sabbat elections

Red Alert

:rolleyes: generally when you run for office you do want to be elected, so people are therefore compeditors.

tintinr35

Vainglory wrote:

With the greatest of respect Elisa, does Barry know that you sent emails around to people asking them to support you and not him because he's "right-wing" (your words, not mine), and does Dan know that you asked another presidential candidate for their support in return for yours?

Seems slightly disingenuous to me.

oooooooooooooo contro

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

With the greatest of respect Elisa, does Barry know that you sent emails around to people asking them to support you and not him because he's "right-wing" (your words, not mine), and does Dan know that you asked another presidential candidate for their support in return for yours?

Seems slightly disingenuous to me.

When I was running of course Barry Coulter was the enemy.....thats politics!That was my PROFESSIONAL opinion,my personal one is quite different.I was hardly gonna stand up and say 'Barry's great,vote for him' when I was running!:rolleyes: So my personal opinion of Barry,is to be a very nice guy.

I asked other members of my party,labouryouth,for support,that would be Enda Duffy,you vainglory and one or two others..I see nothing wrong with this,it was a strategic move in a election battle,once again I was being professional and not personal. Since I was totally ignored and rejected by my fellow labouryouthians(im not active in the UCD branch so I can see why), I left it at that and went about my buisness. I have always been totally honest with Dan and Dave,they both know I am a member of labouryouth,and am somewhat active in it outside UCD.Dan knows what winning an election takes, and would not have thought it 'disingenous' of me for sending an email to my fellow party members with my manifesto ideas.
Am I turning into a corrupt politican??jeez yous see what two weeks in the ucdsu does for ya:p

Vainglory

So, what you're saying here is, while you were running you thought it would help your campaign to get Enda's support so you asked him, but now that you've pulled out and don't need his help you can reveal that you always thought he was crap anyway and that Dan was the best candidate? Nice. Seems we were right to ignore you, doesn't it?

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

So, what you're saying here is, while you were running you thought it would help your campaign to get Enda's support so you asked him, but now that you've pulled out and don't need his help you can reveal that you always thought he was crap anyway and that Dan was the best candidate? Nice. Seems we were right to ignore you, doesn't it?

Yes,I am sorry if I was looking out for MY campaign.When your running a campaign you run it with the intention of getting elected,this is what I was doing when I sent the 5 emails to the UCD labouryouth members.It would obviously have bennifited my campaign having your support and I wanted to be elected because I really did believe I would be the best person for the job.I wanted to be elected so I could be the best welfare officer I could be for the students of UCD.You know as well as me though its not principles that win an election,it is the amount of people you have canvassing for you.So at the time I sent those emails I would have liked your support.On hearing no reply,I swiftly forgot about it and found other ways to build up my team.

In my email I outlined some of my ideas for welfare and that was that.I think as comrades in the same party I did the decent think by being upfront about my policys.I suppose at least I didnt get my boyfriend to go round collecting signatures for my behalf in the student bar.When your running,it is YOUR battle and I was only upfront and honest with my labouryouth members from Day 1.I was trying to win an election in the best,fairest and most open way possible by keeping no shady secrets from my fellow party members.

And Jane Can you honestly,hand on heart say you've never swapped allegiance??you??

Samos

Vainglory wrote:

...does Barry know that you sent emails around to people asking them to support you and not him because he's "right-wing" ...

He does now! But seriously, if there are personal issues here (as there clearly are) then surely they should be conducted in private.

And on a slightly different issue: I hope the old "right vs left" crap is left out of this debate. If there is any kind of bias it should be a bias towards the truth.

It's no wonder people are fed up with this pointless bickering, year in and year out...

irlrobins

Samos wrote:

I hope the old "right vs left" crap is left out of this debate.

I hope there's no election debates at all. Use ucdsu.net for that, not boards. Doesn't DeVore have an anti SU policy anyway?

panda100

Samos wrote:

He does now! But seriously, if there are personal issues here (as there clearly are) then surely they should be conducted in private.




It's no wonder people are fed up with this pointless bickering, year in and year out...

