Ganley looking good in Early Tallies

Happy Monday

sceptre wrote: »

People from all sides of the political spectrum have managed to "get away" with saying far worse about other people from other sides of the political spectrum in the past and doubtless in the future without sanction where those posts lie within the rules.

I believe we've had pages and pages (and pages and pages) of posts about the other forms of gross corruption in the past so a single post from a single member expressing an opinion that some careful vote-watching while votes for the North-West constituency are in storage overnight is rather small by comparison.

The report button exists for making complaints about any post you find offensive. Use it where you feel you should. It's a small warning triangle at the bottom left of every post.

Moderation complaints can be made to me or to any of the other forum moderators by PM or on the Help Desk so please use one of those avenues exclusively when seeking to discuss moderation (that's specifically in the rules)

I was shocked at the suggestion in that comment - particularly from a moderator on these boards.

Particularly when said moderator - Scofflaw - has threatened to ban other members for similar criticims of Sinn Fein on different threads.

One law for the moderators - one law for the common folk.

BlitzKrieg

One law for the moderators - one law for the common folk.

nope just the one law.

If you feel it warrants a report, then report it.

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You seemed to be implying that transparency was lacking, not that a mistake was made.

I know transparency is le mot buzz du jour of Libertas, but come on, there's plenty more in the dictionary...

There's "elites", for example.

I think it's as I said earlier - we are currently seeing the building of a Libertas myth of the "elites" engaging in an "unaccountable and untransparent" bit of "cheating" Declan Ganley out of what was really a win. He never "really lost", because that would suggest that the people might not have bought what he was selling, despite all the Catholic conservative dog-whistles, and the outright endorsement by people like COIR.

When reality and Libertas beliefs collide, reality is clearly at fault.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

I was shocked at the suggestion in that comment - particularly from a moderator on these boards.

Particularly when said moderator - Scofflaw - has threatened to ban other members for similar criticims of Sinn Fein on different threads.

One law for the moderators - one law for the common folk.

I'm going to point out (once, because as has been pointed out, discussion on moderation is not allowed in-thread) that people get banned for Sinn Fein or Unionist flamebaiting, following a very clear marker laid down after the "..beaten to death.." thread.

In respect of the claim that such a post is unusual, there are nearly a dozen posts on this thread alone claiming that the government will railroad or intimidate voters into voting Yes, is in breach of democracy, and so on. Round the forum there are probably hundreds claiming that the government are traitors, many by Libertas supporters. Such posts are not censured, let alone censored.

moderately,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

....*grumble*

I try to help and I'm the one who gets in trouble

nesf

Happy Monday wrote: »

I was shocked at the suggestion in that comment - particularly from a moderator on these boards.

Particularly when said moderator - Scofflaw - has threatened to ban other members for similar criticims of Sinn Fein on different threads.

One law for the moderators - one law for the common folk.

Eh? In the post you reported he admitted that he was being paranoid about this and that it was baseless supposition on his part. If he claimed that Ganley had interfered with the count in order to get his vote up that high it'd be actionable but so far all he's said is that in his paranoid opinion a tight watch needs to be kept on the vote tonight.

Sinn Fein comments are a separate issue down to the flame wars each NI thread descends into. I'm very happy to say that on European matters we haven't had to take such a draconian approach because people aren't turning every thread on a particular topic into a flamewar.

bug

cornbb wrote: »

Since Declan Ganley has appeared on the political scene, his tactics have repeatedly overstepped an invisible line which every other Irish politician recognises - for all their faults, Irish politicians have a certain amount of respect for a basic level of truth, and for each other.

I really don't see Irish politics in the same way you do. I'm afraid I'll just have to disagree with you on that.:D

cornbb wrote: »

e runs political campaigns like hostile corporate takeovers. He has repeatedly used innuendo and bottom-feeding semi-truths to inject fear into the electorate, whether it has been fear of the Lisbon treaty or fear of respectable politicians like Marian Harkin. He is now surreptitiously suggesting that there is a corruption of the Irish electoral process, something which no other politician from any other party has done and something that no politician before him has questioned.

