Police wait for court decision on arrest warrants, says source

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

The United States of America had such a past.  Such things plague all governments, as they attract those who desire wealth, power, entitlement and fame. 

 

As for sale highest political position , you are still clutching on to vote buying allegations ?  Voice of America reported Yingluck's campaign was free of vote buying.  Truth is the yellows do not campaign in Isan and the north because they fear people there.  Bangkok is safer for them.  Most of these discussions just boil down to fear and hatred which is created by unfairness.

No, I wasn't referring to vote buying in the micro sense. I was referring to the practise of paying MPs to join your party, thus buying the premiership and associated government. Quite a lucrative deal it seems.

Would you care to discuss vote buying on the macro scale, by offering unsustainable populist policies like the rice scam, tablets,etc.?

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Read my post above on the Russian Revolution. Its origins took some 100 years.

I know what your saying.. but it feels like its something you want to see happen here.. i prefer stuff without bloodshed.. not only in Thailand but in other places. 

 

I have no problems with demonstrations at all.. its good to have them but even in my country not all demonstrations are allowed (especially high risk ones). 

 

I do feel the Thai goverment is justified in trying to prevent these protests given the past. Now if they were to let them protest somewhere away from the judges.. maybe the place in puttamon sai 3 where they were las time no problems they were not causing much trouble there.  

[Eric Loh]

27 minutes ago, halloween said:

Balance things out then. Tell us of one other democratic country where a fugitive criminal pays MPs to be a member of his party and vote the party line as decided by him.

Or where fugitive criminal businessmen are invited to attend cabinet meetings and format policy.

Do you know of any other democracy where the highest political position is up for sale?

Don't you know that Thailand is amazing; including the politics. It always have been a case of easy accommodation. 

 

Think of it, an ex PM had a renegade brother convicted for corruption; leave in exile until the statute of limitation expired and came back. He was touted by your kind as a credible PM. Or another ex-PM groomed by the party to be a Leader but never worked in his whole life and cheated to get himself out of military conscription. He was a paid MP with other MPs  too. Yes, all above are shenanigans from the Dem Party. 

 

What about their deputy leader charged for land corruption and intimidate the court by warning that thousand of his supporters will descend on Bangkok.

 

So what so unusual about the way Thaksin run his party after all his conviction was clouded with controversy. 

 

Then again, this is amazing Thailand whereby no coup leaders have been charged with treason. 

 

Nothing perculiar. Now move on Halloween.

 

[yellowboat]

26 minutes ago, halloween said:

No, I wasn't referring to vote buying in the micro sense. I was referring to the practise of paying MPs to join your party, thus buying the premiership and associated government. Quite a lucrative deal it seems.

Would you care to discuss vote buying on the macro scale, by offering unsustainable populist policies like the rice scam, tablets,etc.?

Was against this government fooling with basic economics like supply and demand.  Your good general did the same thing when he cracked the whip on migrants without looking for a more thoughtful solutions.  Malaysia had the same issue, but handled much better than Thailand.  All Thai governments think they can magically control economics.  As usual, they just ruin a good thing. 

 

Is there an actual Thai law against paying MP's to join your party ?  Thailand is a funny place.  When my family lived here in the 1950's, they would recover their stolen possessions in the thieves market, as there was a three day statute of limitations on stolen property back then.  You could you usually find what was stolen there.  Rule of law in Thailand has always had a funny history. 

 

Buying lucrative police positions and MP's is immoral and unethical, but is it illegal ?  The coup was made legal.   As bad as the Shinawatras are made out to be, they seemed to have provided a hopeful future for the country.  

Edited July 30, 2017 by yellowboat

[halloween]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Don't you know that Thailand is amazing; including the politics. It always have been a case of easy accommodation. 

 

Think of it, an ex PM had a renegade brother convicted for corruption; leave in exile until the statute of limitation expired and came back. He was touted by your kind as a credible PM. Or another ex-PM groomed by the party to be a Leader but never worked in his whole life and cheated to get himself out of military conscription. He was a paid MP with other MPs  too. Yes, all above are shenanigans from the Dem Party. 

 

What about their deputy leader charged for land corruption and intimidate the court by warning that thousand of his supporters will descend on Bangkok.

 

So what so unusual about the way Thaksin run his party after all his conviction was clouded with controversy. 

 

Then again, this is amazing Thailand whereby no coup leaders have been charged with treason. 

 

Nothing perculiar. Now move on Halloween.

 

But is it democracy, that is the question. If it is not unusual, perhaps you could give me another example. perhaps not.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, yellowboat said:

Was against this government fooling with basic economics like supply and demand.  Your good general did the same thing when he cracked the whip on migrants without looking for a more thoughtful solutions.  Malaysia had the same issue, but handled much better than Thailand.  All Thai governments think they can magically control economics.  As usual, they just ruin a good thing. 

 

Is there an actual Thai law against paying MP's to join your party ?  Thailand is a funny place.  When my family lived here in the 1950's, they would recover their stolen possessions in thieves market, as there was a three day statute of limitations on stolen property back then.  You could you usually find what was stolen there.  Rule of law in Thailand has always had a funny history. 

