balances at the time !). As for the amnesty, that was a law passed by parliament (over 300 Pm's voted yes) and subsequently denied by the senate. At no point in time did anyone have amnesty.

 

Of course now we have people who do, they simply staged a coup, wrote their very own constitution with far reaching power and amnesty not only for past crimes but future ones too ! Apparently staging a coup with no mandate from the electorate whatsoever, does give a mandate to commit crimes (high treason) and write yourself the mother of all amnesties.

 

You are simply too funny. Do you ever read back what you have written, surely you must laugh at your own bullshit.

 

 

[JAG]

1 hour ago, MZurf said:

"Actually the results of elections were honored, right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonorable."

OK, so being "dishonorable" is reason enough for a government institution (the army) with certain "issues" wrt corruption to suspend basic human rights and overthrow an elected government?

Tell me, who shall be the judge of whether a government is dishonorable or no? The army chief? If that's the case you really must tell me what has made you confident Thai army chiefs are paragons of virtue!!

 

"Being elected doesn't give you a mandate to commit crimes..."

Quite right, and being in uniform doesn't give you a mandate to commit treason by staging coups.

 

Cue "But, but, but....Thaksin!"

 

Not only are they paragons of virtue, but they invested wisely and married well!

 

As for"the election results being honoured right up to the stage when those elected proved themselves dishonourable", coups take quite a long time to be planned. Suthep himself has admitted that there were talks about the coup long before the Thaksin amnesty vote.

 

One might surmise that the coup was on the cards from the moment Pheu Thai won the election. Personally I suspect that the first ideas flitted through various minds when it became clear that Abhisit might not win.

Edited August 25, 2016 by JAG

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Please show me where anyone on this forum has called for violence.

 

3 hours ago, halloween said:

" the only recourse involves blood on the streets."  is not a call to violence? Claiming there is NO other course of action when there obviously is?

Once again, you are editing my posts to take them out of context.

 

" Thailand's history has demonstrated the corrupt military "baby-sitters" will abuse power and enrich themselves at the expense of the nation, and the only recourse involves blood on the streets."

 

Historical precedent, not a call to violence.   Got anything credible?

[aussieinthailand]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

Perhaps if they started jailing senators and MPs willing to accept bribes? But no, being paid to be a member of a political party and vote to orders is perfectly acceptable, to PTP at least.

Cliaming 30% out of a possible 60 million as a vote for the sham referendum is a joke

[Plutojames88]

10 hours ago, aussieinthailand said:

Cliaming 30% out of a possible 60 million as a vote for the sham referendum is a joke

What's worse is the morally indefensible position of being pro junta at the poor hijacked Thais expense and having the audacity to claim they have a mandate.

 

I wonder what else these people are ok with? 

 

Certainly no conscience 

[halloween]

13 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

This post really takes the cake.

 

So let me get this straight, removing an elected government with 300 out of 500 seats in parliament by means of a coup is respecting election results, not to mention the fact that the government was in care taker mode and elections were pending ?

 

By the way, I am dying to hear what crimes Yingluck did commit. She was accused of a few things and has been removed from office (another bubble burts, there were checks and balances at the time !). As for the amnesty, that was a law passed by parliament (over 300 Pm's voted yes) and subsequently denied by the senate. At no point in time did anyone have amnesty.

 

Of course now we have people who do, they simply staged a coup, wrote their very own constitution with far reaching power and amnesty not only for past crimes but future ones too ! Apparently staging a coup with no mandate from the electorate whatsoever, does give a mandate to commit crimes (high treason) and write yourself the mother of all amnesties.

 

You are simply too funny. Do you ever read back what you have written, surely you must laugh at your own bullshit.

 

 

Why don't you ask Yingluk why she needed an amnesty if she never committed a crime?

"At no point in time did anyone have amnesty." Because it was denied by the senate. Would that have happened if PTP held a majority there? Over 300 MPs KNEW that their government was committing crimes, or did they just vote to order to avoid losing their payment? 

 

[halloween]

10 hours ago, aussieinthailand said:

Cliaming 30% out of a possible 60 million as a vote for the sham referendum is a joke

30% is enough for a US president, but not for a Thai referendum?

 

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Once again, you are editing my posts to take them out of context.

 

" Thailand's history has demonstrated the corrupt military "baby-sitters" will abuse power and enrich themselves at the expense of the nation, and the only recourse involves blood on the streets."