It is just unbelievable!Anything you say they will twist it,turn it against you,even if your just joking or really just trying to do your best.....uhhhhh....relax panda realx.........Peachy pants please close this thread...I am sorry to the UCD boardies to the influx of hacks recently,I fear this was my fault!sorry!I hope they might leave me alone know that I am not running.

Samos

irlrobins wrote:

I hope there's no election debates at all. Use ucdsu.net for that, not boards. Doesn't DeVore have an anti SU policy anyway?

DeVore's policies are inconsistent at best... I say freedom of speech all the way, unless its libellous or just plain ignorant.

Oh no! I've just asked for a lightning bolt to strike me down!

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

its not principles that win an election

Classic. With an attitude like that, and I say this purely as one Labour member to another, you really do belong in a different party. I think we both know which one.

As somebody who has actually fought and won an election, I can tell you that sticking to your principles is far more important than wheeling, dealing, forming alliances, breaking alliances, and thinking about what new possible alliances you could embark on next. There must be a line somewhere. Of course everyone who runs for election wants to be elected, but decent people generally have some sort of core values that they won't compromise no matter who would or wouldn't support them on that basis.

panda100 wrote:

In my email I outlined some of my ideas for welfare and that was that.I think as comrades in the same party I did the decent think by being upfront about my policys

Elisa, I don't AGREE with many of your policies. Did you ever think that this is possibly why I wasn't supporting you?

panda100 wrote:

I suppose at least I didnt get my boyfriend to go round collecting signatures for my behalf in the student bar.

Saucer of milk to table nine.

panda100 wrote:

And Jane Can you honestly,hand on heart say you've never swapped allegiance??you??

Political development over three years in college is hardly comparabe to the sort of electioneering evident when you compare this extract from your email to us...

"As far as I know my fellow contender in welfare is Barry colfour who seems a decent guy but as a second year commerce rep i think he lacks knowledge of ucd.the union and welfrare in general(and also he's a right winger! ) It would be more benifical to labouryouth and ucd if both me and enda get elected on to the SU next year"

...with your glowing endorsement of Barry and Dan's respective candidacies here...

panda100 wrote:

Seriously for welfare vote Barry colfer.He is the soundest,nicest guy I've met in a long time.He is totally dedicated to the job and will do a great job in welfare..But I wish both candidates the best of luck and look forward to working with them in welfare next year,whoever wins.

Dan Hayden is the most dedicated,unassuming,amazing guy I have met this year(apart from you seb the bum of course!)He is running purely out of a want to the help students and make the su a better place and not due to any step up in the political ladder.He has done so much in welfare this year,sorting out the whole creche problem and taking none of the credit,shows what a modest guy he is.Himself and Dan have been incredibly welcoming to me this year when I was helping out Dave with the fairtrade camous and Dan with his welfare policies so from my point of view they'll be getting panda's votes!

This is my last post on the matter.

panda100

To quote a private email that I sent to five people on a public boards is an absolutely disgraceful thing to do,Jane!It wasnt a public email,it was to five people who are not strangers,you know me and I know you,enda,chris bond,Darragh and ciara.To actually quote it here just shows what sort of politics you will reduce too!
I never said I wasnt sticking to my principles-I always have and always will do!People on boards and anyone on my campaign team will have told you that-i do not believe in wishy washy principles when it comes to the welfare of students in UCD.I was reffering to the fact that UCD students generally will vote for somone that has canvassed to them and so that is why numbers at the end of the day is more important than the actually ideas in your manifesto.That is why I was asking for the labouroyuth support because I needed more numbers in arts to canvass for me.I find it strange that you dont agree in any of my welfare principles considering that a suitable amount of them is on the health labouryouth policies.Maybe it is you that is in the wrong party??Also I never recall you asking me about what I though about my manifesto ideas except harrasing me about my abortion views.That is why I sent that email to tell you what they were.

Jonny Arson

irlrobins wrote:

Doesn't DeVore have an anti SU policy anyway?

yeah he does along with 99% of the UCD student population!

TBH Jane and Lisa, both of you aren't doing yourselves any favours with your posts on this thread and it would be better to take it email or something or other because I don't want to see yet another good thread get the clickity clickity lock lock treatment.

