Don’t waste coup – reform country, Yingluck tells junta

[Bastos60]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

"Can you provide a link to any subsidy anywhere that paid 50% more than current world prices?"

 

I can do much better:

 

"To protect its wildly uncompetitive farmers, Japan has erected one of the world’s highest tariffs: the duty on imported polished rice is 777.7%."  http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21590947-government-abolishes-previously-sacrosanct-agricultural-subsidies-political 

 

That is a purely populist subsidy to buy votes. Do you think Japan would benefit from a coup?

 

One person's populism is another person's legitimate government expense.  And policies that critics call populist are practiced all over the world without being used as a justification for a coup.  Of course only the junta huggers on TV are saying subsidies justified the coup, not even the military is that shameless.

 

Wow, you need to read the articles you refer to a little bit closer.
The article is about eliminating all kinds of subsidies and duties which isn't particular populist and letting market forces work. They actually want the farmers to consolidate their
land and have corporations farm the land so the production would go up and prices decline further eliminating the need of the high duty.

But it is not the farmers they worry about in japan, but in thailand it is the farmers representing the majority of the people.

 

[heybruce]

49 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

Serious? As long as nobody is forcing people to vote one way at the ballot box the elections are legitimate. Do you really think there is an elaborate process involved monitoring elections? No gun to the head is sufficient to declare elections legitimate. Don't be so simple minded.

"As long as nobody is forcing people to vote one way at the ballot box the elections are legitimate."

 

Are you now arguing that the 2011 elections were legitimate, or that the referendum on the constitution was legitimate?

 

"Do you really think there is an elaborate process involved monitoring elections?"

 

When done properly, yes.  Monitors to see to it that all parties can campaign freely, monitors to ensure there is not intimidation at the polling stations, and monitors to see to it that the votes cast are counted correctly.  All these things were in place in the 2011 election, none of them were in place in the referendum. 

 

Also, in the 2011 election people had choices.  In the referendum the choice was to accept the military's constitution or to let the military choose a constitution.

 

"No gun to the head is sufficient to declare elections legitimate."

 

I am having trouble determining when you are being serious and when you are attempting sarcasm  You aren't very good at either.

 

"Don't be so simple minded."

 

Back atcha.

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

 

Wow, you need to read the articles you refer to a little bit closer.
The article is about eliminating all kinds of subsidies and duties which isn't particular populist and letting market forces work. They actually want the farmers to consolidate their
land and have corporations farm the land so the production would go up and prices decline further eliminating the need of the high duty.

But it is not the farmers they worry about in japan, but in thailand it is the farmers representing the majority of the people.

Actually I've read every issue of the Economist every week for several years.  It's not the same as watching Fox News or checking fringe "news" sites on the internet, but it helps keep me reasonably informed.

 

halloween asked " Can you provide a link to any subsidy anywhere that paid 50% more than current world prices? "  I provided an answer from a reputable news source.  The fact that the article was about reducing subsidies does not change the reality of the subsidy, coming in this case in the form of a tariff. 

 

"But it is not the farmers they worry about in japan"

 

You need to make the effort to become better informed.

 

"in thailand it is the farmers representing the majority of the people."

 

No they don't, but they do represent a significant minority.  Taking care of rice farmers is a vote winner, in both Japan and Thailand.  Taking care of farmers is a vote winner in Europe and the US as well.  I suspect that farmers are protected or subsidized in some form in our home country.

Edited May 23, 2017 by heybruce

[Bastos60]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The PTP's policies were supposed to be judged by the voters in an election.  That's how democracy works. I prefer it, you clearly don't.

Populist policies need to be judged by the voters who benefit from them, right, as long as everybody keeps quiet about the failed policies. 
PTP made a few bad gambles with their policies but kept those failures out of the news as much as they could and they were bound to fail
as criminals and corrupt politicians could easily abuse them. Like with the rice scheme, at the end of their reign they couldn't even find the funds
to pay the farmers, the rice spoiled and they wanted another election to make sure they could regain power and cover up some more.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

Populist policies need to be judged by the voters who benefit from them, right, as long as everybody keeps quiet about the failed policies. 
PTP made a few bad gambles with their policies but kept those failures out of the news as much as they could and they were bound to fail
as criminals and corrupt politicians could easily abuse them. Like with the rice scheme, at the end of their reign they couldn't even find the funds
to pay the farmers, the rice spoiled and they wanted another election to make sure they could regain power and cover up some more.

You know this because it was in the news, far enough in advance for the voters to absorb this information before the proposed elections.

 

Why do you think the best solution to a poorly performing democratic government is a military coup and the indefinite end to democracy?

[Bastos60]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"As long as nobody is forcing people to vote one way at the ballot box the elections are legitimate."

 

Are you now arguing that the 2011 elections were legitimate, or that the referendum on the constitution was legitimate?

