New constitution a recipe for more problems, red shirts say

[smedly]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Most reasonable people would agree that an internationally monitored election in which irregularities are noted but the results deemed legitimate is good enough. 

 

Of course some people will insist on perfection in order to prevent democracy from establishing a foothold.

you can believe what you want - if you think it is reasonable for you who am I to argue lol

[smedly]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

Apparently there is a problem with your count 

"Red-shirt MP Nattawut Saikur, also deputy commerce minister, said this morning that he was ready to accept consequences from the voting of the revised amnesty bill which he and three other red-shirt abstained."

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nattawut-ready-accept-consequences/

revised lol

 

which one was that exactly because I seem to remember that as it moved from room to room person to person it was amended on the fly and then when the vote was eventually taken several people voted several times lol

 

if you are prepared to believe stuff then that is entirely up to you........and only you

[ldiablo72]

America just let the celebrity apprentice star become president and look how well that's working out.

[halloween]

12 hours ago, candide said:

Apparently there is a problem with your count 

"Red-shirt MP Nattawut Saikur, also deputy commerce minister, said this morning that he was ready to accept consequences from the voting of the revised amnesty bill which he and three other red-shirt abstained."

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nattawut-ready-accept-consequences/

So you claim that 44% of UDD MPs, still couldn't bring themselves to vote the way the movement they claim to represent wanted them to vote, but took a risk on their party payments to abstain?  Is that supposed to convince me I am wrong in my view of their loyalties?

 

 

[candide]

53 minutes ago, halloween said:

So you claim that 44% of UDD MPs, still couldn't bring themselves to vote the way the movement they claim to represent wanted them to vote, but took a risk on their party payments to abstain?  Is that supposed to convince me I am wrong in my view of their loyalties?

 

 

I have a natural tendency to look for facts (it may not be the case of everyone in this forum). In particular as I did not follow regularly the news at that time. Apparently, what I found was not that only one red shirt PM out of nine abstained. The risks they did or did not take was not the issue I was addressing. 

 

I am not trying to convince anyone. I just challenge others who try to convince me (and others) that reality is as oversimplified as they claim it to be. Obviously, while the red shirts are overall loyal to Thaksin, they are not homogenous and not so hierarchically organised, for example not like cells of a communist party.

Edited February 4, 2017 by candide

[smedly]

5 hours ago, candide said:

I have a natural tendency to look for facts (it may not be the case of everyone in this forum). In particular as I did not follow regularly the news at that time. Apparently, what I found was not that only one red shirt PM out of nine abstained. The risks they did or did not take was not the issue I was addressing. 

 

I am not trying to convince anyone. I just challenge others who try to convince me (and others) that reality is as oversimplified as they claim it to be. Obviously, while the red shirts are overall loyal to Thaksin, they are not homogenous and not so hierarchically organised, for example not like cells of a communist party.

I am at somewhat of a loss as to what you are doing here, wouldn't you be better mulling these things over in your own head rather than coming here and "not" trying to convince anyone that your opinion is correct, and remember - it is just your opinion that you are not trying to convince us of - I am pretty certain about your opinion on most things - so that's a fail right there lol

Edited February 5, 2017 by smedly

[halloween]

6 hours ago, candide said:

I have a natural tendency to look for facts (it may not be the case of everyone in this forum). In particular as I did not follow regularly the news at that time. Apparently, what I found was not that only one red shirt PM out of nine abstained. The risks they did or did not take was not the issue I was addressing. 

 

I am not trying to convince anyone. I just challenge others who try to convince me (and others) that reality is as oversimplified as they claim it to be. Obviously, while the red shirts are overall loyal to Thaksin, they are not homogenous and not so hierarchically organised, for example not like cells of a communist party.

I have never claimed that the red shirts are unanimously loyal to Thaksin. What I do claim is that their so-called "leaders" of the UDD are nothing of the sort, but merely paid propagandists for him, and that those hearing their political comments should take that into account.

The subject of this thread, an appointed PM, is a last ditch solution easily avoided by compromise. A PM selected by all parties is obviously something Thaksin is not willing to accept.

[smutcakes]

20 minutes ago, halloween said:

I have never claimed that the red shirts are unanimously loyal to Thaksin. What I do claim is that their so-called "leaders" of the UDD are nothing of the sort, but merely paid propagandists for him, and that those hearing their political comments should take that into account.

The subject of this thread, an appointed PM, is a last ditch solution easily avoided by compromise. A PM selected by all parties is obviously something Thaksin is not willing to accept.

No, a situation where an appointed PM is something which can easily be manufactured. 

[halloween]

10 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

No, a situation where an appointed PM is something which can easily be manufactured. 

I'm afraid your opinion carries about as much veracity as that of the UDD.

[smutcakes]

Just now, halloween said:

I'm afraid your opinion carries about as much veracity as that of the UDD.