Red Alert

Vainglory, I just don't get what exactly you're sniping at here. Panda has always been upfront on this board about exactly where she stands vis-a-vis right/left and her political relationship (or lack of) with the current incumbent sabbats and the wider Labour movement.

My own political views would be moderately to strongly left of centre, which is the policy direction I believe best serves the SU and its wider membership.As someone who presumably values the Labour Party, this sort of sniping at a quite ably qualified candidate for next year and for a position you have no intention of running for does not serve the leftist viewpoint shared by me, you and Elisa.

If somebody's boy/girl-friend asked me for a signature for them i'd want to see the candidate before unleashing them upon the college. If you didn't have time it means you weren't organised, if you couldn't get enough support yourself you shouldn't have run, simple as that. No point giving out about Panda's mention of this, she stated fact. I'm quite happy to hear you say she's factually incorrect if that's the case that you did not do this.

It's quite healthy that the candidates discredit one anothers campaigns. It would be lunacy to suggest that it should be anything otherwise. A good campaign hit its enemies hard, and people going up for the position should be man/woman enough to be able to show that they aren't fazed by comments made about them. The crybaby attitude some people adopt shows just how unsuitable they are for office.

EDIT: the only thing i really fault panda on is the on-off nature of her campaign. But it seems she was never to be given a chance anyway. It's a loss to all of us as she was one person who could bring the union back to those apathetic to it.

Chinafoot

irlrobins wrote:

Doesn't DeVore have an anti SU policy anyway?

Nah, members of the SU are more than welcome to post here. I think the problem last time was during a heated discussion about the union a certain poster was claiming no affiliation with the union when he was, in fact, an active member....something which Dev very easily found out.

Also,

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

TBH Jane and Lisa, both of you aren't doing yourselves any favours with your posts on this thread and it would be better to take it email or something or other because I don't want to see yet another good thread get the clickity clickity lock lock treatment.

Totally agree.

tintinr35

well as a wise man(one captin planet) once said "the power is yours"

seriously close this its pointless.

arbeitsscheuer

One important point though...

FCUKING VOTE, PEOPLE!

Even if you deliberately spoil your vote in protest, or vote for the worst candidate "for the craic", or vote RON cause the candidates really are just that abominable, just fcuking well do it.

Otherwise, you have no - repeat, NO - grounds for complaint about the SU Sabbats, cause you had your democratic opportunity, and you didn't use it.

Less fcuking complainin' round here would do us all the worlda good...

anonymous_joe

What are we voting for?




(Seriously)

tintinr35

Sfa

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

To quote a private email that I sent to five people on a public boards is an absolutely disgraceful thing to do,Jane!It wasnt a public email,it was to five people who are not strangers,you know me and I know you,enda,chris bond,Darragh and ciara.To actually quote it here just shows what sort of politics you will reduce too!.

The email ended with "feel free to pass this email on if you think anyone else will be intrested". Hardly "private, do not show anyone else", really. Besides the point though.

panda100 wrote:

I find it strange that you dont agree in any of my welfare principles considering that a suitable amount of them is on the health labouryouth policies.

If you look back at my post, you'll see that I said I don't agree with "many" of your policies. Not "any". Most significantly perhaps is the view you took on Ultrasound being on campus. While you are of course entitled to your view, it is my opinion, which I am entitled to, that a welfare officer who didn't see a problem with thugs like that being allowed on campus would be very dangerous. I don't want to get into the Ultrasound debate again because we simply won't agree and we've said it all before, but that is my opinion, and that is yours.

panda100 wrote:

Also I never recall you asking me about what I though about my manifesto ideas except harrasing me about my abortion views.That is why I sent that email to tell you what they were.

In fairness Elisa, "harrassing" is extremely misrepresentative. I argued with you, logically and openly, on these very boards which everyone saw. Harrassing is an entirely different thing. I know you're not seriously saying that I was out of line to disagree with you.

Red Alert wrote:

Vainglory, I just don't get what exactly you're sniping at here. Panda has always been upfront on this board about exactly where she stands vis-a-vis right/left and her political relationship (or lack of) with the current incumbent sabbats and the wider Labour movement.

