Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksin's support.



Tchiowa <tchiowa2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1177682903.675845.165830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Apr 27, 7:09 pm, Nick <nicknom...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tchiowa <tchio...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1177575628.891683.187750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Apr 25, 7:58 pm, Nick <nicknom...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tchiowa <tchio...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1177375818.575209.90730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

snipped


You however wrote this:
"Here's the summary. The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. In
particular the majority of the poor support Thaksin because they
believe he has made their lives better. That is borne out by polls
and elections. I supported that with a specific example of a specific
village. Maxwell denied that so since I was able to come up with a
specific example to support the general statement that is widely
accepted I asked him for a specific contradictory example. He can't
come up with even one. And neither can
you."http://groups.google.nl/group/soc.culture.thai/msg/454f698106150e
49?h...http://tinyurl.com/3dpgsn

Yes.

You asked for a locality "doing badly", not for a locality where
Thaksin wasn't popular amongst the poor. That's why I'm maintaining
that your summary is a distortion.

What????? I cited a locality that was doing well, he denied it, I
asked him to cite an example proving his statement. I also cite the
elections as proof that the people feel they have benefitted and that
my one locality is representative.

In your summary you speak about SUPPORT of Thaksin as the issue being
contested, what however was contested was villages doing well.

While as for "prove" elections need not be any proof of any realities on
the ground with respect to people being actually helped. People could
also have voted for Thaksin just because they had less HOPES of actually
being helped by other parties actually, the other away around that
probably accounts for Thaksin not doing well in the South.
Some of Thaksin's policies might have helped in the South but people
might have disliked him anyway.
Even if one follows your "logic", it's obvious you seem to ignore that
Thaksin won his first election on promises to the poor, actually it seems
at first he offered to give 1 Million Baht per village but later he
changed that in a fund that had to be paid back.
The first election can't therefore be any prove that the people support
Thaksin because he helped them. Apart from that your THE people clearly
isn't true for all of the Thai people as Thai people have mixed feelings
about the policies.
Back to the original article posted by Helmut IMHO the title "Charges
fail to rock Thaksin's support" is a bit misleading as the article only
speaks about opinions of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's hometown
backers.


Anyway I've already been clear that I oppose the coup, only you
were too stubborn to understand that, it seems you still are.
The fact that he was popular or not with the poor has nothing to
do with a possible "theft of democracy".

Excuse me??? It has *EVERYTHING* to do with theft of democracy. If
he was, in fact, elected by a popular majority then removing him
from office with guns is a "theft of democracy".

So you don't understand anything of what I have written directly
above or below?!?!

Yes. You said that him being popular and then removed from office at
the point of a gun has nothing to do with "theft of democracy".

I wasn't saying that all, I was saying "The fact that he was popular or
not WITH THE POOR has nothing to do with a possible "theft of democracy"
and I clarified my stand with the following:

If he would have been highly unpopular with the poor and highly
popular with the rich a coup wouldn't be justified either in my
opinion. To me the crux in general if there was a functioning
democracy in a nation and if not would a coup bring a functioning
democracy.

If he was popularly elected then there was, indeed, a functioning
democracy.

Sure at the moment of election (popularly elected meaning majority
elected), but did you never hear of an electee bringing an end to a
functioning democracy, does the name Chavez ring a bell, would you
call Venezuela a functioning democracy?

Chavez threw out the constitution. He stole democracy from the people.

Thailand had a functioning democracy under Thaksin (and before).

Are you really trying to claim that the majority of Thai people who
live off the land are *NOT* mostly poor?

You made a claim that the poor are a distinct majority in Thailand,
not that the majority of people who live off the land are poor, to
quote you "pay attention".

Half of the Thai people live off the land. The majority of them are
poor. There are also other poor people in Thailand. The poor
constitute a majority in Thailand. You can twist and divert all you
want.

Nice, you're the one that's twisting my words, asking "Are you really?"
and I'm pointing out what YOU actually said but hey to Tchiowa that's
twisting and diverting.:(

Here's a definition of poor you gave back in December 2006:
"Poor is when you cannot afford to supply yourself and your family
with the basic necessities of life (food and
shelter)."http://groups.google.nl/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/1
a37 841536a1b... hl=nl&http://tinyurl.com/yonewe
Do you want to argue now that the majority of Thais cannot afford
to supply themselves and their family with the basic necessities
of life (food and shelter)?

No, they're not quite that bad off. But they are in general poor.

Wow, a definition you gave that isn't some universal truth:)

Go back to the context of the post. You do remember "context", don't
you?

Liam posted these words in a post you reacted to:
"To me, "poor" is when you cannot meet your basic needs of food,
clothing, shelter, and health care to the point where you are in danger
because of that inability. Anything else is just a mindset based on the
relative values of the society in which you live."
http://groups.google.nl/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/a428c817d29d1559?
hl=nl&
http://tinyurl.com/2pawu9
You expressed agreement and basically rephrased his definition a bit.
To me your agreement indicated that you too felt that "anything else is
just a mindset?" and the only universal definition would (should) be the
one you agreed upon with Liam.
So if anything else is just a mindset according to both you and Liam why
would you use a different definition now, I'm inclined to believe that's
because it suits you NOW.


You seem to assume I have some trouble acknowledging that Thaksin
was popular with the poor, as I've written before I have never
argued against such a notion. It has never been uneasy for me to
acknowledge the man was popular with the poor.

But now you're saying that the poor don't constitute a majority.
Once again trying to pretend that Thaksin was not popularly elected
so you can duck the primary issue.

That's quite some silly spinning, the fact that the poor do or don't
constitute a majority has nothing to do with the fact if Thaksin was
popularly elected, I'm confident there are others voters than the
poor who voted for Thaksin and helped him in getting a majority.

Did I say that only the poor voted for him? I don't recall saying
that.

Keep on spinning, that's not what I'm implying.
You accuse me of pretending that Thaksin was not popularly elected
because I deny the majority of Thais are poor.
So it follows logically that you feel the poor in Thailand need to
constitute the majority of Thai people because else Thaksin wouldn't be
popularly elected. That's something I don't agree with and that's why I'm
saying "I'm confident there are others voters than the poor who
voted for Thaksin and helped him in getting a majority."


It's not that only the poor voted for Thaksin and it's not that one
can only be called popularly elected if one enjoys the support of the
(majority of the) poor.
Would you say that in a country like Switzerland in which there are
relatively few poor, that there are no leaders that are popularly
elected?

We're talking about the situation in Thailand.

snipped some crap

Great spinning again I'm just trying to let you contemplate about your
implicit statement that any denial whether Thais are in majority poor is
also a statement that Thaksin wasn't popularly (by majority) elected.
After all that was your rationale for accusing me of "But
now?.elected.." isn't it?
Well I'm pretty sure you like to deny that.

Nick
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... that the belief of the Thai poor that Thaksin helped them was wrong. ... The fact is that Thaksin was and is incredibly popular among the ... The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... that the belief of the Thai poor that Thaksin helped them was wrong. ... The fact is that Thaksin was and is incredibly popular among the ... The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's hometown backers he is a crook, ... Because he helped the poor. ... The fact is that Thaksin was and is incredibly popular among the poor. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... The majority of Thai people support Thaksin. ... Thaksin wasn't popular amongst the poor. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Charges fail to rock Thaksins support.
    ... around that probably accounts for Thaksin not doing well in the ... He promised to help the poor. ... people clearly isn't true for all of the Thai people as Thai people ... people" since you didn't speak about the majority of Thai people. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)