 

Historical precedent, not a call to violence.   Got anything credible?

Show me that blood on the streets was necessary for the restoration of democracy after each coup, then I will accept that it was the only recourse. Until then it is a call for violence.

[ddavidovsky]

This debate is getting more and more desperate. That in itself doesn't bode well.

 

All I can say is that if certain people on this thread are not already on the junta's payroll, they ought to be, as they are far more articulate than their masters in the application of their sincere belief that not all Thai people are equal, which is what the political situation boils down to.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

30% is enough for a US president, but not for a Thai referendum?

Correct.

30% is not enough for amending the US Constitution - why should it be enough for Thais?

An election is simply not the same level of electoral participation of a constitutional referendum. 

Why?

Because the US electoral system and democratic form of government provides checks and balances on the actions of elected officials. The results of which may range from public rebute, sanctions, disciplinary action, recall, blocked or blocking legislation, blocked nominations, loss of re-election, etc. With the constitution the only check and balance is the constitutional court (US Supreme Court in the US) which can only prevent abuse or violation of the constitution but cannot alter the constitution.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

[aussieinthailand]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

30% is enough for a US president, but not for a Thai referendum?

 

Show me that blood on the streets was necessary for the restoration of democracy after each coup, then I will accept that it was the only recourse. Until then it is a call for violence.

Standard procedure for you mate,   you don't like the FACT that 30%  of a possible 60 million on a referendum a is not a majority of the country and has no mandate of the people and the junta leader naming it  "The people's constitution " is a joke.

"30% is enough for a US president, but not for a Thai referendum?"  Deflect as per usual,  Apples Oranges. 

Is 30% enough to take office in Thailand with out coalitions?

Then you show your true colors again by refusing to answer a direct question.

And your ridicules claim,    ( legislation is not passed for a hypothetical situations come to pass.)  yet you have a crack at any who are proven wrong and you yourself won't put your hand up when proven wrong... 

[kowpot]

That may be so, but Obama sure thinks he can.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Show me that blood on the streets was necessary for the restoration of democracy after each coup, then I will accept that it was the only recourse. Until then it is a call for violence.

When has "REAL democracy", to use your term for it, ever been restored to Thailand?  Thaksin was the only PM in Thailand's history to serve a complete term in elected office, no PM has ever served two.  That's not long enough for democracy to be established. 

 

There has been significant bloodshed, notably in 1973, 1976 and 1992, that temporarily weakened the military's hold on power, but nothing that eliminated it or the deep state it defends.  However the Thai people are better educated and better informed about the outside world than every before.  They won't tolerate being kept down indefinitely.

 

There is an excellent article in that describes the situation in the Asia section of the July 23 edition of the Economist http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23 .  However I don't think you are the sort who likes to inform himself.

 

Of course you don't believe "REAL democracy" can mature in place, it can only be granted by a military that shows nothing but contempt for democracy.

Edited August 26, 2016 by heybruce
clarification

[halloween]

4 hours ago, aussieinthailand said:

Standard procedure for you mate,   you don't like the FACT that 30%  of a possible 60 million on a referendum a is not a majority of the country and has no mandate of the people and the junta leader naming it  "The people's constitution " is a joke.

"30% is enough for a US president, but not for a Thai referendum?"  Deflect as per usual,  Apples Oranges. 

Is 30% enough to take office in Thailand with out coalitions?

Then you show your true colors again by refusing to answer a direct question.

And your ridicules claim,    ( legislation is not passed for a hypothetical situations come to pass.)  yet you have a crack at any who are proven wrong and you yourself won't put your hand up when proven wrong... 

2011 elections voter turnout 65.99%. PTP constituency vote 44.3% which is very close to 30%. 265/500 seats.

 

Asked, answered with supporting figures, rather than unsupported claims derived from your own bias.

Edited August 26, 2016 by halloween

[halloween]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

When has "REAL democracy", to use your term for it, ever been restored to Thailand?  Thaksin was the only PM in Thailand's history to serve a complete term in elected office, no PM has ever served two.  That's not long enough for democracy to be established. 

 

There has been significant bloodshed, notably in 1973, 1976 and 1992, that temporarily weakened the military's hold on power, but nothing that eliminated it or the deep state it defends.  However the Thai people are better educated and better informed about the outside world than every before.  They won't tolerate being kept down indefinitely.