Like Nice for jobs, c'mon, with the exception of your opinion of treating an election like that of a hostile corporate takeover, realism would suggested that the corruption we have seen in the government to date may possibly give me, (as joe soap),the impression and this of course is just opinion, that the government are quite capable of corruption, do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that?

cornbb wrote: »

Surely if there were concerns about this well-tested system, multiple candidates from multiple parties would have raised concerns. By referring to "the bigger picture", you seem to be implying that every single other candidate, party, returning officer, vote counter and the media are all conspiring against Ganley. Now do you really think that this is likely? Or is it more likely that it is yet another instance of Ganley using underhanded, bullyboy tactics to raise a fuss?

In short, I place more trust in our ability to count ballot papers than I do in Declan Ganley.

I am not a supporter of Libertas, and my opinions of Ganley won't appear on these forums, but I have about the same believe in Ganley as I do in our electoral processes.

make what you want of that

Either way we will see tomorrow.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bug wrote: »

do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that?

I do.

I think it would spell the end of any political party that tampered in the election process. Even FF aren't that stupid...

Happy Monday

Scofflaw wrote: »

I hope their security is tight. I'm afraid I wouldn't put it past Ganley and co. to try to sneak 'votes' in overnight.

paranoidly,
Scofflaw

This comment is suggesting that Libertas will look to corrupt the democratic process by introducing false votes overnight. If anyone else has made similar comments about any other political party we would be censured and possibly censored to use Scofflaw's vernacular.
Still you boys close ranks oh so quickly.

sceptre

Happy Monday wrote: »

I was shocked at the suggestion in that comment - particularly from a moderator on these boards.

Particularly when said moderator - Scofflaw - has threatened to ban other members for similar criticims of Sinn Fein on different threads.

One law for the moderators - one law for the common folk.

I wasn't shocked at all actually. As people know I have an extremely precise definition of what constitutes a "liar". I've pulled several people on this board for calling other people liars in the past. For someone to be a liar, two things have to be true:

1. A statement has to be made that is demonstrably false.
2. The person making the statement has to know that the statement they are making is false.

Put succinctly, a liar is someone who makes a statement that is made with the clear intention to mislead, on a point of fact that they know to be false.

And based on some of the statements made by a number of Libertas candidates, before and during their campaigns for election, Libertas has a number of candidates that are bare-faced liars. They not always be bare-faced liars but they've certainly told barefaced lies. I make that statement based on the candidates who have categorically stated that they have read the Lisbon Treaty in particular but persist on making a number of demonstrably false statements about it. The same was true of aspects of the Lisbon treaty referendum.

There's a clear distinction between someone who makes a false statement with intention to mislead and gain from the statement and, say, the opinion of a government minister who reckons they're doing a good job. The latter is a statement of opinion at best and always will be, while the former is a lie.

I don't trust liars. Or people who hang out with them. Never have, never will. I'm not that shocked when people feel they have to check their pocket change or the teeth in their mouths after an encounter with them.

So am I shocked or appalled when someone throws out a semi-throwaway comment about needing to keep an eye on a few bags of votes involved? Not really.

I personally have very little fear that something dodgy will happen. I have faith in the people who are assigned to guard the votes and I'm certain that they're being kept secure in a locked Garda cell or similar. But regardless of my feelings on the Lisbon Treaty, the North-West constituency or the future of the EU, or my feelings on people who gave their time to the Libertas electoral campaign, I've never trusted people who tell barefaced lies (as they must be if some of the candidates have carefully read the Lisbon treaty as they've stated) so no, I'm not particularly shocked, whether it's a moderator or a non-moderator member who states such a view.

You mightn't like the tone, you mightn't like the implication, but yes, we've had worse things said about other political parties in this country and beyond, so welcome to the recognition that being an Irish political organisation brings, the comments that it brings and to the scrutiny that it brings.

Happily, I made up my mind about the desirability or non-desirability of the Lisbon treaty on my own by reading it (and once was enough). It's "happily" because none of the political organisations in the country appeared capable of informing me in a comprehensive AND truthful manner about it (those that were in any way comprehensive weren't very truthful and those that were in any way truthful weren't very comprehensive).

BlitzKrieg

that the government are quite capable of corruption, do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that?

I also feel there is too much if you are against Ganley you are obviously pro fianna fail government.