 

"Do you really think there is an elaborate process involved monitoring elections?"

 

When done properly, yes.  Monitors to see to it that all parties can campaign freely, monitors to ensure there is not intimidation at the polling stations, and monitors to see to it that the votes cast are counted correctly.  All these things were in place in the 2011 election, none of them were in place in the referendum. 

 

 

Also, in the 2011 election people had choices.  In the referendum the choice was to accept the military's constitution or to let the military choose a constitution.

 

"No gun to the head is sufficient to declare elections legitimate."

 

I am having trouble determining when you are being serious and when you are attempting sarcasm  You aren't very good at either.

 

"Don't be so simple minded."

 

Back atcha.

 

"When done properly, yes.  Monitors to see to it that all parties can campaign freely, monitors to ensure there is not intimidation at the polling stations, and monitors to see to it that the votes cast are counted correctly.  All these things were in place in the 2011 election, none of them were in place in the referendum."

 

Did you see or hear of reports where military were intimidating people at the polling stations during the referendum?

 

 

"As long as nobody is forcing people to vote one way at the ballot box the elections are legitimate."

 

"Are you now arguing that the 2011 elections were legitimate, or that the referendum on the constitution was legitimate?"

 

What do you think?

 

"I am having trouble determining when you are being serious and when you are attempting sarcasm  You aren't very good at either."

 

I was aiming to be good at any of them.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, Bastos60 said:

 

"When done properly, yes.  Monitors to see to it that all parties can campaign freely, monitors to ensure there is not intimidation at the polling stations, and monitors to see to it that the votes cast are counted correctly.  All these things were in place in the 2011 election, none of them were in place in the referendum."

 

Did you see or hear of reports where military were intimidating people at the polling stations during the referendum?

 

 

"As long as nobody is forcing people to vote one way at the ballot box the elections are legitimate."

 

"Are you now arguing that the 2011 elections were legitimate, or that the referendum on the constitution was legitimate?"

 

What do you think?

 

"I am having trouble determining when you are being serious and when you are attempting sarcasm  You aren't very good at either."

 

I was aiming to be good at any of them.

I will only respond to the only remotely substantial thing you posted:

 

"Did you see or hear of reports where military were intimidating people at the polling stations during the referendum?"

 

I stayed away from polling stations, I don't know if there was an attempt to intimidate voters.  Too bad there wasn't independent monitoring of the vote, then we would know. 

 

I do know, because it was reported in the news, that the military sent uniformed people house to house to "educate" people about the referendum, that "impolite" comments about the charter were punishable by years in prison, the junta put significant pro-charter propaganda on television, and that no campaigning against the charter was allowed. 

 

Also, to repeat the part you edited out (can't handle the truth, can you?):

 

" In the referendum the choice was to accept the military's constitution or to let the military choose a constitution. "

 

If you think this is how a fair vote is conducted, you have no right to comment on democracy.  You haven't a clue what democracy is.

[Bastos60]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You know this because it was in the news, far enough in advance for the voters to absorb this information before the proposed elections.

 

Why do you think the best solution to a poorly performing democratic government is a military coup and the indefinite end to democracy?

A military coup is never a good solution unless they are deposing of a dictator that is far worse.
Well, the news, your most reliable source, fair enough to say that people should be informed correctly through the news and have it help them
make a fair and just decision, but again, which news to follow, they are either biased and will report in favor of one side or they are just reporting
what the piece of paper from the fax read. 

 

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Bastos60 said:

A military coup is never a good solution unless they are deposing of a dictator that is far worse.
Well, the news, your most reliable source, fair enough to say that people should be informed correctly through the news and have it help them
make a fair and just decision, but again, which news to follow, they are either biased and will report in favor of one side or they are just reporting
what the piece of paper from the fax read. 

 

I realize it is against forum rules to criticize grammar, but when the grammar and sentence structure is so bad the post is incoherent, I think they'll allow it.

 

I think you are saying a military coup is only acceptable to depose a dictator, which clearly means the 2014 coup was unacceptable.

 

After that, I think you are saying that reading the news is either hard or confusing.

 

Please correct me if this interpretation is incorrect.

[JAG]

On 2017-5-23 at 9:36 AM, ResandePohm said:

Their votes were bought through populist policy. Do you call that democracy?

 

Yes. They proposed policies which were liked by enough people to produce a parliamentary majority. That is how the election process works. 

 

The USA and France have recently had elections, in which the policies put forward by the victors were sufficiently attractive to enough people to produce their victory. The UK is holding one now. All the parties are putting forward policies which they hope will appeal to enough people to ensure victory. That is the whole point. That is how the election process works. 

 

Your argument however rather suggests that because you disapprove of the Yingluck Government policies, then the votes which elected that government should not count. 

 

Perhaps I should have included that as one of the options which I outlined in my initial post?