Maybe on these boards, but tbh I found her dealings with other candidates for other positions a bit galling seeing as I saw her offer full support for two presidential candidates. I mean, if she believes all that she said about Dan, how he's brilliant and amazing etc, then why would you ever offer your support to another candidate, for whatever tactical reason? That's what I meant when I said about principles. If you support someone and agree with their policies and want them elected then that should be the case no matter what it means for you electorally. As I'm heavily involved in the other candidate's campaign, and am a friend of Dan's,it does slightly annoy me, and I think if honestly you'd say it would annoy you too.

Red Alert wrote:

.As someone who presumably values the Labour Party, this sort of sniping at a quite ably qualified candidate for next year and for a position you have no intention of running for does not serve the leftist viewpoint shared by me, you and Elisa.

I mean this quite honestly, and not to snipe or anything, but I genuinely don't believe myself and Elisa share much of a similar viewpoint on things. And as I said previously, her position on Ultrasound makes me worry about how ably qualified she may or may not be (again, I don't want to get into this fight, we've had it before).

Red Alert wrote:

.If somebody's boy/girl-friend asked me for a signature for them i'd want to see the candidate before unleashing them upon the college. If you didn't have time it means you weren't organised, if you couldn't get enough support yourself you shouldn't have run, simple as that. No point giving out about Panda's mention of this, she stated fact. I'm quite happy to hear you say she's factually incorrect if that's the case that you did not do this..

I think what Elisa is referring to here is when, on a night in the Forum bar where there were a lot of class reps present for Womens Week speed dating and the nomination forms had just come out, people were passing theirs around to be signed by people they knew. I passed Enda's around to a few class reps and people we knew; people who would sign anyone's form out of courtesy because they know them, which is common practice within Union circles as Elisa knows. I would have signed her form. It wasn't necessary for Enda to be there for these types of people. However, I would never, and he would never let me, ask for a signature who wasn't already obviously inclined to signed it due to being involved in the elections. And for the record, I got all my signatures myself, and I think winning every faculty bar one indicates some level of "support".

Red Alert wrote:

.It's quite healthy that the candidates discredit one anothers campaigns. It would be lunacy to suggest that it should be anything otherwise. A good campaign hit its enemies hard, and people going up for the position should be man/woman enough to be able to show that they aren't fazed by comments made about them. The crybaby attitude some people adopt shows just how unsuitable they are for office.

Criticising opponents is fine, I did it myself. But do you really think it's healthy to criticise someone purely on the basis that they're "right-wing"? I know the majority of people on these boards think that left/right wing affiliations shouldn't matter when one is running for a sabbatical. To be honest I find the Dan/Enda thing a bit more disturbing than the Barry thing, though.

Red Alert wrote:

. EDIT: the only thing i really fault panda on is the on-off nature of her campaign. But it seems she was never to be given a chance anyway. It's a loss to all of us as she was one person who could bring the union back to those apathetic to it.

I know Elisa probably feels that people bullied her out of the election but that isn't the case. I'm not, and I know for a fact that this goes for Elisa as well, in the business of keeping quiet about what I think in case someone gets upset. I try hard not to descend into personal insults but to keep to the issues.

Eh, I said I wasn't going to post on this again...

On a slightly calming note, I know that this subject gets me almost irrationally b*tchy and unpleasant, and I really don't like to see that in myself. Elisa is entitled to her opinions on issues as I am to mine and arguing over them is a bit futile especially at this stage. Nobody wins and we all just waste our time writing reply after reply after reply when we all definitely have better things to do, and nobody else really wants to read it. I wanted to clear up some things I felt I was misrepresented in through this post but now I really hope its time to call it a day. Elisa and RedAlert will probably want to reply to this but after that what would everyone think of discussing the elections with regard to the candidates who are still running; policy, campaign teams,.anything you want but please God not this because it's driving me and probably everyone else involved around the bend. I'm genuinely not a nasty person but this turns me into one, and I'd like to see it stop.

panda100

Ok lets all kiss and make up!:)

Was that Valentines from you Vain glory that I recieved in the post today??
It said I only fight you cos I care panda from your secret admirie _an_ H_r_an J_nes?? I just cant figure out who it might be from??!!

scop

panda100 wrote:

And Jane Can you honestly,hand on heart say you've never swapped allegiance??you??