THe earlier question on whether sinn fein, Fine Gael and Labour would play along with Fianna Fail fixing a vote is a a good one.

especially with Fine Gael's upcoming push for a vote of no confidence.

If there was genuine hint that there was foul play from fianna fail's side of thing, Fine Gael will be all over it to push that vote through. Think they'd have no problem giving Ganley a seat in europe in exchange for the government...

lostexpectation

tactical doubt been sown here

they dont' seem to have enough tallymen, but basically they would have decided to dispute the result months ago

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happy Monday wrote: »

This comment is suggesting that Libertas will look to corrupt the democratic process by introducing false votes overnight. If anyone else has made similar comments about any other political party we would be censured and possibly censored to use Scofflaw's vernacular.
Still you boys close ranks oh so quickly.

There is a suggestion in a post, literally 2 above your one here that the Government would be capable of interfering in the electoral process, with which I disagreed but didn't report.

I'm not going to discuss moderation, I'm just pointing out where you're wrong.

Scofflaw

Ah, Libertas - always the man, never the ball. Always a conspiracy.

regretfully,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Happy Monday wrote: »

Why get so upset then with Declan Ganley's insistence on clear transparency in this voting process?...

The Irish counting process has clear transparency (which, I suppose, is preferable to opaque transparency). Ganley is managing, I think intentionally, to suggest that it not the case. I suspect that is being done for his wider European constituency -- his one elected representative in the Parliament.

It is a bit ironic to find him, of all Irish candidates, demanding transparency. Where is the transparency about the funding of his party, its structures, its policies? Where is the basic truthfulness of Libertas?

bug

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I do.

I think it would spell the end of any political party that tampered in the election process. Even FF aren't that stupid...

I really hope you are right.

But from what I've seen in the last two years I wouldn't put anything passed anyone.
I suppose this is where my sinicism comes from.

I still vote, so, at essence, this underlines my hope that you are indeed correct.

nesf

bug wrote: »

that the government are quite capable of corruption, do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that?

There is an order of magnitude of difference between taking backhanders from developers and fixing an election in corruption terms. One risks a coup, the other only tribunals.

cornbb

bug wrote: »

realism would suggested that the corruption we have seen in the government to date may possibly give me, (as joe soap),the impression and this of course is just opinion, that the government are quite capable of corruption, do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that?

You seem to be under the impression that the government runs elections. This is not the case. Elections are not run by the government, and government corruption (which I loathe and have no doubt exists in this country) is a completely separate issue to that of transparancy in elections. Count centres go to great lengths to ensure that everything is checked and rechecked and carried out in the public eye. Claiming that there is some sort of government interference in this process is a very serious charge and would imply that we are somehow closer to Zimbabwe than our European neighbours in terms of democratic accountability.

Even if the government had managed to interfere in the election process do you think they would allow their own party to take its biggest beating in the history of the state all across the country?

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

There is an order of magnitude of difference between taking backhanders from developers and fixing an election in corruption terms. One risks a coup, the other only tribunals.

Frequently bloodless tribunals, too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Scofflaw wrote: »

Frequently bloodless tribunals, too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

expensive aswell

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

tactical doubt been sown here

they dont' seem to have enough tallymen, but basically they would have decided to dispute the result months ago

Essentially, yes - that may also be why our Libertas posters are objecting strenuously to comments on it. Tactical doubt is the Libertas trademark....sorry - one of their trademarks, along with claims of elite conspiracies, threats of legal action and so on. All stuff used in PR campaigns from the corporate world of tobacco, oil, and the religious world of the Creationists and Scientologists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happy Monday

cornbb wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that the government runs elections. This is not the case. Elections are not run by the government, and government corruption (which I loathe and have no doubt exists in this country) is a completely separate issue to that of transparancy in elections. Count centres go to great lengths to ensure that everything is checked and rechecked and carried out in the public eye. Claiming that there is some sort of government interference in this process is a very serious charge and would imply that we are somehow closer to Zimbabwe than our European neighbours in terms of democratic accountability.

Even if the government had managed to interfere in the election process do you think they would allow their own party to take its biggest beating in the history of the state all across the country?

