Why is this forum so biased against the No side?

Fussgangerzone

Well I'm probably going to vote no myself, and I think your assertion is fundamentally wrong.

It's simply a case that the most active people on this part of boards, who are mods as a result of their constant activity, happen to be in favour of voting yes on the ESM referendum.

I've been here before with Lisbon 2. Their opinions are their own, they don't represent boards.ie. If they weren't going to poke holes in an argument they disagree with, they shouldn't be on a political forum.

Other forums are available.

beeftotheheels

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

It's simply a case that the most active people on this part of boards, who are mods as a result of their constant activity, happen to be in favour of voting yes on the ESM referendum.

Whoah, Pringle's case has already been decided by the Supreme Court? When? Where? How? Has a date been announced for the ESM referendum?

Of course, if you meant the referendum on the TCSG then that illustrates a big part of the issue. The yes campaign tend to be a bit pedantic about the truth as to what we are voting on, the no campaign tend to concern themselves less with truths and more with untruths.

Fussgangerzone

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Whoah, Pringle's case has already been decided by the Supreme Court? When? Where? How? Has a date been announced for the ESM referendum?

Of course, if you meant the referendum on the TCSG then that illustrates a big part of the issue. The yes campaign tend to be a bit pedantic about the truth as to what we are voting on, the no campaign tend to concern themselves less with truths and more with untruths.

Ha, if you can find me one person who's primary concern is what this referendum means to our constitution, I'll give you that one.

I don't know about your views on facts and unfacts, but our government has been trading in some serious FUD, so maybe there's no need for Yes-voting boardsies to add to it?

beeftotheheels

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

Ha, if you can find me one person who's primary concern is what this referendum means to our constitution, I'll give you that one.

It means sod all for our constitution.

We're putting a line in the constitution saying that the Oireachtas may ratify the treaty.

Goes without saying that the Oireachtas don't have to ratify the treaty even if we vote yes, in much the same way as a mother telling her child that they "may" spend their pocket money on sweets doesn't make the child buy sweets. It is likely that the child will buy sweets, but it is possible that they'll lose the money on the way to the shop, or buy crisps and cola instead.

Goes without saying that if, in the future, the Oireachtas wish to terminate our membership of the treaty nothing in what we've put in the Constitution would prevent them from doing so.

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

I don't know about your views on facts and unfacts, but our government has been trading in some serious FUD, so maybe there's no need for Yes-voting boardsies to add to it?

And the no campaign haven't?

At least the yes campaign has been about trying to explain risks associated with what we know.

As things currently stand a No vote will deny us access to the ESM.

The no campaign has been about "hoping" against all evidence that the Yes campaign is wrong on the negative consequences of a no vote, and lying to exaggerate the negative consequences of a yes e.g. the treaty will cause us to have to implement €5bn more cuts in 2015 when the treaty doesn't even apply to us until 2018.

They've also been lying about this treaty actually doing something operative to our Constitution which it doesn't.

NoAnimalID

Socialism did not fail Ireland, but corrupt politician at the service of greedy bankers and globalists did. Why should more tax money be given to private sector? why does the yes side corporate socialism?

Godge

NoAnimalID wrote: »

why does the yes side corporate socialism?

What does this mean? It doesn't make sense.

fries

The Irish have been very poorly served by their political classes. One reason there hasn't been more public protest is that in times of economic trouble, the brightest and best emigrate.


Really feel sorry for the Irish they have acted honorably and have not blamed others for their plight. Now they are expected to carry the can for those those eurozone institutions who will not except the consequences for their actions.

Godge

fries wrote: »

The Irish have been very poorly served by their political classes. One reason there hasn't been more public protest is that in times of economic trouble, the brightest and best emigrate.


Really feel sorry for the Irish they have acted honorably and have not blamed others for their plight. Now they are expected to carry the can for those those eurozone institutions who will not except the consequences for their actions.

Have you any evidence to link the lack of protest to the emigration rates. Surely those left behind would be even more encvouraged to protest? Unless of couse they recognised they had a great deal on social welfare.,

swampgas

fries wrote: »

Really feel sorry for the Irish they have acted honorably and have not blamed others for their plight. Now they are expected to carry the can for those those eurozone institutions who will not except the consequences for their actions.

Those Eurozone institutions will, indirectly, be better regulated in future under the fiscal treaty. Voting Yes will mean Irish institutions are more likely to behave themselves in the future as well.

Francie Barrett

Transpirant wrote: »

This forum is inherently biased against the No side. The moderators and posters appear hostile towards those advocating a no vote. So why? This board receives a lot of money from businesses advertising their services so obviously it would be within their interest to vote yes: Anyone who lives in a world of take would never kill their cash cow. It's a much easier place to be than the world of earn. But clearly that is no reason to tarnish the no side. It's not a zero sum game you know.

It's quite simple.

If we don't pass this treaty, there won't be any money for public services. Not enough guards on the street, even more trollies in hospital ward, waiting lists, pensioners not being able to afford to eat, etc. It would be a disaster for the country.

BlitzKrieg

Transpirant wrote: »

This forum is inherently biased against the No side. The moderators and posters appear hostile towards those advocating a no vote. So why? This board receives a lot of money from businesses advertising their services so obviously it would be within their interest to vote yes: Anyone who lives in a world of take would never kill their cash cow. It's a much easier place to be than the world of earn. But clearly that is no reason to tarnish the no side. It's not a zero sum game you know.