 

Buying lucrative police positions and MP's is immoral and unethical, but is it illegal ?  The coup was made legal.   As bad as the Shinawatras are made out to be, they seemed to have provided a hopeful future for the country.  

It is illegal in every democracy that I know of, except the Thai version, which hardly rates as such. OTOH insider trading IS illegal here, but conflicts of interest and recusal are lost in translation.

[Eric Loh]

Just now, halloween said:

But is it democracy, that is the question. If it is not unusual, perhaps you could give me another example. perhaps not.

Thai style democracy and not unusual. If it is criminal, the junta would have taken care of it. If they can't get the court to help them, they stage a coup. Surprise you ask such obvious question. 

[halloween]

31 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Thai style democracy and not unusual. If it is criminal, the junta would have taken care of it. If they can't get the court to help them, they stage a coup. Surprise you ask such obvious question. 

Lovely obfuscation. Yes it is legal here, but why? If it is not unusual, where are the other examples? And is allowing an oligarch to buy a government democracy?

[tomta]

12 hours ago, robblok said:

We were not talking about the coup.. we were talking about the army controlling the reds and trying to prevent violence, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of a coup find someone else. 

We've discussed this before, Rob, and you disagreed but I'll say it again. A coup is inherently violent. A coup can only succeed because of the threat of violence. The example I offered on some other thread was that of a thug demanding your wallet with menaces. The fact that you give it to him and don't suffer actual bodily harm is because you understood that the threat of violence was real. The coup was absolutely and totally based on a threat of violence. All coups must be. So the army is not trying to prevent violence. It is trying to monopolize it.

[tomta]

On 7/29/2017 at 9:40 PM, robblok said:

 

 

Right now i rather not see a civil war between red and yellow that is why I am against violence and applaud when the army takes precautions. I have seen enough violence here.

As I said in my previous post, if you support the coup you support violence - not every sort of violence , I hasten to add, but you support the junta's violent imposition of itself as a government. You endorse certain forms of violence; and of coutse,  most people in civilized societies , myself included, also endorse certain forms of violence. I endorse the violence the police may use against a resistant criminal. I do not endorse the resistant criminal's violence against the police. I endorse the violence of a defensive army against invasion. I do not endorse the aggression of the invading army. And, in the case of the coup, the threat of violence is just as violent as a violent act. It was illegal, it should have been stopped and countered by all the necessary violence that Yingluck's government could have commanded. They couldn't command that level of violence (or did not want to try - and no fault there) so therefore we move to a legal situation where , obviously  not for the first time, things have changed, I am by no means a complete pacifist. Violence in my view can be justified. If a thug demands my wallet, and I can see a violent means of preventing this imposition on myself, I would take it. If I couldn't see such a means, I would hand over my wallet and hope to slink away.  But if I meet him in a dark alley with a baseball bat and the element of surprise...things may change

[baboon]

On 29/07/2017 at 4:16 PM, robblok said:

I dislike Thaksin.. so I enjoy the reds being taken apart.. hard to understand ?

 

Red that are not breaking the law can't be taken apart.. maybe should remind you about that. As long as they don't promote violence it will be ok. Too bad that that is what they do best. Maybe you forgot how their leaders were on stage ?

And yet yesterday you were agreeing with me that Yingluck having her assets seized under a special Article 44 provision was way out of line. Now you are licking your lips at the prospect of any kind of revenge and then capitalising yet again on the kind of unruliness found at (m)any public gatherings. Loathe the reds all you want and more power to you, but you are becoming downright sleazy in doing so.

Disappointing, Rob. Disappointing...

[Eric Loh]

17 hours ago, halloween said:

Lovely obfuscation. Yes it is legal here, but why? If it is not unusual, where are the other examples? And is allowing an oligarch to buy a government democracy?

Never say it is legal; just that every democracy can be criticize for its idiosyncrasy. Malaysia style democracy still tolerated a PM tainted with MDB corruption or Phillipines President campaign for war on drugs and the people elected him. 

 

You cant buy democracy and that is a very naive and silly comment. People can owned parties by being a key financier and nothing unusual but they still need to be elected. If there is an oligarch that bypass election and 'buy' a government; it is your beloved military junta. 

[robblok]

14 hours ago, baboon said:

And yet yesterday you were agreeing with me that Yingluck having her assets seized under a special Article 44 provision was way out of line. Now you are licking your lips at the prospect of any kind of revenge and then capitalising yet again on the kind of unruliness found at (m)any public gatherings. Loathe the reds all you want and more power to you, but you are becoming downright sleazy in doing so.

Disappointing, Rob. Disappointing...

How so.. i still don't agree with YL her money taken before a trial. 

 

What revenge.. i want those reds that broke the law and enticed violence gone.. those are their leaders and if leaders are violent then the followers are too. I want the reds of the streets, i want no violence on the streets.. is that so much to want ? I don't trust the reds given their track record.

 

Let them protests on puttamon sai 3 (close r to my area) where they were last time.. they were not bothering anyone and nothing there to really attack. Now that is much better as giving them a place close to the judges.. where they might be incited to get violent.