Scofflaw is suggesting that Libertas will corrupt this process overnight.
But this is not viewed as a serious charge on this forum.

bug

cornbb wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that the government runs elections. This is not the case. Elections are not run by the government, and government corruption (which I loathe and have no doubt exists in this country) is a completely separate issue to that of transparancy in elections. Count centres go to great lengths to ensure that everything is checked and rechecked and carried out in the public eye. Claiming that there is some sort of government interference in this process is a very serious charge and would imply that we are somehow closer to Zimbabwe than our European neighbours in terms of democratic accountability.

Even if the government had managed to interfere in the election process do you think they would allow their own party to take its biggest beating in the history of the state all across the country?

Thank you cornbb, but I am not under any impression that the government runs elections.
Nor am I under the impression that they have any control over what may or may not happen in a counting centre

Happy Monday wrote: »

Scofflaw is suggesting that Libertas will corrupt this process overnight.
But this is not viewed as a serious charge on this forum.

Libertas will fly in during the night, using all the skills of a gem thief in BlackMagic ad's to distribute a yellow bin bag with first preference votes maked Ganley #1, rather than just, Ganley 1.

they will be spoiled as a result, and ganley himself will be pictured upside down and hanging foot first, balaclaved, by rope at 6am in the counting centre.
This picture will be distributed world wide as a warning to any new forming political party as a warning not to upset the status quo.

We will then get day by day accounts of Ganley's mental state from the local hospital akin to Susan Boyle.

molloyjh

Happy Monday wrote: »

Scofflaw is suggesting that Libertas will corrupt this process overnight.
But this is not viewed as a serious charge on this forum.

No in fact if you re-read the post Scofflaw said he wouldn't be surprised if they did, but he never said that they would. His opinion being that he views them as being corrupt, which our Government are called on a regular basis here. I don't see you leaping to their defence though.

P. Breathnach

cornbb wrote: »

... government corruption (which I loathe and have no doubt exists in this country) is a completely separate issue ...

In a different debate I would subject that idea to a rigourous examination. Can we simply agree that it needs to be nuanced a bit?

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

Scofflaw is suggesting that Libertas will corrupt this process overnight.
But this is not viewed as a serious charge on this forum.

And bug believes the government already do so - but you are only complaining about me.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

No in fact if you re-read the post Scofflaw said he wouldn't be surprised if they did, but he never said that they would. His opinion being that the views them as being corrupt, which our Government are called on a regular basis here. I don't see you leaping to their defence though.

Funnily enough, the original remark was intended humorously rather than anything else, but now Happy Mondays is beginning to worry me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

And bug believes the government already do so - but you are only complaining about me.

regards,
Scofflaw

Actually, there's exact parity, both you and Bug state you believe Libertas and FF respectively are capable of interfering in the electoral process.

But you're right, he only complained about you.

cornbb

Happy Monday wrote: »

Scofflaw is suggesting that Libertas will corrupt this process overnight.
But this is not viewed as a serious charge on this forum.

Suggesting that one shady/dubious character might so something shady and dubious is a tad more forgiveable than suggesting that the government of Ireland is engaged in vote-rigging in collaboration with pretty much every other party. Anyway I suspect that scofflaw's comment was somehow tongue in cheek. Although I'm wary of Libertas as always, I think that the scenario described by P. Breathnach, i.e. that Ganley is trying to sow seeds of doubt about the integrity of the Irish election process elsewhere in Europe in preparation for his next campaign, whatever that might be.

bug wrote: »

Nor am I under the impression that they have any control over what may or may not happen in a counting centre.

But did you not imply that the government might be capable of vote-rigging or other forms of interference in the election here:

the corruption we have seen in the government to date may possibly give me, (as joe soap),the impression and this of course is just opinion, that the government are quite capable of corruption, do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that?

bug

Scofflaw wrote: »

And bug believes the government already do so - but you are only complaining about me.

regards,
Scofflaw

Actually, I stated that it's a possibility. All my opinions are just that.

cornbb wrote:

But did you not imply that the government might be capable of vote-rigging or other forms of interference in the election here:

I think I implied that..

"the corruption we have seen in the government to date may possibly give me, (as joe soap),the impression and this of course is just opinion, that the government are quite capable of corruption, do you really, really think that the election process is exempt from that? "

....the electoral process may not be exempt from corruption. ( I should have said that sort of corruption, soz! won't do it again)