I will take that as you affirming i am correct, seeing as you cannot refute it.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, smutcakes said:

I will take that as you affirming i am correct, seeing as you cannot refute it.

There is little to refute. At any time the parliament or the parliament/ senate joint meeting can accept a compromise candidate from elected MPs. Of course if one party insists that be a Shinawatra, that could be problematic.

[smutcakes]

Just now, halloween said:

There is little to refute. At any time the parliament or the parliament/ senate joint meeting can accept a compromise candidate from elected MPs. Of course if one party insists that be a Shinawatra, that could be problematic.

Why can it not be a Shinawatra? Are they all banned from politics? Who makes the decision on behalf of the populace that it cannot be a Shinawatra? Provided they can find one not banned there should be nothing stopping them being PM if they are elected. The whole premise that appointed people on the Senate can block and affect who becomes PM is a recipe for disaster. They should have no more say than any other person.

[smedly]

50 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

There is little to refute. At any time the parliament or the parliament/ senate joint meeting can accept a compromise candidate from elected MPs. Of course if one party insists that be a Shinawatra, that could be problematic

 

50 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Why can it not be a Shinawatra? Are they all banned from politics? Who makes the decision on behalf of the populace that it cannot be a Shinawatra? Provided they can find one not banned there should be nothing stopping them being PM if they are elected. The whole premise that appointed people on the Senate can block and affect who becomes PM is a recipe for disaster. They should have no more say than any other person.

I think you are baiting and trolling as there is little else that would make any sense of your postings.

 

and in answer to the question above

 

well lets see

 

who have we got available from the Shin family that won't be in jail or is already convicted on the run and should be in jail.

 

 

Potjaman

Yaowares

Yaowapa

Somchai Wongsawat

Payap

Panthongtae

Pinthongta

Paethongtarn

 

lol take your pick, Thaksin would sacrifice them all to get his face back

 

 

[smutcakes]

5 minutes ago, smedly said:

 

I think you are baiting and trolling as there is little else that would make any sense of your postings.

 

and in answer to the question above

 

well lets see

 

who have we got available from the Shin family that won't be in jail or is already convicted on the run and should be in jail.

 

 

Potjaman

Yaowares

Yaowapa

Somchai Wongsawat

Payap

Panthongtae

Pinthongta

Paethongtarn

 

lol take your pick, Thaksin would sacrifice them all to get his face back

 

 

 

Just think logically, and without emotion. Why can Yaowapa not run for PM? Is she banned? If not she has every much right to do so as any other Thai person.

[candide]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

There is little to refute. At any time the parliament or the parliament/ senate joint meeting can accept a compromise candidate from elected MPs. Of course if one party insists that be a Shinawatra, that could be problematic.

You are putting together two cases which are quite different.

One case is usual in a democratic system: if the party with most votes has not enough seats to get a majority of votes, he has to make an alliance with other parties and to compromise (even in this case, it is nearly always the party's choice which is PM.

The other case is the case of having to compromise with the unelected senate. On which democratic principle should they compromise with a Senate appointed by a Junta?

In which democratic system does the winning party or winning coalition have to compromise with a Senate appointed by a Junta?

In particular (this is more precisely the topic of this thread), what would be the reaction of voters when they will find out that even if they are allowed to vote, their vote has nearly no influence. And that an armada of appointed bodies is robbing from them the right to choose their government, the right to choose a political program, etc....?

[djjamie]

On 1/28/2017 at 2:13 PM, mtls2005 said:

The "authorities" will control the Senate, and the red-shirts will not be able to muster any sort of majority in the lower house.

 

And the "organic" laws, including the 20 Year Happiness Plan, will prevent changes to the new "Constitution". 

 

All "problems" have been successfully gerry-mandered, and besides the "courts" stand ready to slap down any populism.

 

Not seeing any "problems" here?

 

And if there are just stage another coup.

The authorities (responsible people) will control the Senate, and the red-shirts (criminals), will not be able to muster any sort of majority in the lower house.

 

No problem here at all. In fact it sounds like a western government. 

 

 

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, djjamie said:

The authorities (responsible people) will control the Senate, and the red-shirts (criminals), will not be able to muster any sort of majority in the lower house.

 

No problem here at all. In fact it sounds like a western government.

djjamie's starry-eyed love for autocracy remains undiminished.  I could list a long list of crimes by the junta, absolved by blanket amnesties, but the post would be deleted.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

 

Just think logically, and without emotion. Why can Yaowapa not run for PM? Is she banned? If not she has every much right to do so as any other Thai person.

Because like almost every member of the family, she is known to be blatantly corrupt. And there enough honest people in Thailand to object to yet another known thief to be appointed.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, candide said:

You are putting together two cases which are quite different.