Exacto.

scop

What's important here is that we work out everybodys view on every issue in the world from anti-war to the amount of toes they posses in order to assess some fundamental facts which will elucidate some key points concerning their affiliations and other such factors if indeed we intend to ascertain where one stands on such an isse noting of course the importance of the SU sabbatical elections in terms of policy and the situation in Northen Ireland, the free flow of discource and whether somebodys boyfriend did indeed send a boyfriend to the bar to believe it or not if you can get signatures from the populace but considering they are berties to abuse it is pointless to work out beyond a matter of doubt or fact what exactly the fuss is all about.

Vainglory

scop wrote:

Exacto.

I already responded to this.

pretty*monster

scop wrote:

What's important here is that we work out everybodys view on every issue in the world from anti-war to the amount of toes they posses in order to assess some fundamental facts which will elucidate some key points concerning their affiliations and other such factors if indeed we intend to ascertain where one stands on such an isse noting of course the importance of the SU sabbatical elections in terms of policy and the situation in Northen Ireland, the free flow of discource and whether somebodys boyfriend did indeed send a boyfriend to the bar to believe it or not if you can get signatures from the populace but considering they are berties to abuse it is pointless to work out beyond a matter of doubt or fact what exactly the fuss is all about.

And the award for best post on the thread goes to...

FYI: a vote for Kate is a vote for a candidate with 10 toes.

pigeonbutler

pretty*monster wrote:

And the award for best post on the thread goes to...

FYI: a vote for Kate is a vote for a candidate with 10 toes.

Can I categorically and unequivovally confirm that Kate's opponent Mr. Brian Doyle (Class Rep, 2nd Commerce) also has 10 toes.

If required this will be proven at the Hustings.

scop

pigeonbutler wrote:

Can I categorically and unequivovally confirm that Kate's opponent Mr. Brian Doyle (Class Rep, 2nd Commerce) also has 10 toes.

If required this will be proven at the Hustings.

If you wish to prove beyond all doubt that such a thing is the case, you will need to provide photgraphic evidence, this evidence of course will be printed in the Tribune, thus appearing as it oft does magically beside the blob or outside the library, said shocking picture will be mused over by said student populace generally in the toilets but also by what has been usefully categorized in UCD's bustling cosmopolitan society as hacks, who will come 7 o clok when only the old remain puff away on ciggarillos together shocked (to say the least if one can indeed do such a thing) at said tribune picture taken by said aforementioned poster who said he had indeed ten toes, of which there is clearly one more than would be needed in said situation most notably that of walking.

irlrobins

scop wrote:

If you wish to prove <snip> situation most notably that of walking.

Your unfunny posts are getting a bit boring imho....

scop

irlrobins wrote:

Your unfunny posts are getting a bit boring imho....

Indeed but I am not looking for sales, therefore I care as little as your mother might if she lost you on a bus.

irlrobins

Zing!:D

blondie83

Wow this thread got quite personal! I don't know much about politics myself, I don't really have any viewpoints on stuff, or care much about what others think about them, in fact I'm not even in UCD any more! But...actually what was my point...ah yeah - I suspect that my aparent apathy is the rule rather than the exception among students in UCD. Consequently if I had to choose someone to look out for my welfare needs it wouldn't be for their views on abortion/war in Iraq/ultrasound debate (a tough one to call at the best of times)/drinking coke ect. I'd pick someone based on whether or not they were the type of person who could empathise with people who came to them, who could listen to them, give them all the options they had if anything happened. Its for this reason that I think Panda would have been good for the job. No one really cares too much about policies (unless they're ridiculous ones like "I'll have all Eng students banned from Quinn"), and while its commendable that people care so much about things it doesn't really reflect the norm in college. It's interesting that the very people who represent the students, are actually different to most of the body in this way - however as they're the only ones actually bothered to stand it's inevitable! Emmm..I don't know if this post actually had a point after all - I'll go now! Politics is a strange world