 

There is an excellent article in that describes the situation in the Asia section of the July 23 edition of the Economist http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23 .  However I don't think you are the sort who likes to inform himself.

 

Of course you don't believe "REAL democracy" can mature in place, it can only be granted by a military that shows nothing but contempt for democracy.

Nice change of subject. now can we get back to the original subject?

Show me that blood on the streets was necessary for the restoration of democracy after each coup, then I will accept that it was the only recourse. Until then it is a call for violence.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

When has "REAL democracy", to use your term for it, ever been restored to Thailand?  Thaksin was the only PM in Thailand's history to serve a complete term in elected office, no PM has ever served two.  That's not long enough for democracy to be established. 

 

There has been significant bloodshed, notably in 1973, 1976 and 1992, that temporarily weakened the military's hold on power, but nothing that eliminated it or the deep state it defends.  However the Thai people are better educated and better informed about the outside world than every before.  They won't tolerate being kept down indefinitely.

 

There is an excellent article in that describes the situation in the Asia section of the July 23 edition of the Economist http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-07-23 .  However I don't think you are the sort who likes to inform himself.

 

Of course you don't believe "REAL democracy" can mature in place, it can only be granted by a military that shows nothing but contempt for democracy.

 

9 minutes ago, halloween said:

Nice change of subject. now can we get back to the original subject?

Show me that blood on the streets was necessary for the restoration of democracy after each coup, then I will accept that it was the only recourse. Until then it is a call for violence.

Too complicated for you?  I will state it as simply as possible:  Democracy is not an election followed by a coup.  Democracy has never been given a chance in Thailand.

 

I know the answer to this, but did you read the article I referenced?  It explains that bloodshed is avoidable, but it will require the military to stay out of politics and the elites to give up their choke-hold on wealth and power in this country.

 

IF the military refuses to surrender power, IF the elites refuse to allow genuine democracy and a government that serves all of Thailand, THEN blood on the streets is unavoidable.  Understand?

 

 

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."  John F. Kennedy
 

[halloween]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Too complicated for you?  I will state it as simply as possible:  Democracy is not an election followed by a coup.  Democracy has never been given a chance in Thailand.

 

I know the answer to this, but did you read the article I referenced?  It explains that bloodshed is avoidable, but it will require the military to stay out of politics and the elites to give up their choke-hold on wealth and power in this country.

 

IF the military refuses to surrender power, IF the elites refuse to allow genuine democracy and a government that serves all of Thailand, THEN blood on the streets is unavoidable.  Understand?

 

 

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."  John F. Kennedy
 

To start with, your link goes nowhere relative, unless I'd like to buy a subscription.

 

An opinion and a quote don't cut it sport. Democracy has been restored many times after coups without bloodshed in the streets. QED it is NOT the only recourse, claiming it is, is inciting violence. You claim you are quoting historical precedence, examination of history proves this BS.

 

BTW who says coups " make peaceful revolution impossible"? the most obvious attribute of the last coup is that the violence has stopped because those in power are willing to confront it.

Edited August 26, 2016 by halloween

[MZurf]

7 hours ago, halloween said:

Why don't you ask Yingluk why she needed an amnesty if she never committed a crime?

"At no point in time did anyone have amnesty." Because it was denied by the senate. Would that have happened if PTP held a majority there? Over 300 MPs KNEW that their government was committing crimes, or did they just vote to order to avoid losing their payment? 

 

"Why don't you ask Yingluk why she needed an amnesty if she never committed a crime?"

I will when I see her. In the meantime why don't you ask the junta why they needed to grant themselves the mother of all amnesties for all past, present and future crimes.

[halloween]

6 minutes ago, MZurf said:

"Why don't you ask Yingluk why she needed an amnesty if she never committed a crime?"

I will when I see her. In the meantime why don't you ask the junta why they needed to grant themselves the mother of all amnesties for all past, present and future crimes.

Yep, the non-biased commentator again refuses to acknowledge any possibility of wrong-doing by his "democratic" heroes, or any failings of the former Thai democracy with a but, but, the junta.

As a coup is an inherently illegal act, an amnesty is required, though not to the extent of that enacted. As for asking Yingluk, why would anyone believe anything she has to say after her history of perjury (2010 definition), lies, evasions and simple ignorance?

Edited August 26, 2016 by halloween