One case is usual in a democratic system: if the party with most votes has not enough seats to get a majority of votes, he has to make an alliance with other parties and to compromise (even in this case, it is nearly always the party's choice which is PM.

The other case is the case of having to compromise with the unelected senate. On which democratic principle should they compromise with a Senate appointed by a Junta?

In which democratic system does the winning party or winning coalition have to compromise with a Senate appointed by a Junta?

In particular (this is more precisely the topic of this thread), what would be the reaction of voters when they will find out that even if they are allowed to vote, their vote has nearly no influence. And that an armada of appointed bodies is robbing from them the right to choose their government, the right to choose a political program, etc....?

If MPs don't want the senate to be involved, reach a consensus in the parliament. What is so undemocratic about representatives of ALL the voters being involved in the selection of PM? Should the person able to bribe the most MPs be allowed to buy the highest office, as they have in the past?

And stop your irrelevant drum beating. Voters have no say in the choice of PM, they elect MPs who then select a PM.

[smutcakes]

9 minutes ago, halloween said:

Because like almost every member of the family, she is known to be blatantly corrupt. And there enough honest people in Thailand to object to yet another known thief to be appointed.

In the real world you can huff and puff as much as you want about her alleged corruption, but if she has no court cases barring her from running then she has every right to run. If they don't want her to run then they should prosecute her for her corruption, I am sure if they could, they would. 

[halloween]

30 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

In the real world you can huff and puff as much as you want about her alleged corruption, but if she has no court cases barring her from running then she has every right to run. If they don't want her to run then they should prosecute her for her corruption, I am sure if they could, they would. 

Absolutely, she has every right to run, as has Chalerm. But don't be surprised if others with some integrity reject them outright, as I am not surprised that others with far less integrity would accept bribes (aka party payments) to vote for them.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Because like almost every member of the family, she is known to be blatantly corrupt. And there enough honest people in Thailand to object to yet another known thief to be appointed.

Right, and nobody wants a blatantly corrupt elected government when they can have a blatantly corrupt military government.

[candide]

56 minutes ago, halloween said:

If MPs don't want the senate to be involved, reach a consensus in the parliament. What is so undemocratic about representatives of ALL the voters being involved in the selection of PM? Should the person able to bribe the most MPs be allowed to buy the highest office, as they have in the past?

And stop your irrelevant drum beating. Voters have no say in the choice of PM, they elect MPs who then select a PM.

Did you read the draft constitution? It is clearly written that the senate will participate in the vote to elect the PM in any case, not only in the case there is no consensus in the parliament (this later case is for allowing a non-elected PM). It is the same as if voters for Junta friendly parties (i.e. the Dems) have 2 votes, and the others only one vote.

Even if the senate decides to abstain and there is a need for parties to compromise, which fair negotiation would it be? The Junta friendly parties would not suffer any consequence if they don't compromise, as they will benefit from the support of the Senate if negotiations fail.

Concerning your last comment, voters know exactly who will be the PM if the chosen party wins. In 2011 they perfectly knew it would have been YL for the PTP and Abhisit for the dems. Just like the Germans new they would get Merkel when they voted for the CDU.

If you absolutely want all electors to elect the PM, the best way is direct election as in France, for example. The Junta did not make that choice as it would not have allowed them to meddle with the choice process.

[smedly]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

djjamie's starry-eyed love for autocracy remains undiminished.  I could list a long list of crimes by the junta, absolved by blanket amnesties, but the post would be deleted.

and unlike PTP/reds not one of them murder, all were attempts to enforce special laws designed to keep divisive people out of the media inactive and off the streets - so far it worked

 

You forget that after a few similar attacks in Europe we have armed police and special army units roaming the streets ready to deal with any sort of threat, if you think it is a different situation to Thailand I can assure it isn't

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

djjamie's starry-eyed love for autocracy remains undiminished.  I could list a long list of crimes by the junta, absolved by blanket amnesties, but the post would be deleted.

 

2 hours ago, smedly said:

and unlike PTP/reds not one of them murder, all were attempts to enforce special laws designed to keep divisive people out of the media inactive and off the streets - so far it worked

 

You forget that after a few similar attacks in Europe we have armed police and special army units roaming the streets ready to deal with any sort of threat, if you think it is a different situation to Thailand I can assure it isn't

No one in the military is guilty of murder?  You really do live in an alternate reality.  And what are these special laws you refer to?  Laws by decree from a military junta?

 

Your attempt to draw a parallel between the extremist threats in Europe and the military government in Thailand is absurd.  The threats to European democracies are instigated from outside the countries, appall the overwhelming majority of citizens in the countries threatened, and are designed to undermine support for democratic government (much like Suthep's protests). 

 

Most important, the special army units in Europe are controlled by democratically elected governments.  The special army units in Thailand work to topple and prevent democratically elected government.