My observation has been that unlike after hours and some other website forums, this forum enforces a very strict policy of backing up your statements. It also doesnt allow for simple post youtube and say nothing threads

So from this a number of things occured:

During the earlier referendums and the european elections these 2 points alone work very against the grass roots social media focus aspect of the No/euroskeptic campaigns. A substantial amount of the posts from the no side where not by people who were pro-actively involved but were passing on the word as they had picked it up via email/facebook/youtube and those that were not locked for being spam (linking a libertas video and saying nothing got a thread locked) or had been repeated so many times that posters had given up responding to them and instead just linked to a previous post destroying the chainmail (usually a scofflaw post)

The yes campaign does not do this, not for some noble cause, but because they are idiots who rather have their own website and pay for advertising then encoruge supporters to spread the word. The result is posters on the EU forum etc who are in support of the treaty/pro european are not someone passing on something they got in an email or on facebook. No they are someone with an active interest in the topic, making them more invested, more knowledgable and willing when challanged to research and follow up.

Essentially making them stronger posters.


There are posters who are like that who would be on the no campaign side, but they would be posters who would be on that side of the campaign but if there wasnt a referendum they would still be an active poster on the politics forum and would abide by the back up your points/discuss your links rules the forum enforces (For example: Sand, hatrickpatrick)

After the referendum/elections the strong posters stayed because they have an interest in the topic, the weak posters left because to them the debate was over.


So to recap the reason boards appears to have a bias towards the yes side whenever a european referendum is on is because it enforces a requirement to BACK UP YOUR POINTS.



I will say this referendum is a bit more raw then the prior, while Lisbon came down to an argument about the treaty and was simply matter of who had the facts, people have a lot more emotions tied up this time, a lot more anger and being a treaty with an economical focus, the facts are shaken by the nature of the beast, economists can and do disagree on the effect of the treaty etc.

Probably a big part of why I havnt been as active this time around, I found the lisbon referendums to be quite fun it was like playing detective among all the legalize and then being phoenix wright in some courtroom drama.

Cracker_Jack

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

Well I'm probably going to vote no myself, and I think your assertion is fundamentally wrong.

It's simply a case that the most active people on this part of boards, who are mods as a result of their constant activity, happen to be in favour of voting yes on the ESM referendum.

I've been here before with Lisbon 2. Their opinions are their own, they don't represent boards.ie. If they weren't going to poke holes in an argument they disagree with, they shouldn't be on a political forum.

Other forums are available.

Agreed. I seen that too.

meglome

Cracker_Jack wrote: »

Agreed. I seen that too.

Didn't you know it's all a conspiracy against you?

C14N

Dammit I always come to these late and end up quoting walls of text

Transpirant wrote: »

This forum is inherently biased against the No side. The moderators and posters appear hostile towards those advocating a no vote.

While I agree that this forum does seem to push Yes, I disagree that there has been hostility against other members just because they say No. It seems that a few select posters like Scofflaw and meglome form the backbone of the Yes argument on here and they sure swayed me a while back when I was undecided. I have just seen much better researched and presented posts from people like them.

There seem to be more individuals who are for No though as reflected in the poll. The thing is that a lot of them won't actually discuss it or they just come briefly before leaving again, unlike the Yes which has a solid base who have resided here a long time.

fries wrote: »

Time to rip off the band-aid and let the Government feel the rejection of its policy, it's going to be tough for all, but delaying that won't make the problem any better. Ireland should leave the Euro on 1st June, keep the banks closed through the long weekend and reopen with the Irish Pound. Then, let's shake the toxic bank debt once and for all.

Seems legit.

NoAnimalID wrote: »

why does the yes side corporate socialism?

I'll answer your question with a question: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

fries wrote: »

Really feel sorry for the Irish they have acted honorably and have not blamed others for their plight.

Honestly always thought we were top notch at blaming other for our plight.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wild Bill

bluewolf wrote: »

The forum is not biased against anything

and we are not hostile toward anyone except messers

I disagree. Just look at the overwhelming "yes" contributions of the Mods and Admins.

I was banned for making a "no" point by a Mod who is a virulent "yes" supporter on the basis that my arguments were "not up to the forum standards"

Kafkaesque! :rolleyes:

The bias here is something that needs a much deeper and less intimidated debate.

leincar

Transpirant wrote: »

This forum is inherently biased against the No side. The moderators and posters appear hostile towards those advocating a no vote. So why? This board receives a lot of money from businesses advertising their services so obviously it would be within their interest to vote yes: Anyone who lives in a world of take would never kill their cash cow. It's a much easier place to be than the world of earn. But clearly that is no reason to tarnish the no side. It's not a zero sum game you know.

Just going back to the first post by the thread starter. I take exception as someone in business being classified as someone living in a world of take. Trust me I'm an earner. I earn a hell of a lot admittedly but not at the expense of anyone.

Captainjjack

Wild Bill wrote: »

I disagree. Just look at the overwhelming "yes" contributions of the Mods and Admins.

I was banned for making a "no" point by a Mod who is a virulent "yes" supporter on the basis that my arguments were "not up to the forum standards"

Kafkaesque! :rolleyes:

The bias here is something that needs a much deeper and less intimidated debate.

I read about that on Politics.ie

K-9

At last count, the OP had 5 shill accounts at least going, making a mockery of this thread. So much for one man, one vote, democrat and sexist that I am!